Are CPP funds at risk?

[Jobu]

Are you for real?? Where is this 25 Billion coming from?? If it comes from the Government, taxpayers are liable and on the hook for it. You watch the news and the foreclosures happening in the the United States? Subprime is money lent to those who should have never got it in the first place. The subprime was based on loose lending practices. That 25 Billions represents Canada's subprime mess. The conservatives are trying to sweep the subprime loans under the rug so they can hide their George Bush style governing practices. The Canadian voter better wake up to the Danger a Conservative Government is to Canada's solvency.

Umm, there is no suprime situation going on here. These are high quality mortgages NOT in default that the CMHC has already insured as a result of the fact that Canada precisely does not have a subprime problem.

Your ignorance is astounding. Aren't you embarrassed?

[eyeball]

IMV, too many Canadians (usually left wing) trust the State blindly. These left wingers believe that corporations are dishonest but the idea that the State is dishonest has never crossed their mind. To these NDP/Liberal left wingers, what if the State is just another corporation? What if the State is just a another corporation with a better PR department?

Your claims to give more power to the State amount to a different way to choose a corporation.

----

I'm neither a Libertarian nor a Corporatist but I'm surprised sometimes by the naivety of my fellow citizens. I object to letting the State tax my earnings in the name of a pension fund and then letting State bureaucrats decide how to invest my savings. IMV, government bureaucrats cannot pick winners.

I'm surprised by the naivety of my fellow citizens all the time. I'm a left winger and I've said for years that we should hardwire the top-most layers of government to the Internet and monitor them in a way that would make Orwell himself blush. Its always been right-wingers who are the first to leap and who leap the farthest when it comes to protecting the culture of secrecy the uppermost levels of government enjoy. I think it must be the conservative propensity for respecting authority. I would think that people who believe getting the government of the backs of the people would be able to make the leap to the opposite, getting the people on the back of the government for a change. Ditto regarding sousveillance of big corporations by the way, especially banks.

My lack of trust for power is only matched by my distrust of wealth. Its encouraging that you can put blind, trust and government together in the same breath. Its still frustrating however, when the key to the problem and solution are so close. Think about the opposite of blind in the context of what I've said about sousveillance...

Think Anti-secrecy Act as opposed to Accountability Act.

[independent]

Umm, there is no suprime situation going on here. These are high quality mortgages NOT in default that the CMHC has already insured as a result of the fact that Canada precisely does not have a subprime problem.

Your ignorance is astounding. Aren't you embarrassed?

I am by no means a Harper supporter.

Buying up some of the mortgages from the banks was a good move. Certainly do not know who to give credit too. The banks may have requested it or may have been suggested too them by the bank of Canada. It should allow the banks to give out loans to keep the economy going.

Putting someone down because they see things different than you should not be allowed on the board.

Edited October 12, 2008 by independent

[jdobbin]

Harper ran a minority government where the Liberals were watching public opinion with their fingers on the election trigger. It's extremely difficult to push forward an economic platform when the majority of parliament is totally against you. With that said, our budget remained balanced and your claims have been wildly exaggerated.

There is no getting around the fact that spending was way over what Harper promised and what was promised every budget. The Tories pretty much ruled with a majority. Many of the spending decisions Harper made were things he campaigned against in the election. There was no pressure from the Liberals to re-instate the VIA Rail money as $600 million.

The record of the Chretien Liberals isn't really good enough to prove your point either. The debt compared to GDP was highest under the Trudeau Liberals. Liberals are EVERY bit as guilty for our current debt load as Mulroney PC's are and just because they cleaned up the mess they began doesn't mean they deserve our admiration. We all know how they DID balance the budget too. It was by hoarding wealth in Ottawa and leaving the provinces broke.

The record during the Chretien years was to cut spending. They campaigned on cutting spending and they won on cutting spending. The provinces indeed did have troubles but many started their own cuts on bloated budgets. Many provinces also cut taxes so the idea that only the Feds starved healthcare rings a little hollow. Every department was cut to end the terrible deficit.

Harper is now spending at a rate that will be hard to sustain in a declining market. He has so far shown no indication of making meaningful cuts. You blame the Liberals for this but as I said, who on Earth was putting pressure on them to restore the military school in Quebec? Not the Liberals. And so it goes.

The record I have to follow for Harper is that he lowered my taxes and he never ran a deficit. Dion is PROMISING higher taxes and higher spending. Regardless of whether or not Harper went over his own budgets, it's EXTREMELY loopy logic to claim that Dion is going to be spending less and lowering taxes when he is PROMISING to do the opposite.

The record is that Harper had two very good years of economic growth. That was a snapshot of what was behind us. There is very little room in the budget now for declines in revenue.

I think I have said already that Dion will lose. He will lose. That said, the full costing of the Harper plan is incomplete since it doesn't include all the announcements prior to the election and the mutli-year agreements before that.

Absolutely. The very last thing we need right now is to have the banks get themselves in trouble. We are better off than the rest of the world right now because they have relatively speaking kept themselves out of the mess.

I don't think we are immune from further interventions. If we are lucky we will avoid going beyond lowering interest rates.

What you've done is pick a favorable reference point. On this logic the Liberals should never have been elected in 1993 because of Trudeau spending. Balancing the budget during pretty much the most prosperous time in the economy for the last 40 years is not a remarkable accomplishment for Chretien especially considering how he did it. Brian Mulroney was a lousy PM but you can't compare his spending to Harper's for the same reason you can't compare Chretien's to Trudeau's. They weren't even in the same league.

The Liberals were elected because the Mulroney government took the country to the brink not once but twice.

Still, if you want to ask when the cutting started, you have to have to have a reference point. That reference point in the 1990s.

Harper is being about as dishonest with this as Dion is about not increasing taxes. There are glaring omissions in both. For Harper, he omits that he hasn't set really much of ANY priority or time table for his plan. For Dion, he omits that his Green Shift is an income equalization formula and business and average taxpapayers WILL be taxed more. You pick your poison, but one of these plans is the focus of an entire election platform and the other is a side note. Which one do you think is less likely to be turned into legislation???

The economists who have looked at Dion's plan have disagreed with your view of what will happen.

Such an analysis of the Tory plan has not yet been concluded because it doesn't figure how large a bill will be pass on by the cap.

This is one of those fuzzy contradictions that you confuse the issues with. I've acknowledged this with you on dozens of occassions that Harper has broken numerous election promises. I look at the campaign pragmatically, however, and see that despite Harper's falling short of election promises, what he has done and proposes to do are MUCH better than what Dion has PROMISED to do. Your rebuttal is then to say that perhaps Dion is a liar and the Liberals central focus in the campaign may end up as a broken promise as well?????

I haven't said anything of the sort. I'm saying I think the Tory campaign is even more expensive given the fact that some of the promises have not been costed out.

[Moonbox]

There is no getting around the fact that spending was way over what Harper promised and what was promised every budget. The Tories pretty much ruled with a majority.

The tories did not in any way shape or form rule with a majority. The tories ruled with a minority that was only sustained by extremely low approval ratings for Dion's Liberals. Dion made it very clear he was intent on bringing down the government...when it looked good for him. Given this fact it's impossible to argue that the CPC had free reign to do whatever they wanted. This is was the longest lasting minority ever and history has shown they pretty much never last.

The record during the Chretien years was to cut spending. They campaigned on cutting spending and they won on cutting spending. The provinces indeed did have troubles but many started their own cuts on bloated budgets. Many provinces also cut taxes so the idea that only the Feds starved healthcare rings a little hollow. Every department was cut to end the terrible deficit.

The record of the Chretien years is not really what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about what Dion's PLANS are. His PLANS are to raise taxes for the average household and spend heavily. In the absense of data showing Harper's spending has been as high as Dion's plans are to be, Dion naturally looks like he's going to have the looser wallet. Given that Harper HAS reduced taxes and Dion plans to RAISE them, it's a tough sell convincing anyone that Dion is going to leave more money in our wallets.

Harper is now spending at a rate that will be hard to sustain in a declining market. He has so far shown no indication of making meaningful cuts. You blame the Liberals for this but as I said, who on Earth was putting pressure on them to restore the military school in Quebec? Not the Liberals. And so it goes.

Paul Martin was spending at an almost identical rate to Harper. You act like the 1% difference between them is meaningful.

The record is that Harper had two very good years of economic growth. That was a snapshot of what was behind us. There is very little room in the budget now for declines in revenue.

Harper had 1 year of good economic growth. 2007 started off well but the current credit crisis and Harper was warning people of impending economic decline back THEN. The Liberals had literally 13 of the best growth Canada's almost ever seen with hardly a hiccup the whole time.

The Liberals were elected because the Mulroney government took the country to the brink not once but twice.

Mulroney was elected because Trudeau left the country in heavier debt (relative to inflation and GDP etc) than he did. Not that Mulroney was a good PM, but he at least had 2 recessions to deal with during his term, whereas Trudeau just dived into debt with no reason. The point I'm trying to make here is that if we go far enough back we can both find examples of horrible governing. The last conservative government was a full 15 years ago. We saw the difference between Chretien and Trudeau Liberals, and we're seeing the difference between Mulroney and Harper Conservatives. The comparisons are pathetically weak at best.

Still, if you want to ask when the cutting started, you have to have to have a reference point. That reference point in the 1990s.

This is the problem that a lot of people have with the Liberals, including myself. The fact that they balanced the budget something like 10 years ago and then rode the prosperity train does not magically make Dion the best choice for PM. He's a different man with a different group of people working for him. Just like Chretien wasn't Trudeau, Dion doesn't appear to be Chretien. Bob Rae is one of the Liberal's most prominent figures. He was the worst premier Ontario ever had. The Liberal party right now is full of bozos like Rae.

The economists who have looked at Dion's plan have disagreed with your view of what will happen.

No, they don't. Please provide me a citation, as you like to say, where any reputable economist explains how the Liberals are planning to to provide $4.5 Billion in tax credits to the poor without the average business and family in Canada paying the difference. The math is very, very, very simple. $15 Billion in extra taxes. $4.5 of that too the poor. $1B for Green research. Since the poor receiving the $4.5 Billion pay almost NO tax relative to the rest of us, the MATH indicates that the people who are actually PAYING the $15 Billion in taxes are only getting $9.5 billion back in tax credits. Are you following me? For every dollar we spend in carbon taxes and its trickle costs, we get less than $0.66 back. The economists ARE saying this. Your citation from the CTF the other day confirmed this.

Such an analysis of the Tory plan has not yet been concluded because it doesn't figure how large a bill will be pass on by the cap.

I haven't said anything of the sort. I'm saying I think the Tory campaign is even more expensive given the fact that some of the promises have not been costed out.

That's really not a compelling argument. Harper's spending announcements were largely costed and budgeted prior to the election and as far as I could tell they were over 4 years. Dion has promised over $80 billion over 10 years. Do the math. What spending promises has Harper come up with that fill in the spread? Really?

[independent]

The tories did not in any way shape or form rule with a majority. The tories ruled with a minority that was only sustained by extremely low approval ratings for Dion's Liberals. Dion made it very clear he was intent on bringing down the government...when it looked good for him. Given this fact it's impossible to argue that the CPC had free reign to do whatever they wanted. This is was the longest lasting minority ever and history has shown they pretty much never last.

The record of the Chretien years is not really what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about what Dion's PLANS are. His PLANS are to raise taxes for the average household and spend heavily. In the absense of data showing Harper's spending has been as high as Dion's plans are to be, Dion naturally looks like he's going to have the looser wallet. Given that Harper HAS reduced taxes and Dion plans to RAISE them, it's a tough sell convincing anyone that Dion is going to leave more money in our wallets.

Paul Martin was spending at an almost identical rate to Harper. You act like the 1% difference between them is meaningful.

Harper had 1 year of good economic growth. 2007 started off well but the current credit crisis and Harper was warning people of impending economic decline back THEN. The Liberals had literally 13 of the best growth Canada's almost ever seen with hardly a hiccup the whole time.

Mulroney was elected because Trudeau left the country in heavier debt (relative to inflation and GDP etc) than he did. Not that Mulroney was a good PM, but he at least had 2 recessions to deal with during his term, whereas Trudeau just dived into debt with no reason. The point I'm trying to make here is that if we go far enough back we can both find examples of horrible governing. The last conservative government was a full 15 years ago. We saw the difference between Chretien and Trudeau Liberals, and we're seeing the difference between Mulroney and Harper Conservatives. The comparisons are pathetically weak at best.

This is the problem that a lot of people have with the Liberals, including myself. The fact that they balanced the budget something like 10 years ago and then rode the prosperity train does not magically make Dion the best choice for PM. He's a different man with a different group of people working for him. Just like Chretien wasn't Trudeau, Dion doesn't appear to be Chretien. Bob Rae is one of the Liberal's most prominent figures. He was the worst premier Ontario ever had. The Liberal party right now is full of bozos like Rae.

No, they don't. Please provide me a citation, as you like to say, where any reputable economist explains how the Liberals are planning to to provide $4.5 Billion in tax credits to the poor without the average business and family in Canada paying the difference. The math is very, very, very simple. $15 Billion in extra taxes. $4.5 of that too the poor. $1B for Green research. Since the poor receiving the $4.5 Billion pay almost NO tax relative to the rest of us, the MATH indicates that the people who are actually PAYING the $15 Billion in taxes are only getting $9.5 billion back in tax credits. Are you following me? For every dollar we spend in carbon taxes and its trickle costs, we get less than $0.66 back. The economists ARE saying this. Your citation from the CTF the other day confirmed this.

That's really not a compelling argument. Harper's spending announcements were largely costed and budgeted prior to the election and as far as I could tell they were over 4 years. Dion has promised over $80 billion over 10 years. Do the math. What spending promises has Harper come up with that fill in the spread? Really?

Harper never included expenditure for his green plan or for the cost of throwing more people in jail. I know people like justice but they do not remember why we went to alternate sentencing in the first place. The cost of jails was getting way to high and they had to find a way too reduce costs.

[Oleg Bach]

Pension funds are always plundered by established mobsters. A guy that I knew who worked at Queens Parks told me twenty five years ago that the whole pension thing was already back then in a state of decline...for instance there are private corporations that hold the teachers pension fund in Ontario - when things go south for these companies seeing that there is going to be an economic decline globally - don't put itpast these corporates to dip in the savings of your old grade nine teacher when the going gets rough and they have to sell off some damned race horses...Pension funds everywhere have to be carefully monitored at this point in time. Remeber Enron - no body was watching them and looked what happened to the pensions.

[independent]

Pension funds are always plundered by established mobsters. A guy that I knew who worked at Queens Parks told me twenty five years ago that the whole pension thing was already back then in a state of decline...for instance there are private corporations that hold the teachers pension fund in Ontario - when things go south for these companies seeing that there is going to be an economic decline globally - don't put itpast these corporates to dip in the savings of your old grade nine teacher when the going gets rough and they have to sell off some damned race horses...Pension funds everywhere have to be carefully monitored at this point in time. Remeber Enron - no body was watching them and looked what happened to the pensions.

Ad-scam was rumored to be connected to the Mafia(truth or fiction? I do not know. But governments, big business, pension funds etc are all open to mobster types. That is why it is important to have open government. Every government that gets in though seems to be more secretive than the next.

[jdobbin]

The tories did not in any way shape or form rule with a majority. The tories ruled with a minority that was only sustained by extremely low approval ratings for Dion's Liberals. Dion made it very clear he was intent on bringing down the government...when it looked good for him. Given this fact it's impossible to argue that the CPC had free reign to do whatever they wanted. This is was the longest lasting minority ever and history has shown they pretty much never last.

No one was holding a gun to the head to the Tories when they re-instated the VIA money.

The record of the Chretien years is not really what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about what Dion's PLANS are. His PLANS are to raise taxes for the average household and spend heavily. In the absense of data showing Harper's spending has been as high as Dion's plans are to be, Dion naturally looks like he's going to have the looser wallet. Given that Harper HAS reduced taxes and Dion plans to RAISE them, it's a tough sell convincing anyone that Dion is going to leave more money in our wallets.

Dion plans included tax cuts, something the Tories always seemed to forget.

Paul Martin was spending at an almost identical rate to Harper. You act like the 1% difference between them is meaningful.

Harper had 1 year of good economic growth. 2007 started off well but the current credit crisis and Harper was warning people of impending economic decline back THEN. The Liberals had literally 13 of the best growth Canada's almost ever seen with hardly a hiccup the whole time.

I am saying the Tories promised to not spend as they have. You are saying they had no choice. As one PM used to say: You had a choice!

Mulroney was elected because Trudeau left the country in heavier debt (relative to inflation and GDP etc) than he did. Not that Mulroney was a good PM, but he at least had 2 recessions to deal with during his term, whereas Trudeau just dived into debt with no reason. The point I'm trying to make here is that if we go far enough back we can both find examples of horrible governing. The last conservative government was a full 15 years ago. We saw the difference between Chretien and Trudeau Liberals, and we're seeing the difference between Mulroney and Harper Conservatives. The comparisons are pathetically weak at best.

Really, seems to me that there are a lot of PCs in the present government. I don't think they seem to have learned from the Mulroney years in regards to spending.

This is the problem that a lot of people have with the Liberals, including myself. The fact that they balanced the budget something like 10 years ago and then rode the prosperity train does not magically make Dion the best choice for PM. He's a different man with a different group of people working for him. Just like Chretien wasn't Trudeau, Dion doesn't appear to be Chretien. Bob Rae is one of the Liberal's most prominent figures. He was the worst premier Ontario ever had. The Liberal party right now is full of bozos like Rae.

And Harper has Flaherty.

No, they don't. Please provide me a citation, as you like to say, where any reputable economist explains how the Liberals are planning to to provide $4.5 Billion in tax credits to the poor without the average business and family in Canada paying the difference. The math is very, very, very simple. $15 Billion in extra taxes. $4.5 of that too the poor. $1B for Green research. Since the poor receiving the $4.5 Billion pay almost NO tax relative to the rest of us, the MATH indicates that the people who are actually PAYING the $15 Billion in taxes are only getting $9.5 billion back in tax credits. Are you following me? For every dollar we spend in carbon taxes and its trickle costs, we get less than $0.66 back. The economists ARE saying this. Your citation from the CTF the other day confirmed this.

I have shown you citations before. Don Drummond has said the program was not going to result in the horrors that Harper kept saying would happen. You didn't believe him as is your prerogative. However, don't say it hasn't been posted when it has time and time again.

That's really not a compelling argument. Harper's spending announcements were largely costed and budgeted prior to the election and as far as I could tell they were over 4 years. Dion has promised over $80 billion over 10 years. Do the math. What spending promises has Harper come up with that fill in the spread? Really?

And Harper's are annual programs equaling the same over ten years. Or did you think they were one time payments?

[Moonbox]

No one was holding a gun to the head to the Tories when they re-instated the VIA money.

Wow way to totally miss the point. Minority governments offer spending increases because they need to maintain public opinion or be defeated in parliament.

Here is a comparison of pre-election spending promises between Martin 2005 and Harper 2008. Let's dispel the myth that the Liberals somehow don't go on spending benders.

2005 liberal spending announcements

Conservative spending announcements 2008

Dion plans included tax cuts, something the Tories always seemed to forget.

Dude seriously. I already addressed the tax cuts. The tax cuts are not enough to offset the carbon tax. Do the math like I asked.

I am saying the Tories promised to not spend as they have. You are saying they had no choice. As one PM used to say: You had a choice!

Really, seems to me that there are a lot of PCs in the present government. I don't think they seem to have learned from the Mulroney years in regards to spending.

I didn't say they had no choice. I said that a minority government is unstable and pandering by nature. The polls are the only things that keep them in power. Spending helps at the polls, generally speaking. Ask Trudeau. Wait...he's dead nevermind. You're twisting what I say and making it into something it's not.

And Harper has Flaherty.

Haha, good one. Comparing Bob Rae, the premier who ran Ontario's biggest deficit EVER, to Flaherty, who balanced Ontario's budget afterwards, isn't really helping your cause.

I have shown you citations before. Don Drummond has said the program was not going to result in the horrors that Harper kept saying would happen. You didn't believe him as is your prerogative. However, don't say it hasn't been posted when it has time and time again.

Here's what Drummond said: ""I think it will be revenue neutral, but there will be no individual or company in the country that will exactly get back what it pays back in carbon tax," Drummond told CBC News on Wednesday. "There will be a lot of winners and a lot of losers."

That's exactly what I've been saying. It is an income equalization formula. It gives MORE back to the people paying little taxes and gives LESS back to the people who are actually paying high taxes. All you have to do is go to the Green Shift calculator to see this. I get about $400 back for it. A family with 2 kids making a household income of 20k gets $2100 back. What do you say about that?? THOSE are the income taxes you've been going on about.

[jdobbin]

Wow way to totally miss the point. Minority governments offer spending increases because they need to maintain public opinion or be defeated in parliament.

I saw no risk in them being defeated. Harper didn't either. He spent to solicit more votes for a majority. Doesn't look it worked if we can believe the polls.

Here is a comparison of pre-election spending promises between Martin 2005 and Harper 2008. Let's dispel the myth that the Liberals somehow don't go on spending benders.

2005 liberal spending announcements

Conservative spending announcements 2008

Never said Martin didn't announce a lot of spending. Harper said he would do better, insisted on that fact every budget.

Dude seriously. I already addressed the tax cuts. The tax cuts are not enough to offset the carbon tax. Do the math like I asked.

Revenue neutral never meant no one was going to be paying the same. It meant to save money people had to change their habits.

I didn't say they had no choice. I said that a minority government is unstable and pandering by nature. The polls are the only things that keep them in power. Spending helps at the polls, generally speaking. Ask Trudeau. Wait...he's dead nevermind. You're twisting what I say and making it into something it's not.

Martin spent and it didn't help. Harper spent and if he doesn't get a majority, it doesn't help. All I will hear afterwards is that Harper needs to continue to break his promise on keeping a check on spending.

Haha, good one. Comparing Bob Rae, the premier who ran Ontario's biggest deficit EVER, to Flaherty, who balanced Ontario's budget afterwards, isn't really helping your cause.

Flaherty left no deficit?

Here's what Drummond said: ""I think it will be revenue neutral, but there will be no individual or company in the country that will exactly get back what it pays back in carbon tax," Drummond told CBC News on Wednesday. "There will be a lot of winners and a lot of losers."

That's exactly what I've been saying. It is an income equalization formula. It gives MORE back to the people paying little taxes and gives LESS back to the people who are actually paying high taxes. All you have to do is go to the Green Shift calculator to see this. I get about $400 back for it. A family with 2 kids making a household income of 20k gets $2100 back. What do you say about that?? THOSE are the income taxes you've been going on about.

That is how the program was supposed to work. To mitigate the costs of carbon, people had to make changes to reduce carbon usage.

By comparison, the Harper plan passes on billions with no large compensating tax cuts. All you keep telling me is that Harper really doesn't mean what he say even though he repeated it Saturday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...008&no_ads=

But the Conservatives also have a plan to cut emissions by 20 per cent from 2006 levels, by 2020. When asked Saturday to price his own plan, Harper merely said it wouldn't cost much.

He also said it could lead to a three- or four-per-cent rise in energy costs.

And now he won't answer any more questions on this or any other matter.

What a cop out. His plan will cost a lot of money and we don't even know where his estimate comes from.

But no matter, we keep hearing that while Dion means what he says, Harper is lying so he can win.

Edited October 13, 2008 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

I saw no risk in them being defeated. Harper didn't either. He spent to solicit more votes for a majority. Doesn't look it worked if we can believe the polls.

The fact that the Liberals were crippled by public opinion doesn't change the fact that it was a minority and all that all it would take would be a change in public opinion (which can happen in a matter of days) for your point to be meaningless.

Revenue neutral never meant no one was going to be paying the same. It meant to save money people had to change their habits.

By changing their habits do you mean making less money and having more kids??? Those are the determinants for the Green Shift calculator on the Liberal's own website. It provides the MOST tax relief to the poor who are hardly paying any taxes anyways and the average Canadian like myself makes up the difference. The simple math indicates that IT IS just an income redistribution just like everyone is saying.

By comparison, the Harper plan passes on billions with no large compensating tax cuts. All you keep telling me is that Harper really doesn't mean what he say even though he repeated it Saturday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...008&no_ads=

And now he won't answer any more questions on this or any other matter.

What a cop out. His plan will cost a lot of money and we don't even know where his estimate comes from.

Why do you keep bringing this up with me? You and I have had this discussion about 20 times and every time I tell you Harper's plan is a side note in his campaign with no timetable for implementation and no real substance to it. He had to have an environmental plan because it's always an issue that's brought up by the media and in debate. He's just putting ZERO priority on it right now given current economic conditions. Harper's plan is meaningless and I've acknowledged it as such with you. Bringing it up over and over is not scoring any points. It's a straw man policy.

But no matter, we keep hearing that while Dion means what he says, Harper is lying so he can win.

They're all lying! All of them! It's naivety on the GRANDEST scale to suggest that the campaign hasn't been absolutely full of distortions and mistruths. Dion has been lying that the current state of the economy is Harper's fault. Harper has been lying that the Green Shift will spark a Trade War. They're ALL lying. What you have to do is look at it from the MATH rather than what they say about each other.

Jdobbin you complain most about Harper spending and tax policy. You say Harper spent too much and the GST cut should have been an income tax cut. Fair enough. The alternative that you support, however, is a party that is promising to spend as much or more and is promising the OPPOSITE to tax relief. The MATH, and that really is the most important determinant, shows that it is most certainly a tax increase for anyone but the very poor. Stop ignoring this simple fact. You yourself have cited sources to me saying EXACTLY that.

Virtually all of your criticism of Harper is just one big partisan double standard. I've acknowledged all of your criticism of Harper. I don't think he's the best politician ever. His spending has been overboard. He hasn't followed through on election and senate reform. I'm dissapointed with that. Dion is promising worse however. He's promising more taxes for me (i have no kids yet poor me) and he's promising no spending relief whatsoever. His economic plan is non existant and the man can't even answer a simple question without a teleprompter in front of him.

Oh and no, Flaherty never left a deficit. That's a fact. Look it up yourself. Dalton McGuinty crying about not having enough money amid massive spending increases doesn't count as evidence either.

[Mad_Michael]

Precisely how is CPP funding at risk? Can someone please state the problem clearly?

For CPP funding to be at risk, one has to assert that Canada is about to default on sovereign debt (which is rather absurd given the facts of the matter).

[jdobbin]

The fact that the Liberals were crippled by public opinion doesn't change the fact that it was a minority and all that all it would take would be a change in public opinion (which can happen in a matter of days) for your point to be meaningless.

Harper said he would not be be guided by polls (a misrepresentation since he commissioned more polls than the Liberals by a longshot).

If Harper can't take a principled stand on spending, he doesn't deserve your support. He didn't have to cut anything that would end up triggering an election. He could have just restrained spending overall to what he promised.

By changing their habits do you mean making less money and having more kids??? Those are the determinants for the Green Shift calculator on the Liberal's own website. It provides the MOST tax relief to the poor who are hardly paying any taxes anyways and the average Canadian like myself makes up the difference. The simple math indicates that IT IS just an income redistribution just like everyone is saying.

I know the Tories keep saying that is all it is but it is a carbon tax program set up to put a price on carbon.

If you believe that carbon is leading to a warming that will be environmentally damaging and costly, you need to set a price. My preference as I said would have been for double the tax cuts. I have said in these forums that the Liberals should have slashed taxes and cut spending.

Economists such a Paul Volcker say it important to set a price on carbon and people change their usage of it as a result. You are saying that you can't do anything to change? If that is the case, you are really going to get hit by the cap and trade which will pass on more costs to you. How much will that cost?

Why do you keep bringing this up with me? You and I have had this discussion about 20 times and every time I tell you Harper's plan is a side note in his campaign with no timetable for implementation and no real substance to it. He had to have an environmental plan because it's always an issue that's brought up by the media and in debate. He's just putting ZERO priority on it right now given current economic conditions. Harper's plan is meaningless and I've acknowledged it as such with you. Bringing it up over and over is not scoring any points. It's a straw man policy.

He had zero priority for it even when the economy was going well. He doesn't seem to believe in. Nevertheless, he has promised it again this Saturday. You are telling me that is a lie. Seems anyone who believes global warming is happening should vote for another party.

They're all lying! All of them! It's naivety on the GRANDEST scale to suggest that the campaign hasn't been absolutely full of distortions and mistruths. Dion has been lying that the current state of the economy is Harper's fault. Harper has been lying that the Green Shift will spark a Trade War. They're ALL lying. What you have to do is look at it from the MATH rather than what they say about each other.

Not exactly a compelling argument. Everyone lies but I like my liar better.

Jdobbin you complain most about Harper spending and tax policy. You say Harper spent too much and the GST cut should have been an income tax cut. Fair enough. The alternative that you support, however, is a party that is promising to spend as much or more and is promising the OPPOSITE to tax relief. The MATH, and that really is the most important determinant, shows that it is most certainly a tax increase for anyone but the very poor. Stop ignoring this simple fact. You yourself have cited sources to me saying EXACTLY that.

Where have I cited that the Liberals will spend more? The facts are that they cut spending and taxes. The Harper government has never cut spending.

Virtually all of your criticism of Harper is just one big partisan double standard. I've acknowledged all of your criticism of Harper. I don't think he's the best politician ever. His spending has been overboard. He hasn't followed through on election and senate reform. I'm dissapointed with that. Dion is promising worse however. He's promising more taxes for me (i have no kids yet poor me) and he's promising no spending relief whatsoever. His economic plan is non existant and the man can't even answer a simple question without a teleprompter in front of him.

I'm afraid it is your opinion that Dion is worse. As for spending, when you announce billions before the election, it is still spending.

Oh and no, Flaherty never left a deficit. That's a fact. Look it up yourself. Dalton McGuinty crying about not having enough money amid massive spending increases doesn't count as evidence either.

Flaherty's government left a deficit. I know many Conservatives seem to think the province was in the pink at that time but most economists didn't believe it. And given the cuts in infrastructure, the deficit wasn't only reflected in finances but in a shaky hydro system and roads, waterworks and bridges falling apart and social services running on empty.

Edited October 13, 2008 by jdobbin

[Mad_Michael]

Flaherty's government left a deficit.

Hard to nail down the exact figure, but it seems like the deficit that Harris' Tories left Ontario with (and still pretend didn't exist) was $3.5 billion.

Certainly spendthrift Dalton boosted that to $5.5 billion pretty quick, but that doesn't change the fact that the Ontario Liberals inherited a big deficit from the outgoing Conservatives (Harris-Flaherty).

[msj]

Precisely how is CPP funding at risk? Can someone please state the problem clearly?

For CPP funding to be at risk, one has to assert that Canada is about to default on sovereign debt (which is rather absurd given the facts of the matter).

Good questions MM.

Presumably, CPP funds are at risk because a portion of them are invested in various "risky" investments (stock markets, real estate) and are subject to market risk and fluctuations.

It is funny how some people who would tell us what a great buying opportunity this crisis is, or how the "real" economy is not going to be substantially effected and, therefore, everything is going to be alright over time [which is true - it's just a matter as to the length of time], are now coming out trying to "question" the viability of the CPP.

Unfortunately, the MSM prefers to report on the CPP when the markets go down and ignore its' successes as the market is going up.

Mix in politics with a small minority not wanting to be involved in the CPP system (and too gutless to organize their life so that they don't pay into it) and you get pointless threads like this one.

It's like clockwork - market goes down and a thread like this pops up. Market goes up and that is ignored until the next down trend... repeat

I admit that this does not really answer your questions but given that the original intent of these types of threads really has nothing to do with your intelligent questions, well, that's just the way these forums really work, isn't it?

Edited October 13, 2008 by msj

[jdobbin]

Hard to nail down the exact figure, but it seems like the deficit that Harris' Tories left Ontario with (and still pretend didn't exist) was $3.5 billion.

Certainly spendthrift Dalton boosted that to $5.5 billion pretty quick, but that doesn't change the fact that the Ontario Liberals inherited a big deficit from the outgoing Conservatives (Harris-Flaherty).

McGuinty certainly can take his share of lumps on the issue of finances but Flaherty and others who insist the province was doing peachy when they left defies belief.

Next, when McGuinty asks for fairness on transfers so he can make changes on taxes as Flaherty insists are needed, he is ignored.

[Moonbox]

I know the Tories keep saying that is all it is but it is a carbon tax program set up to put a price on carbon.

If you believe that carbon is leading to a warming that will be environmentally damaging and costly, you need to set a price. My preference as I said would have been for double the tax cuts. I have said in these forums that the Liberals should have slashed taxes and cut spending.

Economists such a Paul Volcker say it important to set a price on carbon and people change their usage of it as a result. You are saying that you can't do anything to change?

Jdobbin I can't be any clearer to you. The Green Shift, by the math, is geared to provide heavily tilted tax relief to Canada's poor.

A junior-highschool student could grasp this logic.

Follow along with me. The poor, with their miniscule incomes, pay FAR less taxes than the rest of Canadians. You following?

In the Green Shift plan, on the Liberal's very own website, the poor are getting FAR MORE money in tax cuts/credits than everyone else. The benefit for a family (2 kids) with a household income of 20k gets $1700 more back per year than I do with a $40k income a year. The fact that I probably use less carbon than this family makes absolutely no difference. That simply isn't how the plan works.

The trickle down of increased costs from the tax will end up being paid by everyone. When the poor are getting proportionally WAY WAY WAY WAY more back than they should considering how much taxes they pay, please answer this:

HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THIS IS NOT AN INCOME REDISTRIBUTION PLAN?????????

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin I can't be any clearer to you. The Green Shift, by the math, is geared to provide heavily tilted tax relief to Canada's poor.

A junior-highschool student could grasp this logic.

There are those insults that we have come to know and love from the right wing. Where do you learn it? At the Tory warroom? Is there a reason why you have to be this way?

Canada's poor are less able to make adjustments to the carbon tax compared to others. Or do you disagree?

Follow along with me. The poor, with their miniscule incomes, pay FAR less taxes than the rest of Canadians. You following?

More of that insulting tone. Do you routinely have people thinking you that insulting?

In the Green Shift plan, on the Liberal's very own website, the poor are getting FAR MORE money in tax cuts/credits than everyone else. The benefit for a family (2 kids) with a household income of 20k gets $1700 more back per year than I do with a $40k income a year. The fact that I probably use less carbon than this family makes absolutely no difference. That simply isn't how the plan works.

The fact that the poor can adjust less to the cost of carbon is why it is weighted that way.

Harper's cap and trade is geared to make the poor a whole lot poorer. By Harper's own words, a 3 or 4% increase in energy is expected. Those prices will leave the poor a lot poorer. Or do you disagree?

The trickle down of increased costs from the tax will end up being paid by everyone. When the poor are getting proportionally WAY WAY WAY WAY more back than they should considering how much taxes they pay, please answer this:

HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THIS IS NOT AN INCOME REDISTRIBUTION PLAN?????????

It is a an environmental plan that won't penalize the poor as heavily as Harper's plan.

[Moonbox]

There are those insults that we have come to know and love from the right wing. Where do you learn it? At the Tory warroom? Is there a reason why you have to be this way?

That's you being overly sensitive. I directed no insults to you. I apologize if my tone came off as condescending, but it took me about 25 tries to get you to even acknowledge my repeatedly asking you for an answer as to why the poor are the ones seeing (proportionally) a ludicrously high tax benefit compared to the rest of us.

It is a an environmental plan that won't penalize the poor as heavily as Harper's plan.

This was the best answer you could provide me. What do you say to the fact that a family with 2 kids and a combined income of $20,000 stands to get about $2200 back from the Green Shift whereas a single person making 40k gets about 400? I understand that the poor have less flexibility with their income, but what that SHOULD mean is that they get their tax credits/refunds/reductions increased relative to how much it increases their cost of living. For this to be the case under the current formula, the Green Shift would have to raise carbon prices by over 10%. If that's what the Green Shift is going to do then it is going to be disastrous for the Canadian economy. If that's not happening, then this is income redistribution pure and simple.

Again Jdobbin, you're really just towing the party line here. I'm going over MATH with you and you're just repeating what you see Dion saying. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

For the Green Shift to be anything less than income redistribution, someone making 60k a year should at LEAST get as much back as someone making 20k a year. This is 100% not the case. The only conclusion possible is that this is income redistribution. It's just increased taxes and the numbers show that. The economists and experts you have indicated who support the plan do so on the basis that it's an environmental plan that could reduce carbon emissions. NONE of them are refuting that this is income redistribution because economists work with numbers and they see this.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Moonbox

[independent]

That's you being overly sensitive. I directed no insults to you. I apologize if my tone came off as condescending, but it took me about 25 tries to get you to even acknowledge my repeatedly asking you for an answer as to why the poor are the ones seeing (proportionally) a ludicrously high tax benefit compared to the rest of us.

This was the best answer you could provide me. What do you say to the fact that a family with 2 kids and a combined income of $20,000 stands to get about $2200 back from the Green Shift whereas a single person making 40k gets about 400? I understand that the poor have less flexibility with their income, but what that SHOULD mean is that they get their tax credits/refunds/reductions increased relative to how much it increases their cost of living. For this to be the case under the current formula, the Green Shift would have to raise carbon prices by over 10%. If that's what the Green Shift is going to do then it is going to be disastrous for the Canadian economy. If that's not happening, then this is income redistribution pure and simple.

Again Jdobbin, you're really just towing the party line here. I'm going over MATH with you and you're just repeating what you see Dion saying. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

For the Green Shift to be anything less than income redistribution, someone making 60k a year should at LEAST get as much back as someone making 20k a year. This is 100% not the case. The only conclusion possible is that this is income redistribution. It's just increased taxes and the numbers show that. The economists and experts you have indicated who support the plan do so on the basis that it's an environmental plan that could reduce carbon emissions. NONE of them are refuting that this is income redistribution because economists work with numbers and they see this.

rich guy owns fuel efficient car. R2000 house.

poor guy drives a clunger that spits more gas out the back end than in burns. His house has very little insulation.

which guy gets taxed the higher.

Do you think in might be possible that someone with money is more able to cut back on emissions than the poor guy

[Moonbox]

rich guy owns fuel efficient car. R2000 house.

poor guy drives a clunger that spits more gas out the back end than in burns. His house has very little insulation.

which guy gets taxed the higher.

Do you think in might be possible that someone with money is more able to cut back on emissions than the poor guy

The carbon tax doesn't just tax people directly. Transportation, consumer goods etc ALL go up. I understand poor people have trouble being energy efficient. I understand they need to be helped a little. The 'help' in the case of a $20k/year income household with 2 kids, however, amounts to over 10% of their income back in refunds/credits/whatever at $2200. For myself, with a 40k income, I get $400/year back. I am not wasting energy. I live like half a block from work. My house is well insulated and new. The Green Shift doesn't care about this. The Green Shift aims to increase the cost of everything I buy through taxes and give a mathematically unjustifiable proportion of this back to people who can't find better work than Wall-Mart.

The Green Shift is NOT going to increase the cost of living for a poor family by 10%. I challenge anyone to provide ANY sort of justification for this. For this to be the case the increased taxes on energy for a poor family would have to account for over 10% of their income! Given this, why are they getting 10% of their income back via the Green Shift?

Income redistribution..........

[independent]

The carbon tax doesn't just tax people directly. Transportation, consumer goods etc ALL go up. I understand poor people have trouble being energy efficient. I understand they need to be helped a little. The 'help' in the case of a $20k/year income household with 2 kids, however, amounts to over 10% of their income back in refunds/credits/whatever at $2200. For myself, with a 40k income, I get $400/year back. I am not wasting energy. I live like half a block from work. My house is well insulated and new. The Green Shift doesn't care about this. The Green Shift aims to increase the cost of everything I buy through taxes and give a mathematically unjustifiable proportion of this back to people who can't find better work than Wall-Mart.

The Green Shift is NOT going to increase the cost of living for a poor family by 10%. I challenge anyone to provide ANY sort of justification for this. For this to be the case the increased taxes on energy for a poor family would have to account for over 10% of their income! Given this, why are they getting 10% of their income back via the Green Shift?

Income redistribution..........

You do not sound hard up.( new house). The people at walmart work hard for a living. Unless their spouse has a good job they likely renting. Why should I feel sorry for you. Everything they buy will go up in cost just as much for them as for you. Every cent they make usually goes right back into the economy. If you are getting $400/year back and live a block from work I see you being way ahead. I really do not see your expenses going up that much.

[jdobbin]

That's you being overly sensitive. I directed no insults to you. I apologize if my tone came off as condescending, but it took me about 25 tries to get you to even acknowledge my repeatedly asking you for an answer as to why the poor are the ones seeing (proportionally) a ludicrously high tax benefit compared to the rest of us.

It is condescending and insulting and if you do it public, I expect it usually results in you losing friends, turning off family or risking a punch in the nose by strangers.

I have said many times that the plan is to ensure the poor don't take a huge hit from the tax. The Harper plan would kill the poor.

This was the best answer you could provide me. What do you say to the fact that a family with 2 kids and a combined income of $20,000 stands to get about $2200 back from the Green Shift whereas a single person making 40k gets about 400? I understand that the poor have less flexibility with their income, but what that SHOULD mean is that they get their tax credits/refunds/reductions increased relative to how much it increases their cost of living. For this to be the case under the current formula, the Green Shift would have to raise carbon prices by over 10%. If that's what the Green Shift is going to do then it is going to be disastrous for the Canadian economy. If that's not happening, then this is income redistribution pure and simple.

The richer person is able to make greater changes to mitigate their exposure to the tax. Do you deny that?

The tax places a price on carbon and makes those that have the means looks for other ways to limit their exposure to the tax. The poor have less means of doing that.

Harper's plan would make the poor poorer. His plan is an income distribution that hits the poor harder than anyone else.

Again Jdobbin, you're really just towing the party line here. I'm going over MATH with you and you're just repeating what you see Dion saying. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

And you are repeating the party line that is just an income distribution plan. It is a plan put in place to reduce carbon use.

For the Green Shift to be anything less than income redistribution, someone making 60k a year should at LEAST get as much back as someone making 20k a year. This is 100% not the case. The only conclusion possible is that this is income redistribution. It's just increased taxes and the numbers show that. The economists and experts you have indicated who support the plan do so on the basis that it's an environmental plan that could reduce carbon emissions. NONE of them are refuting that this is income redistribution because economists work with numbers and they see this.

Does someone earning $60,000 a year has more means to reduce their usage of carbon than someone earning $20,000.

Harper's plan would see more poor people suffer greatly.

The Tory party line is not to talk about their own plan. Harper said on Saturday that it is still on. If so, it will as costly with ni tax changes to mitigate the costs. Moreover, it will be terrible for the poor.

If Harper doesn't go through with the plan, he is a liar. But more importantly, he is likely pushing the costs to the next administration. Perhaps Harper doesn't believe in global warming but if he doesn't, he should say so instead of lying to the public even more about having a plan.

Edited October 14, 2008 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

It is condescending and insulting and if you do it public, I expect it usually results in you losing friends, turning off family or risking a punch in the nose by strangers.

This is coming from the guy who got upset someone called him 'dobby'.

I have said many times that the plan is to ensure the poor don't take a huge hit from the tax. The Harper plan would kill the poor.

The richer person is able to make greater changes to mitigate their exposure to the tax. Do you deny that?

I already acknowledged it! Scroll up a little! My response was that there is no possible way to justify the AMOUNT of concessions made in the plan towards the poor. The math doesn't work out! Again, because you have such an amazing talent to squirm away from a question you can't answer, I'll repeat my question. Can you go over the MATH we me explaining how the carbon tax would increase the cost of living for the poorest Canadians by over 10%??? That would be the only way the government could justify a 10% income tax reduction for the poor, which is what the Green Shift calculator is showing. Don't even bother replying unless you're willing to address that. I've wasted too much time responding to your avoidance of the CENTRAL issue in my argument.

This is the difference between my argument and yours. Your argument is fervent repetition of what Dion is telling us. My argument is going over numbers taken directly off the Liberal website.

Harper's plan would make the poor poorer.

The Tory party line is not to talk about their own plan. Harper said on Saturday that it is still on. If so, it will as costly with ni tax changes to mitigate the costs. Moreover, it will be terrible for the poor.

If Harper doesn't go through with the plan, he is a liar. But more importantly, he is likely pushing the costs to the next administration. Perhaps Harper doesn't believe in global warming but if he doesn't, he should say so instead of lying to the public even more about having a plan.

This is why I can't take your arguments seriously. I JUST went over this only 1 post previous. I asked you to stop bringing this up with me because I've OPENLY acknowledged that Harper has put ZERO priority on the environment right now and that it's VERY likely he'll never follow through on his plan. Does it make him a liar? As much a liar as Dion for claiming the Green Shift is revenue neutral. Revenue neutral for the government means NOTHING. Whether my money goes towards debt reduction, hospitals, welfare or thinly disguised subsidization of the poor (the Green Shift), the bottom line is that when the government takes more of my money and I get less back, it's not revenue neutral.