Why Harper won't get a majority, and why it matters

[independent]

No. The Conservatives need to make the point that they are managing the economy properly, with tax cuts for business to help stimulate the economy. They need to point out that Dion, Duceppe and Layton want to increase taxes on business at the worst possible time. And they need to ridicule Dion over the fact he opposed Kyoto when he was in Chretien's cabinet but named his dog Kyoto.

Smart move make the point that they plan to model themselves off the Bush government by cutting business taxes and ignoring the environment. That will certainly get them elected. Maybe Harper should explain too the electorate how an economic policy that has gone horribly wrong in the states is some how going to work in Canada. How CEO (whose only interest is short term profits so they can pad their bonuses and have zero concern for the workers or share holders) are some how going to me corporate responsible in Canada. Business with out regulation is chaos.

If a business is able to function with 100 employees and he gets more money to run his business he still will have 100 employees because that is all he needs. If you cut the taxes of the employees they will buy more therefore business will hire so that they can produce more product. The business will be doing better because there is more of a demand for there product and the workers are able too have an improved standard of living.

[Argus]

Actually if Layton becomes prime minister he will give money to families in the mid to low income levels, and then they will spend that money in the small business and our economy will flourish. Giving money to people who have more than they can spend already is going to stimulate nothing except bigger inheritances

Pay attention. I'm going to explain something that might shock you. Are you ready? The government does not have any money. It does not make it. It does not earn it. Anything it "gives" to people it has to "Take" from other people. I.e., the ones who own it, who earned it.

In order to give money to poor people - ie, mostly people who are lazy, stupid, drug addicts, drunkards, whores who decided to have babies out of wedlock knowing society would give them money, guys who partied and drank and quit high school early cause they could make lots of money parking cars - it has to take that money from me and others like me who finished school, went on to college, and went out to earn our living.

As for jacking up taxes on those busineses you and Layton hate so much, that eats into profits, which means they can't expand, can't hire more workers. Or it means they'll close more plants and shift production off shore. Any way you look at it, taxes on business costs us in jobs and wealth. But Layton is still an old class warfare socialist from the fifties still fighting against the evils of capitalism. The rest of the Socialist parties in the west have all grown up, but Jack is still lost in a bygone era.

Edited October 7, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

If a business is able to function with 100 employees and he gets more money to run his business he still will have 100 employees because that is all he needs. If you cut the taxes of the employees they will buy more therefore business will hire so that they can produce more product. The business will be doing better because there is more of a demand for there product and the workers are able too have an improved standard of living.

You clearly know nothing whatever about business or economics or finance. A business that earns good profits on what it produces or does is always looking to expand, to produce more, to get more customers, to increase the flow of money. It hires more salesmen, more factory workers, more production people. That's how business works. A business making miserly profits winds up static or closing down as the owner looks to get into something more profitable. Of course, if the problem is high taxation he looks to get out of business and maybe invest his money in something else like real estate or the stoack market (ha!) or whatever.

[DrGreenthumb]

What your are seeing happening in the economy is exactly what happens when the rich suffer. When the business owners suffer they can't pay their workers and the problem cascades. What happened was because of democrats FORCING banks to give loans to poor people. If we'd have let the poor people live in apartments and cheap houses like they should, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Having Layton and Dion put more taxes on businesses will be the nail in the coffin. Businesses will leave. I hope the NDP has a plan for providing jobs in the civil service sector. The Chretien and Martin Liberals understand it, and if they weren't the Liberal party I'd consider voting for them as an alternative to the tories if they mess up.

The tories have made tax cut after tax cut which means more money in the pockets of everyone. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is proposterous and a recipe for economic disaster. Why the NDP wants Canada to become Venezuela is beyond me. That country has a punish the rich attitude and look at the crap hole it turned out to be. If anything Layton is the biggest threat to Canada.

Giving people money to spend at the business allows both the business to grow and the employees to improve their standard of living. Your Conservative attitude of "give to the rich and they will give more to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts" is laughable.

Allowing poor people to purchase their own homes allows them to start building their own "assets" and instead of throwing most of their money away paying rent, they are actually buying something. The part of your quote that I bolded is really telling of conservative attitudes. The poor should act like the poor they are and always deserve to be, gays should stay in the closet where they belong, and minorities and anyone else who doesn't have a house, a yacht and a million dollars in the bank should just accept their lot in life and praise the rich for the low paying shitty jobs they might decide to give them. The biggest threat to Canada is the conservatives feeling of superiority and entitlement to always have more and as much more as possible than their fellow man. We don't need to subsidize companies that are already making boatloads of money off the "poor" and middle class. The people who will stimulate the economy the most are the ones who will spend any extra money they get, not the ones who are simply going to further pad their kids trust funds. Most farmers like the rich in the cites, have inherited a lot of wealth and assets, they did not do anything better, or work harder than the average wage earner, they were "born into" privelege. When you inherit hundreds of acres of land you have a bit of an advantage over someone who inherits nothing and has to make their own way in life. Stop pretending that you have made your own way in the world, and admit that the children of the wealthy have a HUGE advantage already over the working class. We should be helping the middle and lower class to move up, not giving handouts to those who are already hugely advantaged.

[blueblood]

Giving people money to spend at the business allows both the business to grow and the employees to improve their standard of living. Your Conservative attitude of "give to the rich and they will give more to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts" is laughable.

Allowing poor people to purchase their own homes allows them to start building their own "assets" and instead of throwing most of their money away paying rent, they are actually buying something. The part of your quote that I bolded is really telling of conservative attitudes. The poor should act like the poor they are and always deserve to be, gays should stay in the closet where they belong, and minorities and anyone else who doesn't have a house, a yacht and a million dollars in the bank should just accept their lot in life and praise the rich for the low paying shitty jobs they might decide to give them. The biggest threat to Canada is the conservatives feeling of superiority and entitlement to always have more and as much more as possible than their fellow man. We don't need to subsidize companies that are already making boatloads of money off the "poor" and middle class. The people who will stimulate the economy the most are the ones who will spend any extra money they get, not the ones who are simply going to further pad their kids trust funds. Most farmers like the rich in the cites, have inherited a lot of wealth and assets, they did not do anything better, or work harder than the average wage earner, they were "born into" privelege. When you inherit hundreds of acres of land you have a bit of an advantage over someone who inherits nothing and has to make their own way in life. Stop pretending that you have made your own way in the world, and admit that the children of the wealthy have a HUGE advantage already over the working class. We should be helping the middle and lower class to move up, not giving handouts to those who are already hugely advantaged.

A poor person has as much right to a 300 000 dollar house as I have the right to replace my entire fleet of machinery with new machinery every year. It results in being in deep trouble with the bank. Life's not fair, deal with it.

Do you not understand that even with established wealth you have to have a good head on your shoulders otherwise it gets squandered. MC Hammer got extremely wealthy and look what happened to him. When will you admit that when someone who pays as much GST as a wage earner's income tax is spending more (which boosts the economy). Why should I be punished for making good financial decisions, good management decisions, working hard, and not squandering my money?

I have seen farms start up from bank loans that have prospered and I have seen some that were passed down that went broke. Your established wealth theory holds as much water as a wicker basket.

I'll tell you right now a tax break to someone such as myself helps out the economy far more than a single wage earner getting a tax break. That having been said, the wage earner should get a tax break, he knows how to spend his money better than the government as do I. Tax cuts all around are better for the economy. The NDP wants to pick and choose who gets tax cuts and punish people for getting ahead.

The government of Venezuela has the same attitude towards people who succeed as you do. Which average citizen has the better standard of living?

[CrazeeEddie]

No. The Conservatives need to make the point that they are managing the economy properly, with tax cuts for business to help stimulate the economy. They need to point out that Dion, Duceppe and Layton want to increase taxes on business at the worst possible time. And they need to ridicule Dion over the fact he opposed Kyoto when he was in Chretien's cabinet but named his dog Kyoto.

While I am not a Conservative, I agree that this is where they need to go. Much as Harper is not Mulroney, Dion is not Chretien. Most people from Ontario east know this, and this is arguably where the Harper crew needs to start garnering votes.

[Argus]

Giving people money to spend at the business allows both the business to grow and the employees to improve their standard of living. Your Conservative attitude of "give to the rich and they will give more to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts" is laughable.

Taking money from business and giving it to poor people so they can buy stuff from business allows business to grow? Hmmm. So business is essentially giving stuff away - and yet it's supposed to grow?

Cutting corporate taxes is standard economic policy for the socialist and social democratic governments of Europe these days who want to grow their economy. Why do you suppose that is?

Allowing poor people to purchase their own homes allows them to start building their own "assets" and instead of throwing most of their money away paying rent, they are actually buying something.

If they're buying their own homes with my money then they're not building "their own" assets except insofar as they've stolen my money to do it.

The part of your quote that I bolded is really telling of conservative attitudes. The poor should act like the poor they are and always deserve to be, gays should stay in the closet where they belong, and minorities and anyone else who doesn't have a house, a yacht and a million dollars in the bank should just accept their lot in life and praise the rich for the low paying shitty jobs they might decide to give them.

Unless your daddy is rich nobody is "given" a good job. You have to work for it. You have to take the shitty job, and then turn that into experience that will get you a less shitty job, and then build on that to get a moderately okay job, and so on and so on. I took a shitty job paying $8.25hr doing data entry in a cramped little storefront sweatshop type business where work started at 7am. I hated it, but it let me get a better paying data entry job with the government, which was still crappy but a lot better. That let me apply for a clerical job for the government, then a higher level clerical job, then an officer level job. But if I hadn't taken the first crappy data entry job I'd still be sitting around the house bitching because no one was offering me the officer level job.

Like you are, I imagine.

[Oleg Bach]

To change captains in the middle of a storm is not wise - best to leave the Canadian right and American right in postion and keep a better eye on them this time around...to vacilate because some twit like Obama or Layton wants to be famous is not an option.

[cybercoma]

As for jacking up taxes on those busineses you and Layton hate so much, that eats into profits, which means they can't expand, can't hire more workers. Or it means they'll close more plants and shift production off shore. Any way you look at it, taxes on business costs us in jobs and wealth. But Layton is still an old class warfare socialist from the fifties still fighting against the evils of capitalism. The rest of the Socialist parties in the west have all grown up, but Jack is still lost in a bygone era.

It's incredible Jack Layton hasn't taken a hint from the success of other Social/Labour Parties around the world and moved his message on these things closer to the center. Tony Blair didn't become such a popular Prime Minister because he taxed big business into job cuts. Layton is out to lunch because his politics are entirely "procrustean", as Jeffrey Simpson would say.

[Barts]

Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is proposterous and a recipe for economic disaster.

Yet, every western democracy does this. It's called a progressive tax system. Redistribution insures a large middle class and few poor people which always produces a more stable, economically viable country. Your assertion is demonstrably nonsense. The evidence is the countries of the EU. When money is not taken from the rich and given to the poor--to use your extremist characterization--the result is an oligarchy or military dictatorship, and rampant poverty, national instability and often a popular, bloody uprising.

[Argus]

Yet, every western democracy does this. It's called a progressive tax system. Redistribution insures a large middle class and few poor people which always produces a more stable, economically viable country. Your assertion is demonstrably nonsense. The evidence is the countries of the EU. When money is not taken from the rich and given to the poor--to use your extremist characterization--the result is an oligarchy or military dictatorship, and rampant poverty, national instability and often a popular, bloody uprising.

Have you actually looked at the corporate tax rates of the EU? I"m guessing that's a big uhhhh NOPE!

Yes, every western democracy does this - to a certain extent. Do it to too high an extent and you begin to remove the incentive to work harder, to expand your business, to risk money on starting a new business. What's the point when the government will just tax away all that extra money and give it to your neighbors, who don't work harder or take risk? That is why many, if not most EU countries have been cutting corporate tax rates over the last few years, and why their corporate tax rates are so much lower than our combined federal/provincial corporate tax rates.

[betsy]

I don't get it....

On CPAC's daily poll tracking, they have a "leadership score" which comprises of 4 categories: Best Prime Minister, Most Trustworthy, Most Competent and Best vision. Harper had a consistently high lead since the beginning, and even today he still has quite a lead on all categories. His leadership score is at 86% today (down from 110 at the start), Layton's 56% and Dion's at 52%.

If most Canadians think he is the most competent, trustworthy and the best Prime Minister with the best vision for Canada, then why are the polls for national support showing only a 4 percent lead from Dion?

[jdobbin]

If most Canadians think he is the most competent, trustworthy and the best Prime Minister with the best vision for Canada, then why are the polls for national support showing only a 4 percent lead from Dion?

Maybe they don't like the rest of the Tory team.

[Smallc]

If most Canadians think he is the most competent, trustworthy and the best Prime Minister with the best vision for Canada, then why are the polls for national support showing only a 4 percent lead from Dion?

Because the name Liberal is still very strong, and Dion has a very good team around him.

[geoffrey]

Giving people money to spend at the business allows both the business to grow and the employees to improve their standard of living. Your Conservative attitude of "give to the rich and they will give more to the poor out of the goodness of their hearts" is laughable.

That's disgusting. Giving homes to those that can't afford them started this crisis. Not everyone can be rich. Not everyone wants to be. Giving the best to those that are willing to work for it does good for the country. Giving big houses and fast cars to everyone gives you a mortgage crisis.

Allowing poor people to purchase their own homes allows them to start building their own "assets" and instead of throwing most of their money away paying rent, they are actually buying something.

\\

You should go to Arizona and ask the poor people about how great it is to own a million dollar home, now worth $150k and in foreclosure.

The poor should act like the poor they are and always deserve to be, gays should stay in the closet where they belong, and minorities and anyone else who doesn't have a house, a yacht and a million dollars in the bank should just accept their lot in life and praise the rich for the low paying shitty jobs they might decide to give them.

Who said that?

We don't need to subsidize companies that are already making boatloads of money off the "poor" and middle class.

And we don't need to subsidize people until they are on the verge of hunger and frostbite. Do you not understand that these companies provide the jobs and wealth that fund everything in this country? Your clueless.

The people who will stimulate the economy the most are the ones who will spend any extra money they get, not the ones who are simply going to further pad their kids trust funds. Most farmers like the rich in the cites, have inherited a lot of wealth and assets, they did not do anything better, or work harder than the average wage earner, they were "born into" privelege. When you inherit hundreds of acres of land you have a bit of an advantage over someone who inherits nothing and has to make their own way in life. Stop pretending that you have made your own way in the world, and admit that the children of the wealthy have a HUGE advantage already over the working class. We should be helping the middle and lower class to move up, not giving handouts to those who are already hugely advantaged.

I didn't get a thing from my parents, not one thing, and I've earned every penny I've received. It's not just those born into money that hold the attitude that you should WORK FOR WHAT YOU GET.

Not everyone can have a car, not everyone can have a house. This mentality caused the problem we see in the US. Some people have to be poor! Deal with it! Society selects winners based on their value to society as a whole. They get stuff. The rest, don't, until they prove their value.

Those that invest by the way stimulate the economy far more than a poor person buying food for themselves. That's those stupid rich kids with their heads up their ass with the trust funds. I don't like them either, but I see their place in the economy.

Why should I be punished for making good financial decisions, good management decisions, working hard, and not squandering my money?

Because everyone deserves exactly what you have but doesn't need to work for it or earn it in any way. They should just get it. Everything.

Yet, every western democracy does this. It's called a progressive tax system. Redistribution insures a large middle class and few poor people which always produces a more stable, economically viable country. Your assertion is demonstrably nonsense. The evidence is the countries of the EU. When money is not taken from the rich and given to the poor--to use your extremist characterization--the result is an oligarchy or military dictatorship, and rampant poverty, national instability and often a popular, bloody uprising.

The most prosperous area in Canada is the only one without progressive income tax, Alberta. Europe also uses mostly regressive consumption taxes that allow the rich to earn investment income without facing much taxation, but where poor people are hammered with 20% tax on bread and jam.

Your brilliant man. Can you get past the NDP talking points and into reality?

Money should never be taken from one and giving to another arbitrarily. You should EARN IT. Not steal it. It's immoral to force someone to donate to another on the grounds that one is rich and one is poor.

Why should someone live off my work? They can get off their ass and do their own, thanks. Too much of my money goes to "lifting up" those that just constantly fall down. Just ignore them. They are not a good use of our countries limited efforts and finances.

[blueblood]

That's disgusting. Giving homes to those that can't afford them started this crisis. Not everyone can be rich. Not everyone wants to be. Giving the best to those that are willing to work for it does good for the country. Giving big houses and fast cars to everyone gives you a mortgage crisis.

\\

You should go to Arizona and ask the poor people about how great it is to own a million dollar home, now worth $150k and in foreclosure.

Who said that?

And we don't need to subsidize people until they are on the verge of hunger and frostbite. Do you not understand that these companies provide the jobs and wealth that fund everything in this country? Your clueless.

I didn't get a thing from my parents, not one thing, and I've earned every penny I've received. It's not just those born into money that hold the attitude that you should WORK FOR WHAT YOU GET.

Not everyone can have a car, not everyone can have a house. This mentality caused the problem we see in the US. Some people have to be poor! Deal with it! Society selects winners based on their value to society as a whole. They get stuff. The rest, don't, until they prove their value.

Those that invest by the way stimulate the economy far more than a poor person buying food for themselves. That's those stupid rich kids with their heads up their ass with the trust funds. I don't like them either, but I see their place in the economy.

Because everyone deserves exactly what you have but doesn't need to work for it or earn it in any way. They should just get it. Everything.

The most prosperous area in Canada is the only one without progressive income tax, Alberta. Europe also uses mostly regressive consumption taxes that allow the rich to earn investment income without facing much taxation, but where poor people are hammered with 20% tax on bread and jam.

Your brilliant man. Can you get past the NDP talking points and into reality?

Money should never be taken from one and giving to another arbitrarily. You should EARN IT. Not steal it. It's immoral to force someone to donate to another on the grounds that one is rich and one is poor.

Why should someone live off my work? They can get off their ass and do their own, thanks. Too much of my money goes to "lifting up" those that just constantly fall down. Just ignore them. They are not a good use of our countries limited efforts and finances.

That sums up what I said, just more articulately.