Moonbox

Could it POSSIBLY mean that the effect of 'Harpernomics' as the Liberals like to say has been twisted, misrepresented and completely exaggerated? Could it possibly mean that his policies may have had a cushioning effect on our market? We're better off than the entire rest of the world DESPITE being the most closely linked economy to the USA's. I THINK that's a good thing and I THINK that might mean that Harper really hasn't done a bad job at all. BTW, I think, you might, need to go back, to punctuation, class. Sorry I couldn't resist.

What the public 'buys' is their perogative. I'm on these forums arguing that the centre or centre-right voter is making a wrong choice voting Liberal this election. The Liberals and NDP are most certainly fanning the flames of panic. Our economy has slowed, that's for sure. What the question now is what can realistically be done about the situation? The economy of the US, where 75% of Canada's exports go, is tanking. Demand for Canadian exports will similarly tank. Carbon taxes are not going to encourage recovery and growth. Increased regulation AFTER the fact is not going to encourage growth. NDP corporate tax increases will DETER growth. Anyone thinking that a Liberal or NDP government is somehow going to improve the economic situation given their platforms is way out to lunch. They have no plan either, at least none that means anything. They're just blowing hot air and trying to emotionally appeal to the worried voter. Harper may seem insensitive to you but that's because he's trying to calm people down and not exaggerate the situation. Investor and consumer panic hurts the economy just as much or more than the actual market conditions themselves.

What do Jack and Dion have to say about that?

Wonder what wayne easter has to say about that....

Jdobbin your arguing on this forum is getting a little silly. You've been stumped and the best response you could come up with was to request a direct quotation. For the sake of logical argument, the requirement for an actual quote lies squarely on YOUR shoulders. You need to prove that Harper said what you claimed because it's impossible for us to directly quote someone not saying something. If you're going to ask someone to put the effort of a direct quotation, at least make the effort of refuting the points they've made. Pretty much every point you've made in this thread has fallen flat. You're making some really worthless assumptions here and if I asked you to explain your position on what the Conservatives have specifically done to harm the economy and HOW any proposed Liberal plans would make ANY difference at this point you'd miserably fail. I don't think many people are arguing that the Green Shift wouldn't be good for the environment. What everyone is arguing is that an income redistribution tax which makes life and business more expensive for the VAST majority of taxpayers and businesses will NOT encourage economic growth at this point and help us in ANY way to avert a canadian financial meltdown. Explain to me what you think Dion has proposed that's going to do anything at this point to help anyone in Canada avoid a financial crisis that originated in another country. Please. Enlighten me. I don't want to hear your random one liners and your emotional appeals. I would really love to hear you go point for point explaining specifically how anything Dion has planned here is going to positively influence any of the forces slowing our economy down right now. Give it a shot. I'm of the opinion that we do need to take steps towards helping the environment. What I question, however, is the unveiling of a dramatic new taxation scheme in the middle of one of the biggest financial crises in world history.

I don't think environmental taxes and increased cost of living is going to help us out in our current economic situation. If you really want to protect the environment, invest in tech development for clean energy etc. Don't tax the only affordable source of fuel Canadians have right now and make it more expensive for them to live during a recession.

Perception and reality are often very different things but Party Leaders one and all are ALL arrogant. If you're voting based on body language from a bunch of stiffs in suits you really need to wake up. Maybe you should move down to the USA and vote based on which leader is more catholic or what type of dog they have. Personally, I don't think I really even like Harper. He's dissapointed me on a good number of occasions and I think his campaign this year was an absolute failure. With that said, I like that he's cut taxes and I love what he's done to immigration policy and I think what he's DONE while in government have been very good for the economy and that along with health care is the most important thing for me in any election. I know from my own extensive and personal research that the Green Shift will end up costing me and everyone but the very poor a good deal of money. It's not good for business, it's not good for the average consumer and if you want to put that sort of added strain to the economy under the current circumstances then go ahead and vote Liberal.

Regular people 'predict' where the economy is going all the time. Sometimes they're right and more often they're not. What a woman predicted a year ago about the americans losing their homes is irrelevant considering that the bad stuff had ALREADY hit the fan by then and everyone already knew EXACTLY what was going on and banks were already posting multi-billion dollar losses. Finally Topaz, what 'this woman' predicted and what you heard 'two guys' say about the economy sounds about as reliable as Russian car. The case in point here is there are hundreds of millions of 'regular folk' wetting their beds these days about the economic crisis because they had no idea what was coming and had no clue what the various indicators and signals meant. They had NO idea.

None of that even makes sense and ignores basically every function of logic possible.

That's a little far out I think. I agree that corporations are inherently greedy and whatnot and should be regulated to an extent but you went a little too far there....

I think to get VERY BASIC understanding of the concepts a first year university economics course would point you in the right direction. It doesn't take a genius to understand that higher inflation means higher interest rates and vice versa, or that higher interest rates can appreciate the value of the dollar, but the problem really is that all the factors are inter-linked and affect each other in different ways and in different directions. What I mean here is that it's really complicated to understand how the various factors affect one another and by how much they will do so. Nobody can ever get it right all the time, but some people do a hell of a lot better than others. Some of the candidates (Jack Layton particularly) shows such a fundamentally lacking understanding of economic theory that he's basically ensured he'll never be PM. This is what scares me. When economic policies like Trudeau's fail so miserably it shows just how dangerous it is to have a PM governing without a good understanding of how the markets work.

I think the electorate gets more respect than it deserves. The electorate is incredibly easy to fool and it has always been that way. The average voter is NOTHING like the average poster on this forum. The very fact that you're posting here means you have 100x more interest in our political system than the average Canadian does. The average Canadian votes blindly based on what: a ) They see on their chosen TV channel b ) They read in their chosen newspaper That's really as far as it goes. Given that newspapers and TV stations are heavily partisan most of the time you're never going to get a clear and objective opinion. You really have to spend hours and hours researching the issues like we do here and arguing with people from opposite persectives to have an inkling of what's going on. It's a FACT that most Canadians don't do that. Conservatives, Liberals, NDP'ers...it doesn't matter who you're talking about. The average voter doesn't have a clue. The strategy here is he wanted to come across as the candidate with the most 'leadership' qualities. He wanted to show a calm and measured image who would act prudently and responsibly. The other parties' economic plans are, in my educated opinion (I work as an advisor for investments and went to university for it etc), knee-jerk plans that most assuredly WILL hurt the economy. Jack Layton's plan is to raise corporate taxes. That has never helped ANY economy ANYWHERE. Dion's plan has been picked apart by economists and they are ALL saying it will raise prices and cost Canadians more in taxes. Harper's steady hand plan IS a good plan for the economy for the time being. The problem, however, is that the average voter/investor is infinetly stupid and when they saw the stock market go down 800 points in one day, that all of the sudden meant Harper was wrong about everything, it was all his fault and somehow higher taxes and prices would somehow reverse this. It makes no sense but that's not important to the average voter. This one I'll have to agree with. Harper has shown himself as a giant hypocrite and as PM everyone focuses on him more. The opposition is just as bad or worse, but as PM the focus is going to be on him.

There are bad economists and good economists. One of the biggest problems with economic analysts is that they provide analysis which is often very politically tilted. Whatever your position or point of view you can usually find 'economists' who will agree with you for various reasons. Another problem with economists is that external events are often unpredictable and they can never account for that. Having said that, at least an economist understands the driving forces of supply, demand, inflation, interest rates, currency exchange rates etc and can look at them objectively. The 70's and 80''s showed a disgusting ignorance of basic economic theory (under Trudeau and Mulroney) and we are paying for that now.

That's the Harper I like. This economic 'crisis' was coming for almost a year. It was PAINFULLY obvious and anyone who didn't do anything about their investments has themselves to blame just as much as anyone else. With that said, all of these people crying about their retirement savings going away need to realize that they're only losing money when they panic and sell their equity immediately after it loses 20% of its value. The investments will largely recover. Personally, I sold everything I had back in November when CIBC started posting its billion dollar losses. I have all my money in cash equivalents and I've secured credit for doing exactly what Harper said. Buy low, sell high. It's too bad the average person is too stupid to realize that: A) Equity Markets are cyclical Nothing Harper has done thus far did ANYTHING to encourage a financial slowdown in Canada C) The Canadian government's capacity to halt an economic slowdown in Canada is virtually nil at the best of times. The government can smoothe things out a little and that's IT. At this point any initiatives by ANY elected government in Canada would do NOTHING to prevent a spillover if it's actually coming unless that government is looking to start running huge deficits.

GST vs Income Tax Cuts There's one. Whether people know enough to understand him will be interesting.

I think this is a pretty good post. I think corporate tax cuts are good in that they DO encourage business. Any government, whether NDP, Liberal or whoever that is looking to increase them is nuts. On the other hand, WIP is right in that the income disparity in Canada is getting absurd and the middle and poorer classes need to be protected from exploitive corporations. The only way to do this is put up trade barriers and prevent companies from manufacturing everything in China and Mexico where these countries enjoy completely unfair advantages. I'm all for Free Trade as long as it's fair. Trade with most of the rest of the world, however, is not in the least bit fair. Having our steel and everything else manufactured in China ultimately does a lot more good to shareholders than it does to the rest of Canada.

I actually read that as well and I'm pretty sure the CTF didn't say Harper's spending leaped past 2001 and 2006 levels. It said that he went over budget twice and that government spending increased at almost EXACTLY the same rate as under the Martin Liberals. Also, the CTF certainly didn't endorse the other parties. In fact, its criticism of the Liberal Party was scathing: "Mr. Dion will instead levy a $15-billion carbon tax on traditional energy sources. The revenue will be used to lower personal and business income taxes by $9.5-billion. Low-income families will receive payments totaling $4.5-billion and the remaining $1-billion spent on research and development. In other words, for every $2 in income tax relief there will be $3 in additional taxes and another $1 in spending. This plan will grow the size of government, drain more resources from the economy, and make middle-class families poorer." Jdobbin, some of your points are indisputable. I can't argue that Harper isn't spending over budget. I can't argue that he's probably spending more than I would like him to. What I've been arguing all along is that the other parties, specifically the Liberals, are going to be spending WAY MORE than the Tories and that we'll all have LESS money in our wallets after they're done. The CTF, which you just referenced, confirms this.

If you actually look at ALL of the numbers, as in the ones that actually MATTER, like inflation rates, debt relative to GDP and interest rates paid for debt accumulated already, spending under Trudeau did WAY more to hurt Canada than under Mulroney. Mulroney was a bad PM but Trudeau was 5 times worse. You bring this argument up all the time whowhere but the fact of the matter is Conservative immigration policy is more selective than Liberal policy ever was and they are improving it immensely. You seem to have a problem with the fact the conservatives are ensuring that skilled and productive immigrants come to the country instead of how the Liberals let ANYONE in on a first come first serve basis. Not to sound insensitive but the fact that your department was dead weight on the corporation and needed trimming isn't really the fault of Conservative Policy. The conservatives really made no changes to immigration policy as far as I know of prior to the last 3-4 months. Even if you lost your job in that period, the policies hadn't even been implemented yet really. You're complaining that the Conservatives are making it so that skilled immigrants get into the country first ahead of unskilled non-english speaking immigrants. Naturally they will be competing for skilled work but to argue against these policies is to suggest that Canada is better off with unskilled immigrants suitable only for minimum wage work so they can mooch off our social system. Your argument isn't really making sense. You can't find a job because immigrants have a low standard of living and that's why you're still on temporary employment making $20,000? The immigrants, with their lowly standard of living, are doing your $50,000 job and doing it for less than $20,000? I would love to know what your lowly immigrant manager's department was and what your job was. I think there is a lot of 'poor me' and blame game being played here. Generally speaking, native Canadians have a VASTLY better time finding jobs than immigrants. To say that ALL of the jobs you could apply for are being filled by foreigners on work permits is juvenile. It's strange that it's never occurred to you that there MIGHT be other reasons other than mythical conservative policy why certain specific people lost and then can't find jobs.

The GST vs Income tax debate was really based on a GST cut of 1% vs an Income Tax cut of 1%. On this basis, the income tax cut was better for almost everyone except for the very wealthy or the ridiculously poor. A 2% GST decrease, however, is a great deal better than a 1% income tax cut by the very simplest of math. I'm young, I'm working for slightly less than $20/hour, and given my spending habits the GST cuts save me almost $400/year. My income would have to be over 40,000/year for me to save 400/year with Dion's previously promised 1% income tax cut, but then if I was making 40,000 per year I'd be spending enough to offset the difference either way. The other benefit is the GST cut encourages consumption which, regardless of what Green economists say, drives our economy.

The problem is that a very large number of Liberal supporters are considerably more opposed to the idealogies of parties like the NDP than they are to the conservatives. Liberal support over the last 20 years has been very much centre and centre right. There has been very little left of centre to speak of since Trudeau's disastrous terms. If the Liberals were to join with the NDP and the Greens you'd likely see an exodus of centre-right voters from the Liberal party.

She was loud, obnoxious and had to be quieted by the moderator on numerous occasions because she couldn't follow simple debate rules. The benefit that she had was also that nobody ever paid attention to anything she said. Harper defended against some of her attacks but largely she was ignored. It's easy to appear successful in a debate if nobody is really debating with you.

Every leader dodges questions. They dodge questions in a debate for a reason. Your opponents in a debate are usually asking loaded questions where to answer honestly would look bad in the eyes of the average uninformed viewer. Here's what happen: 1) Person A goes on briefly about how Policy A will solve Problem A. He then asks Person B why he hasn't yet supported Policy A. 2) Person B has a limited amount of time to answer the question and thus tries to explain what his Policy B would do to solve the same problem. 3) Person A says, "ANSWER THE QUESTION!" 4) Person B doesn't believe the context of the question was fair and tries to explain. 5) Person A then yells again, "ANSWER THE QUESTION!" 6) Finally, Person B gives up and says, "No Mr Duceppe, we haven't. We looked into reimbursable tax credits and they will simply not work given the budget." The questions the leaders ask are unfair in nature. They all do it and they're all trying to trap each other. The only question in particular that I thought anyone looked to really be burnt for was the one where the moderator challenged one of Layton's "Harper hates people/doesn't care" statements. He asked Layton to back it up and the only thing Layton could do after blustering and looking stupid for a few seconds was, "Well just LOOK at him!"

Elizabeth May didn't behave like a serious leader in that debate. She was rude, obnoxious, loud and all I heard from her was, "The OECD said.....!" She kept repeating it over, and over and over. The problem, however, is that the OECD is a European-based (France I think) group whose authority and expertise is far far FAR from absolute. Economists in Canada have NOT thrown their support behind her and you'd be hard pressed to find even one doing so regardless of what recommendations foreign economists in the OECD make. Nobody was arguing her or really even acknowledging that she was there. Her response to this was just to get louder and even more obnoxious. I didn't know a lot about her before the debates and I have almost been cheering for her because she'll split the left even further, but I tuned her out halfway through because she was so unbelievably irritating. I doubt very strongly that the personality she showed there (ie rude, crude and loud) will have helped at all.

My thoughts exactly. Again, I will likely be voting for Harper, but I think you're REALLY stretching this whole 'real job' thing.

Jack Layton was a city councillor in Toronto in 1985 and on for awhile. From 1988 - march 1990 he lived in a $800/month three bedroom subsidized apartment. By 1990 he and his wife had a combined income was $120,000. It took 2.5 years almost for him to start paying even REASONABLE rent given his income. He's a snake, a cheat and a completely unscrupulous liar. It was a Toronto Star article YEARS ago but it was a disgusting abuse of the system. I'll give you a wikipedia link and you can look it up from there because I'm going to bed right now and don't feel like searching. Layton and Subsidized Housing - Hahahaha