Why I Won't Vote NDP

[WIP]

They're for depreciating assets, which oil wells and mines are. They aren't exactly free to set up either. What you're demanding is the natural resources industries be penalized because... because... uh, you don't like them.

I don't believe wells and mines should have ever qualified as depreciating assets. Maybe the machinery used in development could apply, but it should never have been extended to the resource itself, which should have always been regarded as a public asset. If that would have made resource extraction more costly, consider the fact that these are "non"renewable resources....once their used up, they're gone! The course of western history in recent centuries has been to just take it out of the ground as fast as possible and go dig somewhere else when you run out. Obviously not the strategy for any civilization that intends to stick around for any great length of time.

Well, I can see how this would make oil and gas more expensive. I'm a little confused about how it would make renewables any cheaper, though. And I think you're kind of glossing over that bit about the economic downturn we get with more expensive power. You're also ignoring that power is already so expensive in Ontario due to its zealous pursuit of green energy that many people are having a hard time affording to pay their bills. Do you WANT a lot of freezing old people sitting in the dark?

We'll see how that turns out! I pay hydro bills in Ontario, so I know how much it costs.

Stopping coal-fired generating stations was a necessity. That coal-fired station in Nanticoke was the single greatest source of air pollution in southern Ontario. Now, it might be a good idea to start phasing out those nuclear plants, that keep costing us money and will eventually put us at risk of our own Fukushimas. The way forward with renewables will mean more localized, smaller sources of electricity rather than big megaprojects. I don't see a future with renewable electricity running anything close to the amounts of energy we are burning through now either. It will take greater conservation and a lot less extravagant living going forward. But if we're going to get past our present ecological jam, a shift to renewable energy sources is essential.

No, as technology improves, the cost of renewable energy will decline. When it is affordable, we'll switch to it in greater numbers, and not before.

Take away the subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear...that's one that wouldn't have ever got off the ground without government subsidies...and renewables will be much better bargains by comparison.

[Argus]

We'll see how that turns out! I pay hydro bills in Ontario, so I know how much it costs.

Stopping coal-fired generating stations was a necessity. That coal-fired station in Nanticoke was the single greatest source of air pollution in southern Ontario. Now, it might be a good idea to start phasing out those nuclear plants, that keep costing us money and will eventually put us at risk of our own Fukushimas.

The nuclear plants supply half the power in Ontario and put out the cheapest power we get. I believe it's something under 6 cents per kwh. Wind power is more than double that, and unreliable. Solar power is about eight time higher and also unreliable. We should be building more nuclear plants, not retiring them.

I don't see a future with renewable electricity running anything close to the amounts of energy we are burning through now either. It will take greater conservation and a lot less extravagant living going forward.

I'm all for conservation, but our society, and the comforts, wealth, economy, recreation and life enjoyment we all have is built on the intensive use of power. Canadians are not about to give all that up. Especially for no foreseeable benefit to them.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Argus

[socialist]

Mulcair and Trudeau will try to weasle out of those carbon reduction targets....as will every other western leader...just like they've done other time so far. Elizabeth May is the only one who would stop Tar Sands, but the Green Party's not going to form a government.

Shutting down the tar sands seems like it will be accomplished by those same market forces you've become a fan of lately, since collapsing world economies are going to suppress oil prices for the next few years, and keep them below levels where tar sands exploitation is profitable.

Many hidden regressive agendas and habits keep leaking out of the Orange Crush Plan, that if we are not astute and careful could crush Canada.

These NDP people are anti-wealth for the citizens’ – so they can control us. Totalitarian Authoritarians.

[PIK]

The nuclear plants supply half the power in Ontario and put out the cheapest power we get. I believe it's something under 6 cents per kwh. Wind power is more than double that, and unreliable. Solar power is about eight time higher and also unreliable. We should be building more nuclear plants, not retiring them.

I'm all for conservation, but our society, and the comforts, wealth, economy, recreation and life enjoyment we all have is built on the intensive use of power. Canadians are not about to give all that up. Especially for no foreseeable benefit to them.

Lets just open up the dams,that we have now and are not using and we will be fine. And if we need more we make a deal with quebec. But that is to simple for liberals, they like big splashes no matter how much it costs.

[Hudson Jones]

Every province has to go through an NDP Government once to remind themselves why they should never form Government. We did in BC. Ontario did. Alberta is learning. Maybe it's time Canada did.

It's kind of a rite of passage. Like getting drunk on lemon gin as a teenager. It seems like a good idea at the time. Until you wake up the next day.

I find it interesting that Roy Romanow's name never appears when people try to use the history of provincial NDP governments to argue that the federal NDP cannot succeed.

There’s no denying Bob Rae (the poster child of the Conservatives of what a federal NDP government will be like) ran up deficits. There’s also no denying he took office as the world’s economy was slumping, exacerbated in Ontario by the then-new free trade agreement’s impact on manufacturing. So he used public spending to counter the harm — just as Stephen Harper has done.

When discussing economy and economic record, wouldn't it make better sense to look at the economic record of the guy in the office right now? Which has been one of the worst since WWII? Don't the Conservatives use "economic downturn" as the reason for this record?

Back to Romanow - Why do you not talk about him in Saskatchewan, where he repaired the ruinous finances left behind by Grant Devine’s Conservatives.

[socialist]

I find it interesting that Roy Romanow's name never appears when people try to use the history of provincial NDP governments to argue that the federal NDP cannot succeed.

There’s no denying Bob Rae (the poster child of the Conservatives of what a federal NDP government will be like) ran up deficits. There’s also no denying he took office as the world’s economy was slumping, exacerbated in Ontario by the then-new free trade agreement’s impact on manufacturing. So he used public spending to counter the harm — just as Stephen Harper has done.

When discussing economy and economic record, wouldn't it make better sense to look at the economic record of the guy in the office right now? Which has been one of the worst since WWII? Don't the Conservatives use "economic downturn" as the reason for this record?

Back to Romanow - Why do you not talk about him in Saskatchewan, where he repaired the ruinous finances left behind by Grant Devine’s Conservatives.

Brad Wall has turned Sask. into a have province after years of struggles under an NDP government. I'm non-partisan so I will also say Devine was a disaster, as was Alison Redford in Alberta.

I call it like it is without the partisan hackisms of most members on this forum.

[Hudson Jones]

Brad Wall has turned Sask. into a have province after years of struggles under an NDP government. I'm non-partisan so I will also say Devine was a disaster, as was Alison Redford in Alberta.

I call it like it is without the partisan hackisms of most members on this forum.

You keep saying that you're non-partisan, but your constant cherry picking shows something else. If all parties have had terrible records in provinces, then why only use the negative history of provincial NDP as your reason not to support Mulcair? What about how Romanow saved Saskatchewan after Devine ruined it? Under his NDP government, he made a lot of fiscally responsible choices. Devine's Conservative party morphed into the Saskatchewan Party, the same party you are giving credit to.

How come Devine, Mulroney and even Harper's terrible record do not define the Conservatives but Bob Rae in Ontario and the terrible NDP party in B.C. define the federal NDP? It makes no sense.

So why is it that you don't talk about Harper's terrible economic record? Pretty much in every category, when compared to other prime ministers, he has the worst record or one of the worst records.

I like some of the things Brad Wall has done. He was also fortunate to come into power during a time where the abundance of natural resources, such as potash, oil and gas, suddenly jumped in prices. His fortunate timing in office aside, the reason why I like him is that he has not sat back to ride the natural resources wave. He has invested and nurtured other sectors as well. He has also pushed to bring many skilled immigrants to Saskatchewan. Something that's hard to do, considering that most immigrants prefer to live in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal.

So Brad Wall is a different kind of Conservative, with different policies, than Devine or Harper. Just like Bob Rae NDP and his policies are different than Mulcair's NDP. For you to sit here and fear monger only shows the opposite of what you're saying. You are displaying "partisan hackism".

Edited August 17, 2015 by Hudson Jones

[socialist]

You keep saying that you're non-partisan, but your constant cherry picking shows something else. If all parties have had terrible records in provinces, then why only use the negative history of provincial NDP as your reason not to support Mulcair? What about how Romanow saved Saskatchewan after Devine ruined it? Under his NDP government, he made a lot of fiscally responsible choices. Devine's Conservative party morphed into the Saskatchewan Party, the same party you are giving credit to.

How come Devine, Mulroney and even Harper's terrible record do not define the Conservatives but Bob Rae in Ontario and the terrible NDP party in B.C. define the federal NDP? It makes no sense.

So why is it that you don't talk about Harper's terrible economic record? Pretty much in every category, when compared to other prime ministers, he has the worst record or one of the worst records.

I like some of the things Brad Wall has done. He was also fortunate to come into power during a time where the abundance of natural resources, such as potash, oil and gas, suddenly jumped in prices. His fortunate timing in office aside, the reason why I like him is that he has not sat back to ride the natural resources wave. He has invested and nurtured other sectors as well. He has also pushed to bring many skilled immigrants to Saskatchewan. Something that's hard to do, considering that most immigrants prefer to live in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal.

So Brad Wall is a different kind of Conservative, with different policies, than Devine or Harper. Just like Bob Rae NDP and his policies are different than Mulcair's NDP. For you to sit here and fear monger only shows the opposite of what you're saying. You are displaying "partisan hackism".

Yet you claim all left wing governments are good. You pretend to be fair by saying you like Brad Wall, but between the lines you credit his success to coincidence.

Look what Wynne is doing in Ontario. Ontario is in big trouble because of Wynne's left wing ideology.

[socialist]

You keep saying that you're non-partisan, but your constant cherry picking shows something else. If all parties have had terrible records in provinces, then why only use the negative history of provincial NDP as your reason not to support Mulcair? What about how Romanow saved Saskatchewan after Devine ruined it? Under his NDP government, he made a lot of fiscally responsible choices. Devine's Conservative party morphed into the Saskatchewan Party, the same party you are giving credit to.

How come Devine, Mulroney and even Harper's terrible record do not define the Conservatives but Bob Rae in Ontario and the terrible NDP party in B.C. define the federal NDP? It makes no sense.

So why is it that you don't talk about Harper's terrible economic record? Pretty much in every category, when compared to other prime ministers, he has the worst record or one of the worst records.

I like some of the things Brad Wall has done. He was also fortunate to come into power during a time where the abundance of natural resources, such as potash, oil and gas, suddenly jumped in prices. His fortunate timing in office aside, the reason why I like him is that he has not sat back to ride the natural resources wave. He has invested and nurtured other sectors as well. He has also pushed to bring many skilled immigrants to Saskatchewan. Something that's hard to do, considering that most immigrants prefer to live in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal.

So Brad Wall is a different kind of Conservative, with different policies, than Devine or Harper. Just like Bob Rae NDP and his policies are different than Mulcair's NDP. For you to sit here and fear monger only shows the opposite of what you're saying. You are displaying "partisan hackism".

In the shadow of Paul Martin... A few will actually recall that Martin chopped 40 per cent off the federal contribution to social programs ...... that the 1990s under Martin's guidance was the worst decade of the century (except for the 1930s) in terms of growth, productivity, productive investment, employment and standard of living.

The economy was booming around the world, and they still had to steal from the EI fund to balance the budget.

Liberals are addicted to stealing.

Edited August 17, 2015 by socialist

[Hudson Jones]

Yet you claim all left wing governments are good. You pretend to be fair by saying you like Brad Wall, but between the lines you credit his success to coincidence.

Yet.. what? where did you get? Even though I said: "the terrible NDP party in B.C." ? Does that sound like I said all left wing governments are good? It's important that you read the comments properly before responding.

I did give credit to Wall's success beyond the good times. I clearly wrote about it. But of course, having potash, oil and gas suddenly go up in price was a big boost to the Saskatchewan economy.

Look what Wynne is doing in Ontario. Ontario is in big trouble because of Wynne's left wing ideology.

You should probably blame her for it. Or at least blame the party she is a member of, The Liberals. Not Mulcair and his policy.

Your generalization is another reminder that you are once again displaying your "partisan hackerism".

In the shadow of Paul Martin... A few will actually recall that Martin chopped 40 per cent off the federal contribution to social programs ...... that the 1990s under Martin's guidance was the worst decade of the century (except for the 1930s) in terms of growth, productivity, productive investment, employment and standard of living.

More commentary and no substance. Let me know if you have some links or stats to back up those claims.

Of all of the prime ministers, Harper's record under Average Annual Real GDP Growth was 1.6%. Under Martin as prime minister it was 2.9% and under Chretien it was 3.5%. You can check the other claims you've made from the link below.

You can check how Harper's record has been the worst or one of the worst in the following link.

Source

I still have not decided who I am going to vote for. I do know that Harper will not be getting my vote as the only supposed strength he's had, the economy is all a myth.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Hudson Jones

[Argus]

Lets just open up the dams,that we have now and are not using and we will be fine. And if we need more we make a deal with quebec. But that is to simple for liberals, they like big splashes no matter how much it costs.

What dams do we have now and aren't using?

Edited August 17, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Of all of the prime ministers, Harper's record under Average Annual Real GDP Growth was 1.6%. Under Martin as prime minister it was 2.9% and under Chretien it was 3.5%. You can check the other claims you've made from the link below.

As I said when you posted this in another thread, you don't compare GDP growth in 2010 with GDP growth in 1940 if you honestly want to assess how well either leader did. You have to compare them to their peers who governed during the same time period. And Canada's GDP growth under Harper surpasses the US and Europe.

Not that you're interested in honesty, of course.

[socialist]

Yet.. what? where did you get? Even though I said: "the terrible NDP party in B.C." ? Does that sound like I said all left wing governments are good? It's important that you read the comments properly before responding.

Where did you mention "the terrible NDP party in B.C."?

[socialist]

Yet.. what? where did you get? Even though I said: "the terrible NDP party in B.C." ? Does that sound like I said all left wing governments are good? It's important that you read the comments properly before responding.

I did give credit to Wall's success beyond the good times. I clearly wrote about it. But of course, having potash, oil and gas suddenly go up in price was a big boost to the Saskatchewan economy.

You should probably blame her for it. Or at least blame the party she is a member of, The Liberals. Not Mulcair and his policy.

Your generalization is another reminder that you are once again displaying your "partisan hackerism".

More commentary and no substance. Let me know if you have some links or stats to back up those claims.

Of all of the prime ministers, Harper's record under Average Annual Real GDP Growth was 1.6%. Under Martin as prime minister it was 2.9% and under Chretien it was 3.5%. You can check the other claims you've made from the link below.

You can check how Harper's record has been the worst or one of the worst in the following link.

Source

I still have not decided who I am going to vote for. I do know that Harper will not be getting my vote as the only supposed strength he's had, the economy is all a myth.

I guess you need a little history lesson, Hudson. Here it is in simple English. Different decades produce different intangibles. You choose to deceive.

Paul Martin and his Liberal Party were only picking the flowers planted by the Progressive Conservative Party. To wit: on the sound banking, in 1987 the PC government changed the Bank Act to permit investment banking but with traditional leverage ratios; and, on the current good economic performance, that PC government developed NAFTA and brought in Canada's VAT, both of which have been fundamental to the superior economic performance which has been falsely credited to the aforementioned Liberals.

Denouement on the 'innovative' spelling: As they have been doing for the past half-century the Liberals exploited the voters' ignorant rage over the 'increased' taxation (the country's 'books' show it to have been, as promised, tax neutral with the removal of a manufacturer's tax) on the hustings with a promise to repeal it, won the 1993 election and then conveniently forgot that husting's promise.

[PIK]

What dams do we have now and aren't using?

Niagara falls which I understand is running under 50% . The dam system along the ottawa / madawaska rivers which according to my buddies that work there are dumping water all the time , so we have to use the expensive green stuff. And when these dams are not producing, do we send the workers home, no. They still get paid .

[Argus]

Niagara falls which I understand is running under 50% . The dam system along the ottawa / madawaska rivers which according to my buddies that work there are dumping water all the time , so we have to use the expensive green stuff. And when these dams are not producing, do we send the workers home, no. They still get paid .

Aren't they in the process of expanding the power production at Niagara Falls now, or didn't they just finish that?

Edited August 18, 2015 by Argus

[Hudson Jones]

Where did you mention "the terrible NDP party in B.C."?

You're obviously not reading the comments properly and carefully. It's difficult having a discussion when you're missing comments and are only replying to bits and pieces and then asking questions where I've already addressed them.

I am here to debate, but I'm not here to hold your hand and take you through each post several times.

[PIK]

Dams are the cheapest, greenest and most sustainable power we have. But some how shipping turbines from korea ,then trucked across the country and then tear up beautiful land is greener. I just don't get it.

[socialist]

You're obviously not reading the comments properly and carefully. It's difficult having a discussion when you're missing comments and are only replying to bits and pieces and then asking questions where I've already addressed them.

I am here to debate, but I'm not here to hold your hand and take you through each post several times.

You didn't respond to my last post directed at you. Hmmm.

Anyway, I still want to know how Mulclair plans to finance his platform of 1 million day care positions of $15 dollars a day and his other very expensive programs he has in his platform. Obviously taxes have to be increased substantially or other programs have to be cancelled. Nice to make promises, but I want to know the facts.

Edited August 18, 2015 by socialist

[Hudson Jones]

As I said when you posted this in another thread, you don't compare GDP growth in 2010 with GDP growth in 1940 if you honestly want to assess how well either leader did. You have to compare them to their peers who governed during the same time period.

It's a percentage, so we're not talking about dollar value. Yes, you can compare it. Of course, I am not comparing it to just the prime minister from the 40's. I am comparing it to ALL of the prime ministers since the 40's. Including the last 2 Liberal prime ministers.

Good try though.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Hudson Jones

[Argus]

It's a percentage, so we're not talking about dollar value. Yes, you can compare it. Of course, I am not comparing it to just the prime minister from the 40's. I am comparing it to ALL of the prime ministers since the 40's. Including the last 2 Liberal prime ministers.

Good try though.

As with everything else you post, honesty is entirely absent.

You can't compare a PM who governs in a particular era with those who governed in different eras. It's impossible. The rise of China as a major world exporter all by itself changes the equation. Add in the similar rise of India, Mexico and others, then throw in the worst world recession in a hundred years, a world wide surplus in commodities, now including oil, and you have unique conditions. Compared to his peers, which is the other world leaders who governed during the same period of time, and Harper comes out ahead.

[PIK]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/17/bruce-hyer-thomas-mulcair_n_7996188.html

So tommy is no different. And the same will can be said about trudeau, he will not open things up like he said.

[PIK]

Who is Tom Mulcair?

For man that was a liberal wanted to be a conservative and is now leading the NDP. He seem to change his tune alot.

Thomas Mulcair Sang Praises For Margaret Thatcher's Right-Wing Politics In 2001

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/18/thomas-mulcair-margaret-thatcher-2001_n_8006990.html

[socialist]

Anyone that thinks the media is unbiased is a fool.

Journalists' union (Media Guild) is registered to campaign in the federal election...against the government!
So while Guild members are "objectively" reporting on the federal election, their union is campaigning in it -- and for typical left wing causes, of course.

[cybercoma]

It's biased alright. It's biased in favour of Harper.