Read My Lips: NO NEW TAXES

[SpankyMcFarland]

One tenant, which I haven't seen personally from this proposed legislation, but is reported in the Huffpost:

Rather vague, I'd like to see the meat and potatoes, but in spirit another form of populism........

Lies to suck in the gullible.

After a decade in office, it's a bit ridiculous to be making promises instead of defending your record.

Edited September 26, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Meanwhile, back at the turd factory, Mulcair promises no deficits while implementing some huge new social programs.

Yet he makes no mention of how to pay for it.

Does this kind of outright fibbing appeal to the riders of short buses?

Will this way of expressing things draw any correspondence?

[ToadBrother]

Lies to suck in the gullible.

After a decade in office, it's a bit ridiculous to be making promises instead of defending your record.

Exactly.

And since the Tories' defence is bound to be "We had a recession in 2008-2009", well we could have a major recession again, and either the legislation will be written with so many holes as to be worthless, or it will have to be tossed.

BC's balanced budget legislation was thrown out the window in 2009. Such legislation is nothing more than populist pap.

[Derek 2.0]

What do you think pays for all that military hardware you love so much? What do you think pays for healthcare costs of injured veterans after they fight those wars you fantasize about?

Your giddiness about "no new taxes" is incredibly myopic.

How is it myopic? I feel the Federal Government has enough revenue, even too much, to do its job......hence those that suggest the Government needs more of my money, to do even more of (what I feel) others jobs, I will oppose.........I feel not wanting to pay for city buses and daycare, that I'll never benefit from, is hardly lacking imagination, and those that feel the Federal Government should involve itself in daycare/transit, are day-dreaming.

[Smallc]

BC's balanced budget legislation was thrown out the window in 2009. Such legislation is nothing more than populist pap.

The Manitoba NDP 'rewrote' theirs, because they realized it was a terrible promise that they couldn't keep.

[Smallc]

How is it myopic? I feel the Federal Government has enough revenue, even too much, to do its job......hence those that suggest the Government needs more of my money, to do even more of (what I feel) others jobs, I will oppose

And what happens if a severe recession causes a large drop in revenue? It's now illegal to raise taxes or run a deficit. What then?

Though I agree that the federal government does too much, I'm not in favour of tying the hands of future governments.

[Derek 2.0]

Wasn't illegal when he did it, still isn't illegal today.

Despite Flaherty promising to get tough on schemes like this, despite stamping his feet about it and setting up his little Snitch Line and making some cosmetic changes, more money than ever is going to overseas tax havens, and the one thing that would really help-- hiring more investigators-- is apparently not in the cards.

-k

So the problem is what? Since 2013, the rules encompassing taxable income gained from foreign investment have been further defined and clarified ......You feel it wrong for Canadians to invest outside of Canada? What of foreigners that invest in Canada?

[On Guard for Thee]

How is it myopic? I feel the Federal Government has enough revenue, even too much, to do its job......hence those that suggest the Government needs more of my money, to do even more of (what I feel) others jobs, I will oppose.........I feel not wanting to pay for city buses and daycare, that I'll never benefit from, is hardly lacking imagination, and those that feel the Federal Government should involve itself in daycare/transit, are day-dreaming.

No less daydreaming than those who think Harper would not break his own so called tax lock law as easily as he did his fixed term election law. It's just another desperate vote grab, only one of the most transparent we've seen in a while.

[Derek 2.0]

And what happens if a severe recession causes a large drop in revenue? It's now illegal to raise taxes or run a deficit. What then?

It's not illegal to run deficits during a recession, per the legislation.

[Derek 2.0]

Lies to suck in the gullible.

After a decade in office, it's a bit ridiculous to be making promises instead of defending your record.

The Gullible? Are those the ones that enjoy "beer and popcorn"?

[SpankyMcFarland]

The Gullible? Are those the ones that enjoy "beer and popcorn"?

It's a dumb promotion with no credibility.

[Derek 2.0]

It's a dumb promotion with no credibility.

In your opinion......as already noted, it worked for David Cameron.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's a dumb promotion with no credibility.

I suppose Harper is aware of how dumb it is as well, he's just hoping to bait one of the other leaders to say they would repeal it, knowing full well, if he happened to squeak out a minority, he could break it at will anyway. Speaking of credibility!

[Smallc]

It's not illegal to run deficits during a recession, per the legislation.

Funny then, that the Conservatives carried their own deficit far past the end of the last recession.

[SpankyMcFarland]

In your opinion......as already noted, it worked for David Cameron.

So did coalition government.

David Cameron may not be the ideal person to quote on best practice right now.

Edited September 26, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Derek 2.0]

Funny then, that the Conservatives carried their own deficit far past the end of the last recession.

What is funny about? The Balanced Budget Act didn't come into force until late June of this year....

[Derek 2.0]

So did coalition government.

David Cameron may not be the ideal person to quote on best practice right now.

Why? David Cameron used the threat of a Labour/SNP coalition government (and it tax policies) to win his current Majority Government.

[ReeferMadness]

Wasn't illegal when he did it, still isn't illegal today.

Despite Flaherty promising to get tough on schemes like this, despite stamping his feet about it and setting up his little Snitch Line and making some cosmetic changes, more money than ever is going to overseas tax havens, and the one thing that would really help-- hiring more investigators-- is apparently not in the cards.

-k

But apparently, there is unlimited money to go after charities.

[ReeferMadness]

I know it's less catchy but a better title for this thread might be

Read my lips. Tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals with the inference they will create jobs. Only we all know they won't create jobs, they'll put that money in overseas tax shelters or invest it in real estate (thereby driving up prices so that most Canadians can't afford a house) or use it to purchase luxury goods and vacations (subsidizing other countries' economies).

[SpankyMcFarland]

Why? David Cameron used the threat of a Labour/SNP coalition government (and it tax policies) to win his current Majority Government.

1. Why? Piggate.

2. OK. Cameron has just presided over a coalition government himself for years. So coalitions per se are not a problem in Britain. Harper is opposed to ALL coalitions for his party in Canada, not just with the BQ, and tries to insinuate that there is something unparliamentary about them for anybody.

[Smallc]

What is funny about? The Balanced Budget Act didn't come into force until late June of this year....

That would make them hypocrites, I would think.

[Derek 2.0]

1. Why? Piggate.

What of it? If you claimed Harper was a robot, and had carnal knowledge with a VCR or toaster in his youth, it doesn't make it true...

2. OK. Cameron has just presided over a coalition government himself for years. So coalitions per se are not a problem in Britain. Harper is opposed to ALL coalitions for his party in Canada, not just with the BQ, and tries to insinuate that there is something unparliamentary about them for anybody.

And campaigned against a Labour/SNP coalition that proposed tax hikes.........PM has had no need for a formal coalition when he was in minority, often supported by the Liberals.......David Cameron's partnership with their Liberal Democrats was simply formal governance with said party.......and now the Liberals are near gone and Cameron has his majority.

[Derek 2.0]

That would make them hypocrites, I would think.

Why? They didn't implement the law until they returned to surplus, as said, going forward, said legislation allows for deficit spending during your suggested "dangerous times", not for buying city buses and daycare.

[SpankyMcFarland]

What of it? If you claimed Harper was a robot, and had carnal knowledge with a VCR or toaster in his youth, it doesn't make it true...

And campaigned against a Labour/SNP coalition that proposed tax hikes.........PM has had no need for a formal coalition when he was in minority, often supported by the Liberals.......David Cameron's partnership with their Liberal Democrats was simply formal governance with said party.......and now the Liberals are near gone and Cameron has his majority.

My point is this. I prefer to focus on what people do rather than on what they say in campaigns. In practice, David Cameron had no problem with coalition government. Harper does. Since he became PM, Harper has tried to make out that there is something wrong with coalition government. Edited September 26, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[Derek 2.0]

My point is this. I prefer to focus on what people do rather than on what they say in campaigns. In practice, David Cameron had no problem with coalition government. Harper does. Since he became PM, Harper has tried to make out that there is something wrong with coalition government.

Well no, he does, as Cameron very much so took issue, as did British voters, of a proposed Labour/SNP coalition.