ProudCanadianConservative

We Day is a left-wing movement to engage youth globally, their stated goal is to empower a generation to shift the world from "me" to "we" - from a focus on the individual to the power of community. So basically a new communist movement that hides from communist labels. It's gotten support from many celebrities. Most of the issues they discuss are environmentalist or anti-capitalist issues.

Do 16 year old's pay taxes? Only the ones that work, which might be 50% but I think it's even lower than that. Also although they might be more engaged than some adults, that's mostly due to the fact that they civics is an important part of most curriculum's especially social sciences. I remember most of my high school (as I am only 20), I remember I had 4 teachers that were strong NDP supporters one of which ran for the NDP, and then most of the other teachers were either apathetic, or centrist. Throughout my whole High School I only remember having 2 staunchly conservative teachers. Not only that but High School curriculum's, I remember watching two Michael Moore films (Supersize Me in health, and Bowling for Columbine in Social Studies), Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in science, but would we be able to watch Bloodmoney in health- no, would we be able to watch Fracknation in science- no. It's a miracle I survived High School as a conservative, although I was more a libertarian during HS. So don't pretend this isn't a tactic to support your own political ideology. Most people under the age of 30 if they have political beliefs, they lean more left. Now I disagree with raising the voting age too even though it would help my own party. Raising it to 30, there's no reason besides your own political motives. Raising it to 25 (or would have 21) is because that's the time scientists say your brain stops developing, but just because your brain is still developing doesn't mean you aren't old enough to form an opinion. I like the voting age being 18, if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to elect leaders that will send you there. People are allowed to have differing opinions that's part of democracy, just the reason why we have age related laws is because people believe that you are not prepared or not informed enough to take part in certain actions, in the case of voting, I don't believe 16 year olds are exposed to enough alternative opinions.

Quebec Separatism and Western Alienation were too powerful for the PCs to survive the 93 election, regardless of who would have been party leader, that's why Mulroney left, the writing was on the wall. Luckily both have died down a bit, but I wonder if western alienation will come back to the forefront if we see a Liberal majority under Trudeau. He has publicly stated he believes Quebecois are better fit to govern than Albertans.

Would you say the same if Liberals or NDP were in Government and conservatives (note small c) wanted tax cuts but they actually increase taxes.

Agreed, the only that changes in regards to money and government is people, people who control it and people who use it.

I honestly believe if the Liberals and NDP merge they wouldn't have the success that some believe they will have. Why? For one Canada has more centrists than centre-left voters, the reason why the Conservatives won a majority in 2011 was because centrists in the Liberal party voted Conservative. Liberals won so many elections in the 1920's-1990's because they appeared to be the centrist alternative to PC and NDP, or PC and CCF. Liberals lost in 2008 and 2011 because they moved left, the country hasn't moved right, as a conservative I would know if the country moves right. So what I predict will happen if the two merge, well it depends on the scenario. If the NDP and Liberals merge during a Conservative minority to form a coalition government, what will result is a mass departure of Liberal centrists from the coalition merger (Liberal Democrat Party, i'd call it) to the Conservative party. And what you'd see is a Conservative party climb to an average of 45-50% in polls while the Liberal Democrats would not have a combined 55-60%, but likely 40-45%. And for parties that complain about Canada becoming to much like American politics, it will effectively end the three major party system. My guess Conservatives 47%, Liberal Democrats 43%, Green 5%. Now if it's a Conservative majority when they merge, it would probably fair better for the new party, however if the Liberals are the official opposition, a portion of hardcore progressives will believe it's the NDP compromising. The Liberal Democrat party would do better because they'd probably retain a significant portion of centrists, but in this merger many of the progressives will flock to the Green party. I'd say it become Liberal Democrats 50%, Conservatives 35%, Green 10%. Lastly if it's a Liberal minority I see a combination of both of the first two scenarios.

I believe it should first be spent to pay down the debt, and then across the board tax cuts. I disagree with those who believe tax cuts only benefit the rich, they benefit the middle class as well, and certain tax cuts benefit the poor. The major tax cuts that benefit the poor are municipal tax cuts in regards to property taxes, and tax cuts on anything consumer related, especially sales tax. Tax cuts that benefit the middle class would be income tax cuts, allowing those building capital to keep a higher percentage of what they make. Tax cuts that benefit everyone is business tax cuts, benefits the rich creating a more business friendly environment, and it benefits the middle class via job creation in a business friendly environment, and lastly it benefits the poor because business don't pass the tax down onto the consumer via inflated prices.

As Reagan once said "the closest thing to eternal life on Earth is a government bureaucracy"

Why would Harper step down when Trudeau hasn't even realized a platform or policy initiative yet. Trudeau's leading in the polls because he's dodging commitment, Harper fell in the polls because he's dodging serious issues, plus the Duffy scandal/trial. The problem with Trudeau is the only thing Conservatives can attack him on is his inexperience. Trudeau has very little substance at the moment, he's much like President Obama before he got elected, false promises and media ignorance. As far as whether Harper should step-down, I think it's too late, I plan to support Conservatives in the 2015 election, but the next election I'd like to see a new leader of the Conservative Party. The reason Harper won't step down before the election is because he and many party execs fear he's the only one who can keep right united. Some fear Jason Kenney would alienate the more moderate Conservatives, and they fear Jim Prentice or Peter McKay would alienate the old Reformers. I believe the next Conservative Party leader should be Brad Wall, but I doubt he'd run in a leadership race because it could fracture the Sask Party.

First off living in rural Canada where I don't receive door-to-door delivery, I have a hard time seeing the big deal. And do you not think there are disabled people here, they are doing fine with post office boxes. Next I strongly doubt USPS has door-to-door in rural areas, plus I wouldn't use the US as an example as they are 17 trillion dollars in debt. Lastly postal services are a dying business via e-mail, postal services make most of their money on online purchases of products, and as new technologies are developed like drones that service will begin to die.

The purpose of balancing the budget is to avoid collecting more debt, would you agree that balancing the budget is an important pursuit of any government regardless of party? If not, why not? I guess I might receive a lecture of cutting during a recession, but I don't believe Canada is in a recession, regardless of what I think of deficit spending during a recession. Now cutting vs tax increases, well tax increases do not necessarily result in more revenue- laffer curve. Now as far as the specific programs being cut, veterans is sadly a declining population in Canada, but to some I guess cutting department budget means services will drastically reduce. Anyways I personally believe in zero based budgeting, meaning instead of every department budget starting from what they made the previous year, we have all departments start at 0, and dole out revenue based upon current need for the department.