Canada Election 2011

[Skjie]

No, we wouldn't. Because we sell a huge portion of our exports to the US which still would have been in a huge depression. As it is, our financial systems proved to be about the most resilient in the world, thanks to fairly good oversight.

"The current deficit is of course largely due to the recession, but available evidence suggests that even if the economy had simply returned to operating at capacity, we would be running a deficit on the order of $12 - 14-billion per year – which works out to the revenues sacrificed by the reduction to the GST."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1943859/

There is not a single economist in this country who believes cutting the GST was anything other than a politically motivated move with only negative consequences fiscally. And that's beyond the fact that Harper has made it clear time and again he feels he is above the Canadian political process and should be allowed to do what he pleases.

[aurik]

Nowhere did I say cutting the GST wasn't a political move, but thanks for the argument that it was. Fact still remains that there's no way to dodge the recession bullet when the countries we export to are undergoing a once-in-100-years depression.

You'd be a fool to think otherwise, and life is too short to waste time arguing with fools.

[aurik]

I don't know how spending $2M on an indoor lake in a city that's next to a lake can be called fiscally responsible.

It's kind of funny to see people that bought the "$2M for a lake" story hook line and sinker.

The reality is that fake lake cost all of $57,000. The $2M number was the overall budget for all of the "marketing" we did for foreign press so they would write stories about how awesome of a place Canada is, and thus encourage foreign investment. It was an extremely good way to spend $2M, especially considering the gov't track record with spending money effectively.

[Thorin]

Harper government defeated in non-confidence motion 156-145 finding them in contempt of parliament (for those who haven't heard yet)

[Saithorx]

Canadians will be going to the polls for a spring election.

This afternoon, opposition parties demonstrated they lost confidence in the Conservative government. The media reports that the non-confidence vote came about because MPs believed the government to be in contempt of Parliament - the first time this issue has caused what is now Canada's sixth non-confidence vote in history.

[Skjie]

You'd be a fool to think otherwise, and life is too short to waste time arguing with fools.

The point was that it certainly was not Harpers oversight that left us in a better place than other countries, and without him we would've been in an even better place by a long, long shot.

[aurik]

The point was that it certainly was not Harpers oversight that left us in a better place than other countries, and without him we would've been in an even better place by a long, long shot.

That's a rather large assumption to make.

But hey, here's an idea. Let's spend $300 million on an election that won't change the makeup of parliament at all because some people are mad that the government is spending too much / not enough / on the wrong things.

\m/

[Skjie]

That's a rather large assumption to make.

But hey, here's an idea. Let's spend $300 million on an election that won't change the makeup of parliament at all because some people are mad that the government is spending too much / not enough / on the wrong things.

\m/

Considering who the Liberals were at the time Harper took over, no that isn't a large assumption at all. And there is no way you could reason Canada was better off the the GST cuts.

What better reason to call an election than proof that the Government has been lying, cheating and stealing from the people who elected them, all while stating over and over it was for their own good. This ain't America, bro. It's only too bad so many people don't pay enough attention to what their government is doing that they feel justified voting Conservative again.

PS: GJ saying it's about the Budget, keep following Harper's lead!

[Mazmaz]

That's a rather large assumption to make.

But hey, here's an idea. Let's spend $300 million on an election that won't change the makeup of parliament at all because some people are mad that the government is spending too much / not enough / on the wrong things.

\m/

You act like election campaigns don't change any minds ever.

[aurik]

Considering who the Liberals were at the time Harper took over, no that isn't a large assumption at all.

That's a pretty daft thing to say. You have no idea what policies the Liberals would have pursued in the face of the financial crisis had they retained control of the government. If you want to argue politics with me, you're going to have to stop being daft.

And there is no way you could reason Canada was better off the the GST cuts.

Sure there is. Less taxes on consumers leads to more savings, leads to more investment and more economic activity. See that? A chain of reason concluding that Canada was better off with GST cuts. Now whether the numbers support that is a point for debate. But it's certainly not flawed in the logic.

What exactly is your beef with the GST changes anyway? Was it the 1% reduction a few years back, or the introduction of HST?

What better reason to call an election than proof that the Government has been lying, cheating and stealing from the people who elected them, all while stating over and over it was for their own good. This ain't America, bro. It's only too bad so many people don't pay enough attention to what their government is doing that they feel justified voting Conservative again.

Why don't you cry more because it's the conservatives that have been breaking their campaign promises this time around instead of the liberals. It's not like Chretien's government was any more honest, or Mulroney's, or Trudeau's, and so on and so forth. They all act as if the ends justify the means, and the ends often only vaguely represent what they sell to the public when they campaign in the first place.

If you look at the facts, it still remains that it's very likely that we're just going to end up with the same governance after thrashing about spending $300 million. Talk about a costly temper tantrum.

[Anton]

The point was that it certainly was not Harpers oversight that left us in a better place than other countries, and without him we would've been in an even better place by a long, long shot.

Read This.

If you've never slugged through 9am economics, I'll summarize:

-Canada's economic ranking improved during the recession. It seems weird - GDP fell, Unemployment rose - but relative to other countries, ours was much milder.
-We actually grew our GDP in 2008, which means even 4 months of freakout in the states didn't bring the GDP growth negative.
-In 2009, everyone's GDP fell except Australia, whose currency at the time was regarded as a safe haven for investment (Trade + China = safety), and kept their employment afloat. Canada's GDP loss was one of the fewest - 2.5%
-Principly, the regulations already in place saved us. But low inflation targets, low debt, and a few timely budgetary surpluses made a big difference.
-The biggest lesson learned was timely government action can make a drastic difference on the outlook and severity of recessions.

I saw a bunch of action plan projects in and around the GTA. Islington's never been this paved, dude. Harper put a lot of money into spurring overdue construction projects to keep people working which I admit is pretty much par for the course and one could make the case that the Banks started the recession in a better position to handle the 8 bajillion margin calls made in that crazy 2 weeks...

...but that's just it. He didn't fuck it all up (and the temptation was there) and the stimulus was timely, so yes, during the recession, even actual economists agree it was good steering.

[Anton]

Sure there is. Less taxes on consumers leads to more savings, leads to more investment and more economic activity. See that? A chain of reason concluding that Canada was better off with GST cuts. Now whether the numbers support that is a point for debate. But it's certainly not flawed in the logic.

What exactly is your beef with the GST changes anyway? Was it the 1% reduction a few years back, or the introduction of HST?

The GST is like a jack-of-all-taxes. Experts agree if you wanted to spur economic growth there were other, better taxes to cut. Not that the GST cut does nothing, it's just really broad in scope.

I bet that was a bit of a faff for the PC base out west. Alberta doesn't have a PST so they'd feel it the most.

Edit: C'mon canucks, be cool. Hasn't even started yet

[aurik]

The GST is like a jack-of-all-taxes. Experts agree if you wanted to spur economic growth there were other, better taxes to cut. Not that the GST cut does nothing, it's just really broad in scope.

Thanks for the lecture on econ 101, but that's not terribly relevant the point that I was making. We could argue the theory behind the GST cut, but I'm not terribly interested in that argument.

But, since somehow everyone is missing what I am getting at, I'll post it again. This time in a different color. How about Sea Green?

Skjie just said that a 1% higher consumption tax could have been the silver bullet to slay the bear market of the last 2 years.

When someone is broadcasting such profoundly retarded statements, it's important that we all understand that this kind of thinking on the level of swampdonkey/guartz/egon retardation and should be dismissed immediately.

[Anton]

Oh, and cutting the GST was the stupidest populist move of all time. We could've been the only 1st world country to escape the financial collapse if not for that piece of boneheadedness.

Holy shit, you're right.

Fun (if not relevant) fact: Australia was actually the only first world country to escape the recession in terms of GDP, owing to their large trade with China.

Yea when the bulk of our trade is with the US, and US buying power evaporates, that's a very bad thing for Canadian business. We don't just walk away from that

[Amiricle]

Considering who the Liberals were at the time Harper took over, no that isn't a large assumption at all. And there is no way you could reason Canada was better off the the GST cuts.

What better reason to call an election than proof that the Government has been lying, cheating and stealing from the people who elected them, all while stating over and over it was for their own good. This ain't America, bro. It's only too bad so many people don't pay enough attention to what their government is doing that they feel justified voting Conservative again.

PS: GJ saying it's about the Budget, keep following Harper's lead!

Except that, that is exactly what the Liberals did when they were in last. They stole funds from the unemployment insurance fund to balance thier budget. If they had been CEO's of a corporation, they'd likely all be in jail, but its the government, so its ok.

[plue]

Although it's nice to see a potential overturn of Harper, I'm pretty sure that the dumbasses that make up 90% of the country's population will just elect him again.

[Mazmaz]

The problem is no one likes Ignatieff for whatever reason.

[Anton]

All 4 parties brought about this election - the PC's need to stop whining. Quickly, please. The dead-on-arrival budget didn't even try to tempt Layton's NDP, and forcing the opposition to vote no-confidence, rather than dissolve parliament themselves, is obviously tactics.

The inclusion of "contempt-of-parliament" in the no-confidence vote is a new one, but when you think about it, it's not political dynamite. The conservatives passive-aggressive resistance to put a concrete projection on their "tough on crime" legislation is discreditable, but it is not the apocalypse. (Nor is it new, really, from the PCs)

I hope we debate their criminal legislation in the election - I want to know about it. Along with fiscal policy, growth, health care, international competitiveness... but not the cause of the election. Everyone had a hand in it.

The problem is no one likes Ignatieff for whatever reason.

For all his doctorates (and he's taught at Cambridge, London, and Harvard - GOD DAYUMM) he threw himself into a world where he's a rank amateur. He can't do indignation. He is not brazen. He can't fake sincerity. His attempts at humor suck. You'd think he could get shamelessness just by being in the same room as Harper, but alas, that is not Ignatieff either.

But the most relevant flaw in Ignatieff's Liberals is he spinelessly agreed with the bulk of Harper's policies - not good when you're the official "Opposition".

He also has to own up to his party racing for the cookie jar during 08-09. Skjie says Harper was bad, how about a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition to lead us in the pit of the recession? That was just... I was laughing for two months.

By cause and effect, there's predicted to be a big chance here for the NDP to steal votes. Perhaps even official op?

[aurik]

Any coalition with the PQ is going to fail spectacularly, and while it would make for great lulz I have a stake in the continued prosperity of this country so I'm definitely against any coalition that includes the PQ.

[Anton]

Any coalition with the PQ is going to fail spectacularly, and while it would make for great lulz I have a stake in the continued prosperity of this country so I'm definitely against any coalition that includes the PQ.

Ignatieff's ruled out a post-election coalition... sort of. He's willing to let the popular vote stand.

The Liberals will not seek to govern with the support of the other two parties if Mr. Harper wins another minority. Mr. Ignatieff also said in his statement he will not ask the NDP or the Bloc to serve in his government, if he is asked to form one.

On the other hand, the next time you see the PC's talking about a surprise "coalition of losers" - well it's a safe fear tactic for them to play.

“Let me be perfectly clear: unless Canadians elect a stable national majority government, Michael Ignatieff will form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc Québécois,” he said.

“Imagine a coalition of arch-centralists and Quebec sovereigntists trying to work together. The only thing they'll be able to agree on is to spend more money and to raise taxes to pay for it.”

That didn't take long.... BE AFRAID It's election time lol