Scotty Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Who's raising taxes? Trudeau will most certainly have to raise taxes in order to pay for his promises. In fact, one of his promises is a carbon tax or some variant, which is a tax in itself, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 In fact, one of his promises is a carbon tax or some variant, which is a tax in itself, of course. Doubt it. Gerald Butts is his close friend/advisor and look what he did to Ontario. Trudeau will probably reduce emissions in the least cost effective way following the advice of Butts, rather than do what BC has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Trudeau will most certainly have to raise taxes in order to pay for his promises. In fact, one of his promises is a carbon tax or some variant, which is a tax in itself, of course. Actually it looks like he's going to leave carbon pricing to the provinces, albeit with a coordinated approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Actually it looks like he's going to leave carbon pricing to the provinces, albeit with a coordinated approach. It will be a challenge, but so long as there are some solid targets, I don't see why leaving it to the Provinces isn't the most sensible solution. Indeed, I have wondered why the Conservatives didn't do it. Oh, that's right. You have to actually talk to the Provinces to coordinate with them. Edited October 22, 2015 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 I am very encouraged by Trudeau thus far. Though I don't agree with all of his promises (I do agree with the bulk of them) it seems he intends to keep his word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 More importantly, it was assumed those in lower brackets were already likely to vote Liberal or NDP. The tax break was designed to win votes from the middle class. Anyone who doesn't understand that 100% of the reason behind this was to secure votes is simply being dishonest with themselves. I'm not a fan of the policy but I would have never assumed that the low-income vote would be guaranteed to the Liberals, actually. That's generally NDP territory (and, contrary to some posters' beliefs, they are two different parties). If anything, my feeling is that it was more cynical: 'tax break for the middle class' sounds better than 'tax break for higher earners'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 This is my last reply to you. You are too snotty and unpleasant a person for me to want to have anything further to do with you. The Liberal plan includes a promise to restore the eligibility for old age security and guaranteed income supplement back to 65, a new seniors price index to make sure those benefits keep up with rising costs, a 10 per cent boost to the guaranteed supplement for single low-income seniors and a pledge not to cut pension income splitting for seniors. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-retirement-security-cpp-1.3226897 Oh wow did you read your quote? You actually proved msj right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Why would you ask that? You've already decided the 'top 3 or 4 in every department' have to go, even without any evidence any individual, let alone all of them, have done anything wrong. Collective punishment for an alleged bias which has not yet been demonstrated! Talk about brutally autocratic! You know.... you put yourself forward as looking for "reasonable political discourse".... in fact, you have started a thread on the topic. Yet.... in response to this simple line in one of my posts: But the top 3 or 4 or half-dozen in each department.... yeah, time to retire. .... you immediately put forth the suggestion that I have found somebody "collectively guilty"... that I want to "call up a firing squad"....Did I have "gulags" in mind..... "re-education camps". Since it boggled my mind how you got there from a simple statement about top Departmental officials leaving, I suggested an imagination because that would be the only logical explanation... If the quoted statement is ambiguous to you....then did you consider that it might have meant actual "retirement".... or it might have meant that top officials who has been used to operating within a "conservative" framework, may not be comfortable operating with a "liberal" framework.... it may have meant that officials comfortable with dealing with "conservative" ministers may have personality conflicts with "liberal" ministers. ... Top officials OFTEN move on with a change of government exactly for the reasons above.... sometimes they are replaced... sometimes they move on on their own .... sometimes both parties wait a year or so to see if they can handle it.... And THAT is precisely what my intent was when the statement was typed. For you to choose such a vitriolic interpretation is NOT "reasonable political discourse" and makes me doubt your sincerity in that other thread. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Putin finally packing it in because he fears being told off to his face by JT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) .... you immediately put forth the suggestion that I have found somebody "collectively guilty"... that I want to "call up a firing squad"....Did I have "gulags" in mind..... "re-education camps". Since it boggled my mind how you got there from a simple statement about top Departmental officials leaving, I looked back to see if I had misinterpreted you and I see nothing to indicate I did. You were replying to the following statement. It suggests one of the Liberals' first challenges will be in excising the Tory partisans from the civil service. To which you replied But the top 3 or 4 or half-dozen in each department.... yeah, time to retire There is no misinterpreting the above. You were baldly stating the top people in each department needed to be removed from their jobs because you perceive, without evidence, that they might be tory partisans. That is collective punishment because for some reason some of you on the Left seem to believe targeting charities was done on a political basis. As for the 'gulags' comment that was clearly indicating the direction this sort of radical paranoia and punishment without evidence leads to. Edited October 23, 2015 by Scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 One immediate change that we are going to see is payback time by bureaucrats who were muzzled by the Harper government. This happens to every majority government when it loses power. In this case, the RCMP had warned Steven Blaney that semi-automatics could easily be converted into an automatic weapon. This was in December with an election pending: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-tests-show-some-firearms-can-be-converted-to-fully-automatic-1.3284661 The Harper conservatives wouldn't touch that issue and Blaney buried the report. Well its back out now - surprise, surprise. There are always examples where a Minister will use his position to prioritize party ideology over his/her job. Look for a few more "revelations" to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 One immediate change that we are going to see is payback time by bureaucrats who were muzzled by the Harper government. This happens to every majority government when it loses power. In this case, the RCMP had warned Steven Blaney that semi-automatics could easily be converted into an automatic weapon. This was in December with an election pending: You can also build your own gun, if you have the mechanical know how. So what? Automatic weapons are illegal, as is converting a semi-automatic to an automatic. Here's another news item for you. The ammunition clips which go into guns are specially made in Canada in order to hold fewer bullets than regular clips. For example, the one for my hand gun only holds 10 bullets. I can, however, buy a 'normal' clip in the US which would hold 17 bullets and simply replace them. That would be against the law, though, just as altering your semi to fire full auto is already illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 You can also ...already illegal. My point is that the RCMP "recommending the government consider laws or regulations to ensure the improvisation technique is prohibited." I know this is quite against Harper Conservative policy but when the RCMP presents a report it is to Parliament not the Conservative party. When the RCMP presents a report on safety concerns to the Minister of Public Safety then I would assume that it would see the light of day unless it was a question of national security. If/when Trudeau takes over and his Minister of Public Safety is in place, do you feel that he/she will have the responsibility to follow party policy or his/her definition of the public good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 I looked back to see if I had misinterpreted you and I see nothing to indicate I did. You were replying to the following statement.It suggests one of the Liberals' first challenges will be in excising the Tory partisans from the civil service. To which you replied But the top 3 or 4 or half-dozen in each department.... yeah, time to retire There is no misinterpreting the above. You were baldly stating the top people in each department needed to be removed from their jobs because you perceive, without evidence, that they might be tory partisans. That is collective punishment because for some reason some of you on the Left seem to believe targeting charities was done on a political basis. As for the 'gulags' comment that was clearly indicating the direction this sort of radical paranoia and punishment without evidence leads to. Well, even if I DID feel they were Tory partisans, there was nothing about "punishment", gulags, or firing squads, was there? Those were strictly YOUR inventions.The very top bureaucrats in departments often are partisan because they might not be able to carry out Minesterial direction if they weren't. And it is perfectly reasonable that they will move on, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. You cannot carry out "reasonable political discourse" if you attribute words and thoughts to your adversary. And especially words and thoughts which he/she never expressed, and never even considered. You might note that my reply to the "excising" was that most public servants follow direction and a change in direction won't matter. The few at the top, however, in my opinion will consider moving on. Sure, I could have been more explicit... but I doubt that anybody would consider your vitriolic interpretation as "reasonable political discourse". ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Things to not look forward to. 1. Carbon taxes which will hurt the economy. Didn't seem to harm B.C. In fact, by all accounts it's working. 2. Legalized marijuana. Do you happen to have shares in organized crime??? They're the only ones that benefit from marijuana prohibition. 3. Our leader being completely overmatched by almost every other G7 leader. Seems to be doing fine in that regard so far. Harper couldn't even get us on the Security Council. 4. Higher income taxes which will hurt the economy. The wealthiest Canadians can afford higher taxes. 5. Huge deficits and debt increases. So you missed the last 10 years under Harper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 So you missed the last 10 years under Harper? Funnily enough he'd argue that the deficits were necessary because the opposition forced them and the economy was terrible. I would even agree with him. The thing he and so many others miss - the economy is just as terrible right now, with no sign of getting all that much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Funnily enough he'd argue that the deficits were necessary because the opposition forced them and the economy was terrible. I would even agree with him. The thing he and so many others miss - the economy is just as terrible right now, with no sign of getting all that much better. Exactly. If much smaller deficits under Trudeau are the end of Canada as we know it, then the record deficits under Harper should be much worse! It just shows the hypocrisy of the right wing posters on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 It just shows the hypocrisy of the right wing posters on this forum. hahaha....pot, meet kettle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 We can't keep expressing surprise when we lose jobs. If government continues to install job killing ideas and programs, it will only get worse. Small business is the absolute driver of jobs. Any economist will tell you this, yet sky high hydro rates, new programs like the expanded CPP in Ontario are just killing things. I know everyone thinks small business owners are all rich, but I hate to break the news that many are just making it and now these additional costs are just killing many of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 We can't keep expressing surprise when we lose jobs. The Liberals - killing jobs before they started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Funnily enough he'd argue that the deficits were necessary because the opposition forced them and the economy was terrible. I would even agree with him. The thing he and so many others miss - the economy is just as terrible right now, with no sign of getting all that much better. The economy is in no way 'terrible'. And most of the problem is due to the hammering the oil industry is taking, and initiatives he and his liberal colleagues in Alberta are taking will cause the oil industry to shrink further, while the appalling incompetence of the Ontario Liberal government will continue to see manufacturing deteriorate in that province. In light of that you think that baby bonuses and community centres, more money to natives, and climate change initiatives are going to help our economy? I don't. I suspect their first budget deficit will be more like $15 billion than $10, and that four years from now that yearly deficit will have grown, not shrink to a surplus as they currently claim. There are simply too many holes in their rosy economic estimates, what revenues they will get, and what their initiatives will cost. Edited December 5, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Exactly. If much smaller deficits under Trudeau are the end of Canada as we know it, then the record deficits under Harper should be much worse! It just shows the hypocrisy of the right wing posters on this forum. Nothing demonstrates the ignorance, hypocrisy and lack of respect for honesty of the Left more than talking about Harper's deficits. All of them blandly 'forget' that all opposition parties demanded huge incentive spending at a time when a worldwide recession was sapping the government of revenues while increasing social spending. They demanded it to the point of trying to take over the government to implement it. And when Harper survived and brought in this huge new spending the results were "Not enough! We demand more!" Yet the Left, all three parties, never miss a chance to sneer at Harper for running deficits, while completely excusing their own 'need' to run deficits which will probably be permanent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 The Liberals - killing jobs before they started. Why are you blaming the Liberals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) It IS good for the CRA to investigate fraud. But if we are going to investigate fraud by charities.... then let us investigate the Christian Churches, including the Catholic Church.... let us investigate the JEWISH charitable organizations. Let's audit the Fraser Institute, to see if they have carried out any political activities. Etc. etc. Let's investigate fraud broadly and fairly, not target specific organizations that have been specifically critical of the Administration. ... I think you will see fewer charities audited period. I also think we will probably kiss FN accountability goodbye. Edited December 5, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 6, 2015 Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 The economy is in no way 'terrible'. The economy is certainly doing poorly. Even if it's caused by 1 sector, it's just as bad as it was for most of the Conservative governance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.