That’s just silly; the U.S. has always behaved like this, what’s different now? We had a better relationship with them during the 1980s, when they were financing and running any number of despotic regimes and terrorist organizations in Latin America. And we didn’t get caught up in any of those dumbass wars, either. Just because Reagan was a better salesman than Bush doesn’t make his actions any more defensible.
I happen to agree with you. It’s not so much that I am loyal to the Liberals, but I really, really dislike the Conservative vision of Canada. So, like many other Canadians, I’m voting strategically.
I have heard some of his speeches. So far, from what I gathered, he wants to recriminalize marijuana, which is just senseless. He wants to cut the GST by 2% over five years, which will save me a whopping 200 dollars a year. Of course the richer you are, the sweeter this cut is for you.
There is also the problem of his base, the christian right. A lot of Canadians look south of the border and shake their heads at some of the things going on down there. These same Canadians will be wary of voting in someone who will bring us more in line with the US when it comes to this.
I have nothing against the USA in general, but the creeping influence of the christian right is both odd and frightening. I mean, teaching I.D in school, pharmacists denying women birth control, blocking the new vaccine for cervical cancer, the list goes on.
That’s not the Canada I want to live in.
The GST is a regressive, not a progressive tax and so it impacts the poor more than the rich. Cutting regressive taxes is a good thing.
Here’s a thread with the Conservative and Green party platforms. The NDP didn’t have a current one available back in June. What in the conservative platform would flag a silent creeping theocracy should the conservatives win in their platform?
Cutting the GST will also discourage savings, which discourages investment, which is a bad thing. Canada has enough of a productivity problem without the feds making policy decisions to exaberate it.
That’s simply not true. Look at it from the reverse; you’re saying that taxing people, and taking away their income, will make them save more? People will not save more if you take more of their money away; there’s a positive correlation between net income and savings.
As Hamish told me, “What kind of a joke is that? ‘Knock knock, who’s there? The NDP. The NDP who? The NDP are the proof of the existence of hell, ROTFL!’ Someone needs to go back to comedy school.”
Well, as for the GST cut, I’m looking at it from my perspective. I make about $25,000 a year. I spend around $10,000 a year in bills and rent. With $15,000 left over (if I spent ALL of it) I would save $150/year now, and $300/year 4 years later.
It might benefit the poor, but not much. Rich people have more money. Rich people tend to spend more money. I would find the GST cut far more impressive if I made $250,000 a year.
There is obviously differing opinions on which is better, income tax cut, or cutting the GST 1% now and another 1% 4 years later. I’m sure you’ve read both sides of the argument.
Either way, $200 isn’t enough money for me to vote for a party that will turn back the clock.
What in the Republican platform would flag a silent creeping theocracy?
The Christian Right makes up a large part of Stephen Harper’s base for a reason.
There is no arguments against same-sex marriage that aren’t religion-based. If there is, I have never heard it, and not for lack of trying.
I don’t mean to say that Stephen Harper will impose a theocracy. That is a rediculous idea. He will however be a lot more open to importing religious ideas, considering his base.
From Policy Options
It’s far better for the economy to cut income taxes than it is to cut the GST.
WRT whether a GST rollback would benefit the less wealthy rather than more wealthy, it’s worth noting that there is a very substantial GST rebate. A while back I did the math and my GST rebate cheques mean that I don’t pay any GST on the first $6000 I spend on GST-able items in a year. I really don’t think I spend that much on GST-able items, so I’m not paying any GST at all, and in fact probably come out ahead. Any cut in the GST rate will assuredly coincide with a proportionate cut in the GST rebate (and rightly so), which means that those making anything under $25k or so won’t be a dime better off than they are now. Cutting the GST would, I believe, benefit predominantly the middle and upper middle class - that is, the people who buy expensive toys, but still spend a large portion of their income and don’t get much of their GST back via rebate.
Yeah, I get that rebate too! I was going to mention the point you made, but I wasn’t sure if everyone got it. My parents don’t, I have no idea why. I get around 90 dollars every 3 months. I use it to go on a quarterly “alcoholiday”. 
The GST is a tax on consumption. By raising the cost of goods, it reduces consumption. The only other alternative for consumers is to put the money that they aren’t spending immediately into savings. Reducing the GST reduces the disincentive to spend, so consumers will shift income from savings to consumption.
I think the cutoff for receiving the rebate is somewhere in the mid 30k of income per year, at least for a single person.
Thanks for answering that. I figured it had something to do with income, but I was never sure.
There’s a suprising amount of crap being spewed unchecked, especially for GD.
You might want to hide your stash of dope, because no changes have been made to marijuana laws in recent years. Possession of marijuana remains a criminal offence. Clearly, you are a) not really listening to the speeches you say that you are; b) not listening to what is actually being said; or, c) listening to something other than the Conservative Party platform. Regardless, you are misinformed and I highly suggest visiting the Conservative Party website to learn what their proposed policies actually look like. Then, should you decide to place your vote somewhere else, at least you’ll be doing it for informed reasons.
With respect to the GST, you imply that you are unwilling to vote for someone without them offering you a more substantial tax break. It’s not coming from the Liberals. So why stick with them? Clearly, the Conservatives are a party focused more on tax reduction, so in the long run, you will likely enjoy even greater tax cuts. Given this information, would you then switch your vote?
Jotun, you also have a problem with the “Christian Right”. Now, I’m not a member of their group, but neither do I fear them as you do. Can you please explain to me what is bad about “importing religious ideas” (given that, by your own admission, there is no intention of a theocracy being created) as well as some example religious ideas that you fear that the Conservatives will undertake?
It most assuredly will not. Harper said very clearly in the English-language debate that there will be no cut in the GST credit. This very obviously benefits those with lower incomes, as it retains the credit at current value. If you check the GST credit calculator, it will give you an estimate of your annual credit. I’m not sure of the actual formula, but I was able to determine that a single person living in Alberta and earning greater than $37,000 earns no credit. The credit only goes to those in low-income situations.
Well, that just goes to show how much attention I’m paying to the campaign. And if that’s to the detriment of the Conservatives, well, it serves those idiots right for forcing a campaign over Christmas. I have precisely zero sympathy for any of them.
Banning gay marriage, for one.
For those who are interested but didn’t find it, here is Harper’s speech, courtesy of the Liberal Party: http://www.liberal.ca/images/dir/PDFs/harper_speech_txt_only.pdf.
Disingenuous. Changing the definition of “marriage” to a coupling of one man and one woman. Equivalent rights offered to same-sex couples under “civil union”, much like is offered in England to SS couples. Did we see Elton John and his partner rushing to Canada so that they could have a “marriage” instead of a “civil union”? No, we didn’t. Why no uproar from them if there’s such a profound difference?
Look, I don’t know why so many people are so fervently attached to the word “marriage” and it’s meaning. I’m assuming that same-sex couples simply seek equivalent rights to those shared by hetero couples. If the only difference is that one is called “marriage” and one is called “civil union” does it really matter that much?
And with this being said, you do realize that there are Conservative MPswho support same sex marriage, and at least 40 Liberal MPs that oppose it, yes?
Sounds like there’s no fine dividing line on the issue solely along party lines.
Got anything else more convincing?
Well, yes, it does matter, inasmuch as the previous state of the law was found by nine different provincial/territorial superior courts to violate the Charter of Rights.
Someone who not only wants to go back to a Charter-violating condition for no good reason, but who also is trying to bamboozle the polity into thinking he can do it without using the Notwithstanding Clause, I really have no time for.
Why the uproar if marriage is just a word? And where’s the uproar coming? The objections are on purely religious grounds, and trying to enshrine that in Canadian law is totally abhorrent. I will not accept a party with bigotry in its platform.
Yes, it does, because “seperate but equal” didn’t fly in the 50s and it won’t fly now. Not with me. It’s discrimination, and it’s despicable. If it’s exactly the same, if there’s no difference, why do they insist on calling it something else? It’s because they know that it’s not the same, that the word actually means something to people, and they want to deny that to gays. Because their religion calls gays an “abomination.” And I refuse to support that.
What’s your point? That there are bigots in the Liberals, too? Don’t assume that I’m voting for them, because I won’t be until they clean up.
If you’re not going to admit that Harper’s objections to gay marriage are based in religion, you’re obviously not going to accept any arguments at all.