One of the reasons I won't be voting for Harper: Economic record

[Bonam]

The housing bubble is not an accident... its government policy.

Of course it's government policy. The voting majority are people that own homes and benefit from the increase in value of their one significant asset. The fact that it makes homes affordable for future generations is not their concern. If any politician said that housing prices need to come down, the boomers would scream bloody murder since most of them have planned their retirements around using their home equity.

The long term damage to the economy and the fact that younger generations are unable to buy in places like Vancouver is all sacrificed to the generation in power. Pretty much ALL government spending is about wealth transfer from all other generations to the boomer generation.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Bonam

[drummindiver]

And again, what precisely is the problem with taxing any commodity for the damage it does. Perhaps traffic accidents is a bit of a stretch, since electric cars and bicycles are not immune to such occurrences, but since pretty much every climatologist out there directly links the use of fossil fuels to CO2 emissions, and CO2 emissions to trapping more heat in the lower atmosphere, and trapping heat in the lower atmosphere to greatly exaggerated climate change and rising oceanic acidity levels. In other words, fossil fuels cause environmental damage and affect global climate.

Think of it as a sin tax.

So all you methane producing beef eaters will be paying taxes for contributing the worst gas for GGE (not the most common, the worst acting)

Awesome. Maybe it will move the culture away from factory farming, CAFOs etc.

[69cat]

Marcus should really read the link "producer support" before posting it as in every case i see the current government is reducing support. Got to page 7 and saw things like Canadian exploration and development expense and accelerated Capital Cost Allowance deductions are all being cut back from previous years. The link even specifically shows how these are applied to oil sands.

And as Argus says, the provincial governments have a greater say in how they develop policies for taxation of resources.

Marcus, can you point out where in your link that the Harper gov has increased the benefits for resource development/extraction vs, say, pre 2008 levels?

[69cat]

Regarding housing bubble, if you mean low interest rates are the "gov policy" referenced then that would be true. But no one is being forced to build/buy houses at the limit of their income, but they do.

It is not so much a "bubble" but rather people are building more expensive houses because of cheap credit and the assumption that value will always increase, i would never call this gov policy but have at it if you think so. Nothing is ever the voters fault, it is always the govs fault.

When was the last time a new 700 sq ft bungalow was built in a city unless it was specifically targeted for low income housing. Even a "starter home" with 700 sq ft foot print is an eloborate two story with vaulted ceilings and multiple bathrooms. So yes, housing prices are increasing, and yes, when interest rates rise there will be a lot of people maxed out on credit. And sure, if you arent very bright and are caught up in all this, you will blame Harper. Anyone with independent thought will know its your own fault.

Edited September 23, 2015 by 69cat

[TimG]

When was the last time a new 700 sq ft bungalow was built in a city unless it was specifically targeted for low income housing.

In the past land was cheap but building materials were expensive. Now land is expensive and building materials are cheap (relatively speaking). It does not make financial sense to buy a plot of land and not build the largest building possible given the zoning bylaws.

[69cat]

When you go for a $300,000 mortgage because credit is cheap and that is the max you can borrow based on a 25 year term and your income, how is it relevant to what the price of the lot is - you are buying a package deal because you are likely not to move your house off if the price of the building or the lot changes significantly. You offer up one more excuse to justify borrowing to your limit.

I understand what you are saying, and it is true, and it explains why many people are building new vs used. But the end result is your point actually aids in driving the rational that people max out their credit and build as big as they can and then we look at what happens when interest rates rise. People cant afford what they built, new buyers also cant, expensive homes loose out on possible new buyers, demand drops, house prices drop, correction in market. Even the land will drop as demand for development drops.

The alternative is build a less expensive home, borrow $200,000 for a shorter term and be less impacted by interest rates. Price of lot is irrelevant in this case. In fact, in Regina it was these smaller homes that gained more value in the long run as did mine. No doubt because the price of the lot went up the same as a large house, but the guy buying my house did not consider what the dirt was worth, he bought the complete package and it will sell in the future as a complete package. Only when you look at buying a house to tear it down will you factor the value of the lot.

[Canada_First]

PM Harper is the only one with a serious plan for the economy. The other guys plan to increase taxes and increase spending. We don't need our government going on a spending spree we need a steady hand on the wheel. An experienced hand that will steer us to modest profitability while lowering taxes and providing a good environment for job creation.

[marcus]

You can't possibly make that claim until you know the difference between what is available now vs when he took power, and what is available vs other industries. And you don't.

Hey. Check this out - This is supposed to be our prime minister: The little that has been done to respond to the pollution the oil companies make, ends up being paid by us, the taxpayers. Instead of the polluting, billion dollar making oil, gas and pipeline companies, including a few international companies paying for it. We are. Yes. Harper has paid the oil companies $400 million with our taxes to do green projects to make the oil companies look green. Thank you prime minister of oil companies.

Canadian taxpayers have given more than $400 million to some large oil, gas and pipeline companies in recent years to support green projects that are also boosting the industry’s environmental credentials.

An analysis of federal accounting records by Postmedia News shows that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has offered these subsidies to money-making companies such as Shell Canada, Suncor, Husky Energy and Enbridge to pursue projects in biofuels production and wind energy as well as new technology to capture carbon pollution and bury it underground.

More lefty media: Link

[WIP]

Well, apparently they feel the oil and gas industry should be taxed for " traffic accidents, carbon emissions, pollution and road congestion" !

So, tax the car companies for the traffic accidents and congestion, but the carbon and related pollution are clearly costs that are externalized by the petro industries onto the global commons....in other words, we all get left paying for the damaging effects while they pocket all the profits!

And, besides taxes, we now have grounds to launch a massive lawsuit against at least one major petroleum company for burying their own research on projected harms that would be caused by global warming....it's remarkably similar to the cigarette manufacturers who buried their research on cigarettes&cancer: Investigation Finds Exxon Ignored Its Own Early Climate Change Warnings

[69cat]

So marcus, your point is that the government should not promote any green energy or biofuel projects?

I think it is good for the government to fund projects and research of this nature. While i dont think wind power will fly, the government funding to this area of power generation will help in determinig its validity. I guess it would be best for no government support at all, because, as i say, my opinion is it is not viable so all support for research and development should therefore end. Looks like other more knowledgeable people think more research is warranted and so government programs exist to pursue various projects, the article even says there are projects going forward without government support so maybe i am wrong in my opinion.

And how about biofuels. I think that there may come a day when it is viable. In fact if i was running a livestock operation i think i could economically crush canola on my farm and generate bio diesel while using the waste for livestock feedstock and come out a few pennies ahead. Now if the tech is that close already i think more research and development in this area will make it more so. How do you explain your position that the government should not support any projects in this area? I am always looking at ways to get away from oil where as you have the position that there should be no government spending that would encourage this.

[angrypenguin]

Hell, the main reason I am voting Conservative is because of the economic record and the economy!

Trudeau will sink us back into deficits, and I do not believe 1 iota from him about a surplus in Year 4.

Mulcair is like a snake oil salesman. He's selling something to everyone and he promises to balance the budget. Yeah, right

Devil I know and all. Plus, I hope people actually look at how quickly and how aggressively the Conservatives balanced their budget YoY since that massive spend in 2008.

AND, last time I voted Liberal!

Edited September 30, 2015 by angrypenguin

[On Guard for Thee]

Hell, the main reason I am voting Conservative is because of the economic record and the economy!

Trudeau will sink us back into deficits, and I do not believe 1 iota from him about a surplus in Year 4.

Mulcair is like a snake oil salesman. He's selling something to everyone and he promises to balance the budget. Yeah, right

Devil I know and all. Plus, I hope people actually look at how quickly and how aggressively the Conservatives balanced their budget YoY since that massive spend in 2008.

AND, last time I voted Liberal!

How quickly do you think they did that?

[angrypenguin]

How quickly do you think they did that?

Look at the rate of deficit reduction post 2008. Show me any government that can dig us out of deficits in one of the greatest global recessions in history. They invested hard and deep into the country, took out loans, and got us OUT of it (and got us out of it where many countries are STILL holding massive deficits because they can't get out of it) And now the Liberals want to plunge us back in?

No freaking way. Not for this voter.

Edited September 30, 2015 by angrypenguin

[On Guard for Thee]

Look at the rate of deficit reduction post 2008. Show me any government that can dig us out of deficits in one of the greatest global recessions in history. They invested hard and deep into the country, took out loans, and got us OUT of it (and got us out of it where many countries are STILL holding massive deficits because they can't get out of it) And now the Liberals want to plunge us back in?

No freaking way. Not for this voter.

Look at the surplus handed to Harper., and the look what he did with it prior to '08. And he kept us there as the only G7 in deficit. We're not even sure if we are out of it yet. Time for a change is on so many minds for good reason.

[angrypenguin]

Look at the surplus handed to Harper., and the look what he did with it prior to '08. And he kept us there as the only G7 in deficit. We're not even sure if we are out of it yet. Time for a change is on so many minds for good reason.

I've heard this argument before.

2008 was an unprecedented event. All 3 parties (IIRC) wanted to spend money to get us out of it. Canada is the only country in the G7 in deficit?

Really? Have you looked up the US federal deficit???

Plus, Trudeau is touting his party line. Let's spend more on infrastructure. Dude, really? The Conservatives have spent the most in Infrastructure projects than any other Federal government in the history of Canada, and Trudeau wants to triple that spend?

Puhlease.

Anyone who votes Liberal is a hypocrit. Trudeau has said that deficits are bad under Harper, yet he wants to run 3 years worth of deficits. And we don't need to at this point. There is no global recession crisis at this point. And when he uses that line in the debates about...."wouldn't you borrow when the rates are low?" - that screams idiocy to me. Micro and macro economics are two completely different topics.

Edited September 30, 2015 by angrypenguin

[On Guard for Thee]

I've heard this argument before.

2008 was an unprecedented event. All 3 parties (IIRC) wanted to spend money to get us out of it. Canada is the only country in the G7 in deficit?

Really? Have you looked up the US federal deficit???

Plus, Trudeau is touting his party line. Let's spend more on infrastructure. Dude, really? The Conservatives have spent the most in Infrastructure projects than any other Federal government in the history of Canada, and Trudeau wants to triple that spend?

Puhlease.

Anyone who votes Liberal is a hypocrit. Trudeau has said that deficits are bad under Harper, yet he wants to run 3 years worth of deficits. And we don't need to at this point. There is no global recession crisis at this point. And when he uses that line in the debates about...."wouldn't you borrow when the rates are low?" - that screams idiocy to me. Micro and macro economics are two completely different topics.

Harper earmarked a lot of money for infrastructure, but never spent it, just lie he did for vets and various other departments. Apparently you fell for the hype. So dude, you really need to do a bit more homework.

[angrypenguin]

Harper earmarked a lot of money for infrastructure, but never spent it, just lie he did for vets and various other departments. Apparently you fell for the hype. So dude, you really need to do a bit more homework.

I believe in factual discussion, and realize that on this board, and others, many people, including myself, are passionate about politics.

So pray tell, your allegation is that Harper earmarked a LOT of money on infrastructure but didn't spend it, do share. Please provide some data.

And if that IS the case, good on him. That means he didn't need to spend it, so paying down the deficit that they took was the right thing to do. Canada returned to a surplus (which is a rounding error to be honest) quickly, so good on them for not wasting money in infrastructure.

PS, even if that were true, Flaherty would have been the one that earmarked it.

Edited September 30, 2015 by angrypenguin

[On Guard for Thee]

I believe in factual discussion, and realize that on this board, and others, many people, including myself, are passionate about politics.

So pray tell, your allegation is that Harper earmarked a LOT of money on infrastructure but didn't spend it, do share. Please provide some data.

And if that IS the case, good on him. That means he didn't need to spend it, so paying down the deficit that they took was the right thing to do. Canada returned to a surplus (which is a rounding error to be honest) quickly, so good on them for not wasting money in infrastructure.

PS, even if that were true, Flaherty would have been the one that earmarked it.

Oh for christ sake don't you listen to the news? Here's a start.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/federal-departments-left-8-7-billion-unspent-last-year

[angrypenguin]

Oh for christ sake don't you listen to the news? Here's a start.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/federal-departments-left-8-7-billion-unspent-last-year

"But federal departments and agencies also chipped in by handing back an estimated $8.7 billion for different programs that had been requested — and in some cases publicly announced — by the government and approved by Parliament."

Why is this an issue? If they didn't need to spend it, then that's great!

Edited September 30, 2015 by angrypenguin

[On Guard for Thee]

"But federal departments and agencies also chipped in by handing back an estimated $8.7 billion for different programs that had been requested — and in some cases publicly announced — by the government and approved by Parliament."

Why is this an issue? If they didn't need to spend it, then that's great!

Except they did need to spend it and by not doing so they robbed deserving people, such as vets, of services, and only to throw numbers around that their head in the sand supporters have allowed themselves to be convinced is now a surplus.

[angrypenguin]

Except they did need to spend it and by not doing so they robbed deserving people, such as vets, of services, and only to throw numbers around that their head in the sand supporters have allowed themselves to be convinced is now a surplus.

Robbed deserving people? I'm sorry, but I disagree with you there. "Deserving people" screams entitlement to me.

Plus, we're either in a surplus or we are not. We are in one, and I expect us to be in one again. Governments don't NEED to spend money on anyone.

[On Guard for Thee]

Robbed deserving people? I'm sorry, but I disagree with you there. "Deserving people" screams entitlement to me.

Plus, we're either in a surplus or we are not. We are in one, and I expect us to be in one again. Governments don't NEED to spend money on anyone.

I guess they don't NEED to, but if they promise to and then keep it they are lying. Cue Harper.

[angrypenguin]

I guess they don't NEED to, but if they promise to and then keep it they are lying. Cue Harper.

Ok so let's say I'm screwed financially. I go to the bank, and I say I need $1 million. And then I realize that between a pay raise and other indicators I don't need to, you're telling me I should borrow the million $ anyways?

Come on.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ok so let's say I'm screwed financially. I go to the bank, and I say I need $1 million. And then I realize that between a pay raise and other indicators I don't need to, you're telling me I should borrow the million $ anyways?

Come on.

Wow, you sure missed the point there. Shutting down services and then saying, oh we didn't need the money after all, is nothing short of dishonest. Harper is well known for it.

[poochy]

I've heard this argument before.

Don't waste your time, he will never stop spreading the same out of context talking points, he cares only for a liberal win, he doesn't care about the means to that end.