What the ballot question SHOULD be

[noahbody]

Who is the best choice to manage the Canadian economy at this time?

At the end of the day, it's the economy that's the engine behind health care, jobs and social programs. The economy needs to be the focus. It should be about who you'd want to invite to dinner, it should be about what Canada needs.

Unfortunately, I think this question, though it should IMO be obvious, has got lost in all of the rhetoric like 'Ignatieff isn't in it for you' or 'Harper wants absolute power.' If you've bought into either of these, you've bought into what the other parties have sold you. Is Harper a control freak? Of course he is. He might not like it, but he needs to be. But if he can make good decisions for the country, that should be what matters.

Should it matter if Ignatieff considered the US his country? No. Is Harper a threat to Canadian democracy or universal health care? No.

As far as the economy goes, in tough economic times, Ignatieff last ran on the need to implement the Green Shift. He is right when he says Harper doesn't deserve all of the credit for the economy. The real credit belongs to those who voted against that lack of judgment.

Though the economy is stronger than most coming out of the recession, it's still fragile and it's not time for drastic changes (the Green Shift/NDP) or for implementing grand programs like the Universal Daycare. Our other universal program is the one that needs the attention.

As for Jack, he's another Dion. He'll take on big oil and work for the little guy, which sounds nice until you consider the oil sands is 240,000 jobs. That is the little guy. A vote for Jack, is a vote for putting Canadians out of work, lowering government revenues and having to raise taxes. Now is not the time for that.

[KeyStone]

Who is the best choice to manage the Canadian economy at this time?

At the end of the day, it's the economy that's the engine behind health care, jobs and social programs. The economy needs to be the focus. It should be about who you'd want to invite to dinner, it should be about what Canada needs.

Unfortunately, I think this question, though it should IMO be obvious, has got lost in all of the rhetoric like 'Ignatieff isn't in it for you' or 'Harper wants absolute power.' If you've bought into either of these, you've bought into what the other parties have sold you. Is Harper a control freak? Of course he is. He might not like it, but he needs to be. But if he can make good decisions for the country, that should be what matters.

Should it matter if Ignatieff considered the US his country? No. Is Harper a threat to Canadian democracy or universal health care? No.

As far as the economy goes, in tough economic times, Ignatieff last ran on the need to implement the Green Shift. He is right when he says Harper doesn't deserve all of the credit for the economy. The real credit belongs to those who voted against that lack of judgment.

Though the economy is stronger than most coming out of the recession, it's still fragile and it's not time for drastic changes (the Green Shift/NDP) or for implementing grand programs like the Universal Daycare. Our other universal program is the one that needs the attention.

As for Jack, he's another Dion. He'll take on big oil and work for the little guy, which sounds nice until you consider the oil sands is 240,000 jobs. That is the little guy. A vote for Jack, is a vote for putting Canadians out of work, lowering government revenues and having to raise taxes. Now is not the time for that.

I'm amazed at the PR machine.

Most people think that a Conservative or Republican government is best at managing the economy and lowering government spending.

But in actual practice, we see that Conservative and Republican governments are generally the ones that create huge deficits and increase government spending to unprecedented levels.

Furthermore, looking at numbers like GDP is only indicator of economic success. The other indicator is the Gini coefficient which gives us an idea of how well divided that wealth is.

What different does it make to most Canadians if our GDP goes up 4 percent a year, if the lion's share of that wealth is going to the top five percent of income earners?

This trickle down effect which never made sense in the first place, makes even less sense now that we have such porous borders where the wealthiest five percent are just as likely to buy their goods and services from other countries, and invest in other countries. There are no guarantees that the crumbs that the wealthy drop will be gobbled up by the Canadian poor.

So, in other words, if we want to focus on the economy, we should not be asking who has the best chance of increasing GDP, but who has the best chance of ensuring that the jobs we have in Canada are good jobs, and that those without jobs are properly provided for, and that those not yet in the job force, have the opportunities to educate themselves affordably so that they can compete for the good jobs.

[Moonbox]

But in actual practice, we see that Conservative and Republican governments are generally the ones that create huge deficits and increase government spending to unprecedented levels.

The Republicans are so far out of the Canadian political spectrum the comparison is pointless. Even the Democrats in the US are more right wing than our Conservatives. As for deficits, the bulk of our debt is still a direct result of Pierre Trudeau. We had almost no debt before Trudeau took over and by the time he was gone our debt level was 50% of GDP. The interest payments on then servicing that debt were so high that even though Mulroney ran balanced operating budgets, he still ran massive deficits.

Our debt is Pierre Trudeau's fault and people still worship him for selling us out to finance his legend.

[noahbody]

I'm amazed at the PR machine.

Most people think that a Conservative or Republican government is best at managing the economy and lowering government spending.

But in actual practice, we see that Conservative and Republican governments are generally the ones that create huge deficits and increase government spending to unprecedented levels.

In actual practice, Ignatieff campaigned on implementing the Green Shift during a recession. In actual practice, Jack's campaigning to sacrifice our economy. You can judge Harper on his budget.

What you said is actual practice, ironically, is something you must've heard from a PR machine. As pointed out, you can't compare Canadian Conservatives to American Republicans. Nor should you generalize Canadian Conservative governments. Each one is different. Mulroney implemented the GST and was behind the Free Trade Agreement.

What different does it make to most Canadians if our GDP goes up 4 percent a year, if the lion's share of that wealth is going to the top five percent of income earners?

That's just not reality. Politicians and activists always want you to think of 'big oil' as greedy billionaires. Aside from the revenues they generate for government coffers though royalties/taxes, they are a major Canadian employer and countless small and medium sized business, that are also employers, exist because of them. Behind corporations are investors who are ordinary Canadians as well.

What Jack is proposing is to use the oil sands as a tax grab. If he stops development all of the jobs that will be created due to Obama wanting to lessen the US's dependency on the Middle East won't be created and many Canadians will be laid off. All Canadians will be paying more at the pumps.

This trickle down effect which never made sense in the first place, makes even less sense now that we have such porous borders where the wealthiest five percent are just as likely to buy their goods and services from other countries, and invest in other countries. There are no guarantees that the crumbs that the wealthy drop will be gobbled up by the Canadian poor.

I'm talking about real jobs about to be created and 240,000 that already exist due to the oil sands. The trickle down effect is that if you tax heavily, the taxes will trickle down to the poor who can least afford it and Canadians will lose their jobs creating poor.

So, in other words, if we want to focus on the economy, we should not be asking who has the best chance of increasing GDP, but who has the best chance of ensuring that the jobs we have in Canada are good jobs, and that those without jobs are properly provided for, and that those not yet in the job force, have the opportunities to educate themselves affordably so that they can compete for the good jobs.

We are talking about good jobs. Real ones; not the promise of 'green jobs' that Dion promised would be created out of thin air. Whoever becomes PM of Canada needs to support our industry and tell the world and how it's taking measures to become more environmentally responsible. That Jack is Canadian leadership.

[TimG]

But in actual practice, we see that Conservative and Republican governments are generally the ones that create huge deficits and increase government spending to unprecedented levels.

Governments of all stripes ran deficits until the 90s. The budget was balanced under Clinton because of a Republican congress. In Canada it was a Liberal government which is centrist.

Furthermore, looking at numbers like GDP is only indicator of economic success. The other indicator is the Gini coefficient which gives us an idea of how well divided that wealth is.

Right so you philosophy it is better to be poor as a long as everyone is poor together.

This trickle down effect which never made sense in the first place, makes even less sense now that we have such porous borders where the wealthiest five percent are just as likely to buy their goods and services from other countries, and invest in other countries.

The top 10% of tax payers in this country had 100 billion in income and paid 25 billion in federal taxes (provincial is another $25 billion top of that). I think they pay enough taxes.

So, in other words, if we want to focus on the economy, we should not be asking who has the best chance of increasing GDP, but who has the best chance of ensuring that the jobs we have in Canada are good jobs

That would be the party with the pro-economic growth policies. Socialist government always end up increasing unemployment by making it musch more expensive to run a business and hire employees.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Governments of all stripes ran deficits until the 90s. The budget was balanced under Clinton because of a Republican congress.

Remember not to ignore 2001-2006 to see how Republicans really want to run an economy.

[Battletoads]

That would be the party with the pro-economic growth policies. Socialist government always end up increasing unemployment by making it musch more expensive to run a business and hire employees.

The dregs of the right always spout that as a fact, yet they fail to come up with supporting evidence.