How to decide which party to vote for

[blackbird]

We see Liberals promise they have the best plan to deal with the housing crisis, the Trump tariffs, and everything else.

The Conservatives also promise they have the best plan to deal with each of these things.

So how is the average voter supposed to know who has the best plan and who can be trusted?

The answer has to be the past record of the Liberal government.  They were given the mandate and privilege to govern Canada the past ten years.

So it boils down to the history of what they did with the mandate they were given.  They were the ones that allowed the housing crisis to happen.  They created mass immigration which added to the housing crisis and health care crisis because they did not properly consider how immigration would affect the housing situation or how it would affect the other services such as health care.  They also did not consider how their government regulations at all levels would be an obstacle to home building and how the costs of obtaining permits would add to the cost of home building.  There are also 149,000 regulations on businesses in Canada.  This creates an extreme burden and costs to investment and business.  They did nothing about that either.

I think they had their chance and if examined closely must be given a fail.   

Since politicians always promise everything under the sun, it is impossible to decide who to vote for strictly on the basis of political promises.  Promises simply can't be the deciding factor.  It must be based on what records of the past are available.   That means there is only one party, that is, the one which has not had the chance to prove what they could do, but has a vision for the future to build a strong Canada.

Edited April 8 by blackbird

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So how is the average voter supposed to know who has the best plan and who can be trusted?

If you think Carney works for Satan, why do you care what he says his policies are?   
 

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The answer has to be the past record

That’s part of it.  
 

Poilievre has a past record in government.  It’s an awful one. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

1. If you think Carney works for Satan, why do you care what he says his policies are?   

2. Poilievre has a past record in government.  It’s an awful one. 

1. 😂. Well... what's Satan's take on Climate Change?

2. 🤔 Not sure 

[blackbird]

If you look at the past record of the Liberals and the Conservatives under Harper, several things stand out:

1.  The Conservatives did a fairly good job handling the government budget during the recession of 2008-2010.

They ran up a deficit over a number of years but the deficit was nowhere near the size of the deficits the Liberal ran up under Trudeau.  Also, the Conservatives were able to get the deficits under control and by the time of the 2015 change of government, the deficit was very small or non-existent when Trudeau took over.

2.  The Liberals did two things that cause concern.

    They increased the size of the federal civil service by a large percentage after they took power in 2015.

    While it is understandable that there would be a deficit in the Covid years, the deficit continued to grow quite large since Covid ended.  Today the deficit is 62 billion dollars.  That means a large amount of the annual budget must go to pay the interest on the national debt.  This interest is about as much as the federal government spends on health care.

This article describes some things about the Harper governing years with respect to government economics.

"

Then came the financial crisis and recession. In fiscal years 2008/09 and 2009/10, the Conservatives budgeted lower revenue and higher spending, and as the economic decline turned out worse than expected, the actual declines in revenues and increases in spending were larger than budgeted, yielding a deficit of almost $56 billion in 2009/10. The reverse was true in the recovery year of 2010/11: revenues came in ahead of, and spending below, budget. In three of the following four years as the bottom line returned to balance, this same pattern of in-year surprises in opposite directions prevailed.

This pattern stands out in a good way for two reasons. Letting booms push revenue up and spending down, producing positive bottom-line results, and letting busts push revenue down and spending up, producing negative bottom-line results, is the public economics prescription for macroeconomic stabilization. The Harper Conservatives largely did that.

The other reason this pattern stands out in a good way is that, while common in textbooks, it is rare in real life. Canada’s federal and provincial governments over the past 20 years have typically overshot their revenue targets, and spent most of that extra revenue as it came in (Robson and Omran 2019). The Trudeau Liberals reverted to that more common pattern. They recorded better-than-forecast revenues in each of the four fiscal years from 2015 to 2019, and overshot their projected increases in spending in three of them.

One result of that overspending is that the Liberals ratcheted the size of the federal government up year by year. The superior fiscal management of the Harper Conservatives avoided that. Over the full 2006 to 2015 period, notwithstanding the spending pressures of 2008 and 2009, federal revenue and spending declined somewhat as a share of GDP. The Liberals are consistently adding to Ottawa’s accumulated deficit, despite a growing economy. If their approach had been more like that of the Harper Conservatives, Canada would have been better prepared for the fiscal impact of covid-19. "

How Good Was Harper? (for Canada's Economy) – The Dorchester Review

Edited April 9 by blackbird

[Gaétan]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Quote

The answer has to be the past record of the Liberal government.  They were given the mandate and privilege to govern Canada the past ten years.

The conservatives too, but they have been as bad as them several times since the constitution

 

 

Quote

They created mass immigration which added to the housing crisis and health care crisis because they did not properly consider how immigration would affect the housing situation or how it would affect the other services such as health care. 

You got to love your nieghbour as yourself

 

 

[August1991]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

...

So how is the average voter supposed to know who has the best plan and who can be trusted?

...

 

How do many women choose?

They once chose Trudeau Jnr. He was cute.

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well... what's Satan's take on Climate Change?

He probably says bring it on - put off the day Hell freezes over.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

He probably says bring it on - put off the day Hell freezes over.

I dunno.  Nobody likes competition 😔 

[herbie]

How to decide who to vote for:

Vote like I tell you.

Such a well of wisdom.

"Saviour of the Nation"

[WestCanMan]

Carney/Liberals: "We're gonna do the exact opposite of what we've done for the last 9 years. Look! We already started enacting Poilievre's policies, and if we're elected we will keep on doing what he says that he wants to do..."

 

Poilievre: ""We're gonna do exactly what we've said that we were going to do for the last 9 years. Sure, Carney might be acting with common sense right now, to get votes, but he was an adviser to Trudeau while Trudeau was running Canada into the ground, and he's likely to go right back to doing that after the election."

 

Seems like an easy choice to me. I dodn't even have to bring up Carney's history of telling massive lies, fro just the last 2 months, or his uncanny ability to conduct a quarter billion dollars in business with the Communist Bank of China, while the Chinese gov't is busy pushing pro-Carney propaganda on social media.

Also, one question for Liberals: do you have confidence that he will go back to being a Liberal after the election? IE, that he will go back to doing the things that he advised Trudeau to do? 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

How to decide who to vote for:

Vote like I tell you.

Such a well of wisdom.

"Saviour of the Nation"

Is that:

1. the guy who lied about moving Brookfield to the US
2. the same guy who did a quarter of a billion dollar deal with the Communist Bank of China?
3. the same guy who refused to fire his MP, after he talked about turning a conservative candidate over to the Chinese gov't, to collect on a bounty on him? 
4. the same guy who lived abroad for the past ten years, has 2 foreign passports, and made all his money by helping large companies avoid paying taxes here in Canada? 
5. the same guy who lied about his role in protecting the Canadian economy in 2008?
6. the guy who's got the Chinese gov't running propaganda for him?
7. the guy who also lied about being an advisor to the federal gov't in the 1990's?
8. the guy who pretends to be brimming with common-sense conservative policies, but was advising Trudeau and pushing DEI drivel while he ran Canada into the ground?

Yeah, I think it's pretty fair to say that his resume doesn't have "saviour of Canada" written all over it...

If you look up quisling in the dictionary, you'll see Carney's picture beside it. 

 

[herbie]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

• the guy who lied about moving Brookfield to the US
• the same guy who did a quarter of a billion dollar deal with the Communist Bank of China?

The same guy who made good business decisions like a good conservative business person is supposed to? Being accused by a dork who now claims legal tax avoidance is as bad as illegal tax evasion, doesn't even comprehend the difference? Who spent a couple terms in office where they didn't change the rules?

Easy to fool people who say they're conservatives and think businesses should pay more taxes than they have to. Who's business acumen is as shallow as their political.

Vote how you wish, maybe you'll get relaxed gun laws as you hide under your bed in a nice safe house with secure borders while brave soldiers serve proudly under the flag keeping the hordes of drug crazed, machete bearing bogeymen away.

[WestCanMan]

31 minutes ago, herbie said:

The same guy who made good business decisions like a good conservative business person is supposed to? Being accused by a dork who now claims legal tax avoidance is as bad as illegal tax evasion, doesn't even comprehend the difference? Who spent a couple terms in office where they didn't change the rules?

For your information, a friend to all is a friend to none, herbie. 

If your best friend likes a girl, you don't try to get her into a relationship with someone else, period. F everyone else. 

Poilievre's attitude is "I work for Canada, and Canada alone", while Mark Carney constantly finds himself working against Canada's best interests, even today. 

If Carney is working for Brookfield, and moving high-paying jobs from Canada to the US, that's fine for Brookfield's bottom line, and it makes Carney a good employee, but that makes him a friend to Brookfield and a friend to the US and an enemy to Canada. 

Carney understood that, and that's why he lied about it to Canadians.

It's why Carney constantly finds himself in positions where he has to lie to Canadians - his interests are all over the place. Rather, his conflicts of interest are all over the place. 

Now Carney still holds shares in Brookfield, they're still buying pipelines all over the world to compete with Alberta oil, and Carney is still actively working against Alberta oil through Canadian gov't policy. 

Foreign companies and foreign governments have constantly been served by Mark Carney, and Canadian interests have not. That's why he's able to do huge deals with the Communist Bank of China. That's why he's Trump's choice to run the country. That's why he's China's first choice to run the country. 

Living in Canada and serving Canadians are both entirely foreign to Mark Carney.  

Carney's only real claim to fame here is something that he had to lie about - his fake heroism during the 2008 financial crisis when he was the 3rd-most important guy but he acts like he was Rambo. 

Quote

Easy to fool people who say they're conservatives and think businesses should pay more taxes than they have to. Who's business acumen is as shallow as their political.

Listen to the hard-core leftard, NDP'er no less, suddenly forgetting about the "ALL CORPORATIONS ARE BAD! TAX THEM ALL AT A SUPER-HIGH RATE! BERNIE SANDERS IS THA MAN!!!!" BS and being somewhat of a realist for 12 seconds, but you still just managed to prove how stupid you are...

Care to guess how?

It's because NDP bullshit is what drives corporations out of Canada to begin with, dumabss. 

Carney was protecting Brookfield from f-tards like you who don't have a f'ing clue how important it is to have a corporate environment that prevents those kinds of massive losses.  

Please keep talking, herbie. Poilievre needs you be heard.