2006 Canadian Federal Election - who will you vote for?

[Toppy Vann]

Ok, so I got it sort of wrong Macnews. I stand corrected.

I think it's really great that someone so young is so certain and sure of his beliefs and views on something as important as our country and it's leaders. I know that many other Canadians of all political views and backgrounds struggle with these issues and they are not all capable of being so certain about the kind of government the Conservatives under Stephen Harper might give Canadians. I hope for our sake it is a moderate one that seeks to build the nation on sensible social and economic policies rather than pandering to the popular views that once implemented may not look so promising.

What if Mr. Martin said about Canada and Canadians some of these things? What would you think then?

"In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative Party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favor of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country."

"First, facts about Canada.

Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it.

Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States."

"In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

That is beginning to change. There have been some significant changes in our fiscal policies and our social welfare policies in the last three or four years. But nevertheless, they're still very generous compared to your country. "

"But seriously, your country (USA), and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."
====
Drats, those aren't quotes from Mr. Martin. Mr. Harper made those statements to an American audience in 1997 where he thought the meeting was private (it was) but where he didn't know they published a verbatim transcript.

I don't really want to get into a huge argument as my point was about civility in politics and how much we should value those who stand for elections and who work for political parties.

Mr. Harper and his Conservatives deserve the chance to form a government and present their policies to Parliament as all Canadians hope things can be accomplished without another election any time soon. It remains to be seen if the moderate sounding Mr. Harper will be as moderate in office as he sounded during the election of 2006 versus that of 2004.

[MacNews]

Mr. Harper's government will be very centrist in policy thanks to a NDP+Bloc Minority government.

The only social issue is gay marriage and that will fail. Now that the Liberals are in Opposition I wonder if Martin, or whoever the leader is, will whip the shadow cabinet again. If all the parties, not just the Conservatives, offered a free vote on a bill to over-turn Gay Marriage I wouldn't be surprised to see it pass, but they will all whip their members.

"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."

I see that not as a provocative statement, but rather fact. If you argue that Canada isn't a welfare state you're kidding yourself.

Canadians are 'proud' of their universal health care system because it's not American, not because it's the best system in the world. Far from it.

I thought Harper ran a excellent campaign, and the media was sure supportive as well. Harper was negative at times, of course, but not overly-so. During the last 2 weeks Martin abandoned policy, instead concentrating on how Harper is 'scary' and 'American'. Frankly, I view being 'American' as a compliment considering they are a world superpower and Americans earn on average 33% more than Canadians after taxes. If I was a Liberal I'd be disappointed how little policy Martin had during the campaign, as the hand-gun ban and space-weapons ban were outrageous.

[Toppy Vann]

MacNews -

Would you care to share with us what health system you are advocating as better than Canada? Please name a few and educate us ignorant welfare bums.

What would you eliminate to change Canada from a "northern welfare state"?

[Canuck_4_Life]

Frankly, I view being 'American' as a compliment considering they are a world superpower and Americans earn on average 33% more than Canadians after taxes.

Interesting that you bring that up. To me, when someone refers to Canadians as "pseudo-Americans" it's a backhanded compliment. Yes, we are immensely bombarded with American propaganda, American made products and American sports, however, do we really want to be cast as people who support a gun wielding, militant war monger and his cohorts?

Politically speaking, Bush's time in the Middle East has come and gone, and I don't think he fully realizes it. My biggest concern with the Harper government, is that we'll slowly turn into America's b****, even moreso than we are right now.

[MacNews]

MacNews -

Would you care to share with us what health system you are advocating as better than Canada? Please name a few and educate us ignorant welfare bums.

What would you eliminate to change Canada from a "northern welfare state"?

Private health-care. The UK and Australia have it along with a public system, along with Switerland and many European countries. Canada is alone with Cuba and North Korea when it comes to solely public system.

We need to tighten up EI eligibility, which has been loosened, especially in Atlantic Canada by the fiberals to buy votes. I belive welfare is a provincial program. BC is doing a good job making sure people aren't abusing the system, if you're employable but too lazy to get a job you're off welfare. There is also limits placed on the amount of time you can be on welfare. Though as we saw with the Downtown Eastside hotel scandal more can be done.

[MacNews]

...do we really want to be cast as people who support a gun wielding, militant war monger and his cohorts?...

How does ceasing Anti-American comments and supporting the US when it is in our interests (NORAD, BMD) cast us as a gun-wielding people?

Remember Blair (UK) and Howard (Australia) supported the war in Iraq both got re-elected (Not too mention Bush) so don't think it's as much of an issue as the media leads us to believe.

[Canuck_4_Life]

...do we really want to be cast as people who support a gun wielding, militant war monger and his cohorts?...

How does ceasing Anti-American comments and supporting the US when it is in our interests (NORAD, BMD) cast us as a gun-wielding people?

I was speaking purely from a political point of view stemming from the argument that Harper=Bush and his militant speeches and that by stereotype, Bush is a gun wielding Texan, not that I have anything against Texans or those who carry guns.

[Lionut]

Speaking of being sure of one's views, Toppy had this to say last May in another site:

"Under Mr. Harper's leadership, the Conservatives future looks bleak."

Yes, things sure look bleak for Mr. Harper -- he is about to be sworn in as Prime Minister, having vanquished the political career of Paul Martin. He is also more than halfway to putting the Mulroney coalition back together. Feel free to keep underestimating him, however -- I think he prefers it that way.

[Toppy Vann]

Lionut - do they pay you to do that research as in this part of your professional work? Intelligence gathering. Maybe you should spend some of that time reading my filings on ICBC.

You would have had to do some serious checking to find that post from that dealt with bringing down the government needlessly. As it turned out, it didn't fall then.

Very interesting.

[hexx]

TAX THE PROFITS, NOT THE PEOPLE

January 12, 2006

By Eric Reguly
Globe and Mail Report on Business

The Liberals and the Conservatives want to keep slicing away at corporate taxes. Why? Because it's nasty out there and businesses are struggling in the global economy. We, the People of Canada, have to help the poor things out so they can achieve greater productivity and competitiveness.

The argument loses some of its punch when you realizie that Corporate Canada is awash in profits to the point it doesn't know what to do with the bounty. Operating profits, pretax profits and final profits are all at record highs. At 14 per cent of GDE last year's profits were at their highest level in more than 30 years.

A continuing Statscan survey measures the profits of some 5,500 public and private companies, excluding Crown corporations and the very smallest businesses. In 1999, pretax profits for the lot were $109.9-billion. Given the strength of the economy in the past three years and the commodities boom, you would expect some rise in profits since then.

But if you guessed a 20- or 30- per-cent rise, you'd be way off the mark. In fact, pretax profits rose 76 per cent between 1999 and 2004, to $193.6-billion. In the first three quarter of 2005 alone, they came to $160.1-billion. At that pace, profits for the full year should land at $213 billion -- a 94-per-cent jump over 1999 numbers.

Final profits, that is, profits after tax, showed glorious increases too. Between 1999 and 2004, they rose 47 per-cent to $119-billion. Based on the performance in the first three quarters of 2005, the full-year tally should reach about $130-billion, equivalent to a 60-per-cent jump from 1999.

But never mind. Companies insist they need more tax breaks.

In their neverending effort to appease every CEO and shareholder in the land (while maintaining the fiction they are the party of equality and compassion), the Liberals plan to reduce general corporate tax rates from 21 per cent to 19 per cent and eliminate the 1.12 per-cent surtax on profits.

The Tories, if elected, would adopt the Liberals' corporate tax proposals and would reduce the tax rate on small businesses. Neither party would put a speed bump in front of the income trusts, which pay no tax and are spreading across the TSX like an amoeba on steroids.

There's nothing wrong with tax cuts for corporations; Canada is the best-performing G8 country and has a big budget surplus to finance such reductions. But there's something wrong with giving reductions to companies that seem to have no use for them.

In spite of the record profits, Canada's productivity growth is shameful compared with that of the United States. Canadian companies are not investing in information and communications technologies at the rate they should. Ditto for capital equipment to make industries more competitive. So why, precisely, do they deserve another round of tax cuts?

Overall tax balance is the bigger issue. Every year, corporations pay a smaller percentage of taxes collected by the government; every year, individuals pay a higher percentage. The federal public accounts reveal that, in the early 1960s total corporate tax revenue was about 60 per cent of total personal tax revenue. It's now about 30 per cent. The tax burden on the individual has, relatively speaking, doubled. Ever wonder why your parents could afford a house, a car and live fairly well on one income while you struggle on two? The fact that individuals didn't do most of the heavy lifting on the tax front offers some explanation.

As income trusts take over the market, thanks to a government that sees no problem in promoting a lopsided tax structure that favours trusts over corporations, more and more of the relative tax load will fall on individuals. Between corporate tax cuts and the rush to convert corporations into trusts, it's entirely possible that corporations will pay the equivalent of only 15 per cent of total personal tax revenue in the not-too-distant future.

There was a time when tax policy meant helping those who needed the most help. This meant making it easier for young families to spend and save. Today, that would mean tossing a few bones to children and grandchildren of the Baby Boomers, whose oldest members are on the verge of senior citizen status.

But no. The feds don't lean into the prevailing wind. They take the easy way out and run with it. Corporations want a lower tax load and they get it, even though they apparently have little intention of using the record profits to boost productivitv. Pension funds want high-yielding, tax-free investments, so trusts are blessed with a tax-less future.

The government will argue that it has reduced the taxes of the workers and young families in recent years, and it has. But the personal tax cuts could have been far greater if there were any sense of balance. You can assume that whoever wins will continue to direct the most tax relief to those who need it the least.

[Robbie]

Thanks to all of you who participated in this thread that I created.

How many of you watched President Bush and his State of the Union address tonight as well as the subsequent Democratic response from Virginia Governor Tim Kaine?

Do you think Canada should have a similar policy with the Prime Minister formally addressing the nation once a year?

[Lionut]

Completely different systems. Our Prime Minister is a Member of Parliament, and speaks to the nation virtually daily via Question Period. In the United States, OTOH, the Executive Branch is separated from the Legislative Branch, necessitating an occasional visit by the Head of the Executive Branch (the President).

[crburrows]

Thanks to all of you who participated in this thread that I created.

How many of you watched President Bush and his State of the Union address tonight as well as the subsequent Democratic response from Virginia Governor Tim Kaine?

Do you think Canada should have a similar policy with the Prime Minister formally addressing the nation once a year?

I would enjoy it if our Speech from the Throne was given similar stature here.

Put the thing on all channels in prime time, not at 2:00 pm on CPAC and CBCN!

IIRC, the opposition's response is given in the House of Commons the next day.

Instead, the MPs could wander back to the Commons chamber right away to have the opposition reply.

All in Prime Time!

[MacNews]

TAX THE PROFITS, NOT THE PEOPLE

Our business and personal income tax rates are too high, accordingly both should be lowered. With a minority government, however, Harper won't be able to do much about either.

[Lions_Fan_4_Life]

When does anyone expect Parliament to begin session once again?