Federal Election Thread

[NLengr]

Medical students and residents aren't in high income tax brackets. They would benefit more from improvements to the middle class. Maybe senior residents could make this argument, but not people younger than that. Plus the Liberals have made the same "no tax increase on the private citizen" promise. There is no difference between the Liberals and Cons in that sense. Besides, it's not like either party's word is binding anyway.

 

From a historical perspective, the conservatives have run up a HUGE debt in the country. Then they are promising to cut corporate taxes even further, which reduces the tax base. We can't just keep spending money we don't have. Who do you think will have to pay for the savings the cons would give to the corporations?

 

Also, don't give me the trickle down, we need them to be competitive worldwide story. We already have some of the lowest corporate taxes in the world. We also give 500 million a year to the oil industry as a subsidy, despite the fact they made record profits. Corporations in Canada are not hurting. They don't need another tax cut to stay competitive.

 

Second, less physicians means a worse lifestyle. It's not like there is a shortage of patients and docs are fighting to fill their lists every morning. The bottleneck is in the infrastructure. We don't have enough OR's for example, so we don't get enough OR time for new docs. If a party promised to invest in infrastructure, we could increase OR time, hire more docs AND shorten wait times. All with each surgeon still having lots and lots of work.

[goleafsgochris]

I was just listing some possible reasons to why doctors may vote conservative. Also, obv is doesnt affect med students and residents at this time lol, but most of us can think ahead to when we start working.

 

Not saying I even agree with it, just explaining. Also, no I dont really believe in the trickle-down effect, I am talking about it from a personal-gain standpoint rather than from a societal-gain standpoint.

[blind_synergy]

This doesn't make ANY sense. The Cons have run a stinker of a national campaign, which even the right-leaning National Post has recognized, and their support in the polls has somehow gone up? Harper has done nothing but come off like a massive weasel. What the ****?

 

The Libs, and Ignatieff, on the other hand have run a surprisingly good campaign and their numbers have only remained pretty steady.

 

Supply-side economics is bunk. I wish someone would call the Tories out on this but no one will. Probably a fear of coming off as elitist. Let's face it; most people know ****-all about economics so they naturally gravitate towards the feel-good low taxes, strong military, tough-on-crime mantra. I think "feel-good" economics would be a better description than "supply-side".

[blind_synergy]

Im not saying this is ethical per se, but voting for Harper as a med student/reisdent:

 

- Your taxes will decrease (or not increase) assuming you are in a high income bracket

- The liberals/NDP want more doctors, = more competition. Also, I assume these extra doctors will be IMG getting an easier route, which almost no one around here whoo isnt an IMG wants

 

Didn't the Cons cancel the income-tax cuts planned by the liberals so that we could get a marginally better tax rate with the GST?

[thatonekid]

Debate aside, my prediction: we will spend another several million dollars on another election and wind up again with more or less the same balance of politicians we had going in.

I said something along these lines to a friend of mine who's really into politics, and he pretty much agreed that it doesn't look like there will be any real change comming from this election.

[eugenius]

the problem with ignatieff is the perceived arrogance of his persona. i find that very appealing as i prefer my politicians to be intellectually a step above the average person, but from what people have told me his overly academic attitude and pretentiousness puts a lot of people off, just a thought.

 

i dont think ignatieff knows how to smile. and when he does it looks SO forced

[blind_synergy]

i dont think ignatieff knows how to smile. and when he does it looks SO forced

 

Harper's not exactly the most charismatic guy either. He's not good in public and he knows it (hence the limited questions and scripted appearances). Ignatieff has been a lot better lately, a lot more relaxed.

[eugenius]

Harper's not exactly the most charismatic guy either. He's not good in public and he knows it (hence the limited questions and scripted appearances). Ignatieff has been a lot better lately, a lot more relaxed.

 

haaahahaha. his smile looks so uncomfortable.

[kickserve]

This sums up the current election situation pretty well

 

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/04/01/extremely-bad-advice-parliamentary-my-dear-watson/

[apache]

something about the pedophile lips, am i the only one that notices this?

 

Harper's not exactly the most charismatic guy either. He's not good in public and he knows it (hence the limited questions and scripted appearances). Ignatieff has been a lot better lately, a lot more relaxed.

[juice]

Liberals in america are kind of okay, they don't stray way too left.

 

The liberals in Canada are wayy too left though (particularly ignatieff). They actually scare me sometimes.

 

Canada on the whole seems to have sort of a liberal vibe anyway (at least relative to usa) and I like that.

[blind_synergy]

Liberals in america are kind of okay, they don't stray way too left.

 

The liberals in Canada are wayy too left though (particularly ignatieff). They actually scare me sometimes.

 

Canada on the whole seems to have sort of a liberal vibe anyway (at least relative to usa) and I like that.

 

Are you American? And what's way too left? Socially, Economically?

[apache]

imo, we need netherlands like social liberality.

 

Liberals in america are kind of okay, they don't stray way too left.

 

The liberals in Canada are wayy too left though (particularly ignatieff). They actually scare me sometimes.

 

Canada on the whole seems to have sort of a liberal vibe anyway (at least relative to usa) and I like that.

[Corie]

I think he ment economically. They've gone quite left recently - pretty much became the NDP. Why can't we have a socially liberal but right wing economic part? Miss the PCs.

[Erk]

imo, we need netherlands like social liberality.

 

Amen to that. Social liberality and middle-of-the-roadism fiscally in my opinion

 

I'd be happy to see social liberalism at essentially anarchic levels compared to what we have now, personally, but that's a topic for another thread. In a nutshell I figure pretty much anything that amounts to a personal choice (eg all drugs) should be decriminalised, and those things that harm others through their illegality (eg prostitution) should be legalised and thoroughly regulated.

 

I have a funny feeling I would never be elected as a politician.

[blind_synergy]

My dream platform:

 

1. Legalize drugs, beginning with marijuana; would probably have to do it slowly to get regulators in place. Tax them enough to get money but not enough to create a market for contrabands.

 

2. Legalize prostitution. Regulate it. Tax it.

 

3. Freeze military spending during economic downturns.

 

4. Keep all military action to a minimum.

 

5. Keep tax rates reasonable and competitive. Low taxes on high income brackets are a bad idea. Poor people spend money, rich people sit on it. Stay away from supply-side economics, as well.

 

6. Healthcare should be the #1 priority on anyones budget.

 

Probably some more I'll think of later.

[mdDave]

I'll add mine too (dream platform):

-Pull out of Afghanistan and only get into war in situations where we've been attacked and keep the mission direct, simple, and quick.

-Push for more arctic military presence.

-Let the provinces handle 100% of healthcare, EI, pensions, welfare, etc.

-Get rid of equalization payments.

-Cut all arts/cultural/multicultural funding and sell the CBC.

-Dismantle the CRTC.

-Legalize marijuana and regulate and tax it.

-abolish the senate.

-Ban immigration of 55 yr old and older.

-Make taxes fair so the rich aren't unfairly targeted (flat rate?)

-Protect manufacturing jobs.

-Let provinces regulate abortion and same-sex marriage issues (notwithstanding clause?)

-bring back the death penalty for most horrible crimes (rape, murder).

 

thumbs up, I'd vote for that in a heartbeat

[mdDave]

My dream platform:

 

1. Legalize drugs, beginning with marijuana; would probably have to do it slowly to get regulators in place. Tax them enough to get money but not enough to create a market for contrabands.

 

2. Legalize prostitution. Regulate it. Tax it.

 

3. Freeze military spending during economic downturns.

 

4. Keep all military action to a minimum.

 

5. Keep tax rates reasonable and competitive. Low taxes on high income brackets are a bad idea. Poor people spend money, rich people sit on it. Stay away from supply-side economics, as well.

 

6. Healthcare should be the #1 priority on anyones budget.

 

Probably some more I'll think of later.

 

his highest priorities are pot and hookers

[blind_synergy]

I'll add mine too (dream platform):

-Pull out of Afghanistan and only get into war in situations where we've been attacked and keep the mission direct, simple, and quick.

-Push for more arctic military presence.

-Let the provinces handle 100% of healthcare, EI, pensions, welfare, etc.

-Get rid of equalization payments.

-Cut all arts/cultural/multicultural funding and sell the CBC.

-Dismantle the CRTC.

-Legalize marijuana and regulate and tax it.

-abolish the senate.

-Ban immigration of 55 yr old and older.

-Make taxes fair so the rich aren't unfairly targeted (flat rate?)

-Protect manufacturing jobs.

-Let provinces regulate abortion and same-sex marriage issues (notwithstanding clause?)

-bring back the death penalty for most horrible crimes (rape, murder).

 

Couldn't vote for the last few points.

 

Taxing the rich with a flat rate: Bad idea, economically speaking. Fact is if you tax obscenely rich people with higher rates, they'll still stay obscenely rich. It's the price you pay for living in a country that allows you to accumulate such wealth. Again, rich people sit on money while poor people spend it. You want to keep flowing in the economy rather than out of it. Of course, tax-credits for spending and domestic investment would be reasonable.

 

Abortion and same-sex marriage: Fundamental rights, IMO. Wouldn't let provinces regulate them any more than I would let them regulate free speech.

 

Death Penalty: A single misconviction would amount to institutionalized murder and it does happen more than you would think.

[NLengr]

I'll add mine too (dream platform):

-Pull out of Afghanistan and only get into war in situations where we've been attacked and keep the mission direct, simple, and quick (airstrikes)

-Push for more arctic military presence.

-Let the provinces handle 100% of healthcare, EI, pensions, welfare, etc.

-Get rid of equalization payments.

-Cut all arts/cultural/multicultural funding and sell the CBC.

-Dismantle the CRTC.

-Legalize marijuana and regulate and tax it.

-abolish the senate.

-Ban immigration of 55 yr old and older.

-Make taxes fair so the rich aren't unfairly targeted (flat rate?)

-Protect manufacturing jobs.

-Let provinces regulate abortion and same-sex marriage issues (notwithstanding clause?)

-bring back the death penalty for most horrible crimes (rape, murder).

 

I don't think I agree on almost every point. It's a terrible terrible terrible platform.

 

Air-strike only war: War doesn't work that way. You need naval forces or boots on the ground for most battles. Air strikes aren't some magical solution to conflict. They only work in a very small number of situations. 90% of the time, you need boots on the ground. If you are only performing air strikes, than you can't accomplish point of your action in a huge number of cases. Which means your killing people (ours, enemy and civilians) with no hope of getting where you want to be.

 

Provinces and Equalization: If we are gonna hand over most of our social programs to solely the provinces and cut all equalization, why even have a country? If provinces are solely responsible for most social programs and get no equalization, than the standards across the country would be completely different. Many provinces would NOT be able to afford what we have now. Might as well break into separate states. Equalization exists to provide a certain standard of living across the country so that ALL citizens have a decent, comparable, quality of life. Without it, why bother? And this is from someone who comes from a have province. We'd be better off without equalization, but I realize the benefits it has across the country as a whole.

 

More arctic military presence: Good luck doing this when you are gonna make provinces pay 100% and cut equalization. Yes, the territories are a national responsibility, but provinces will not tolerate the feds giving money to territories and nothing to the provinces. Services would decline in the north (it's VERY VERY VERY expensive to do anything up there so it would be very rapid and complete). The population would rapidly disappear. And with no population in the north we lose a huge amount of weight behind our claims of sovereignty over the North.

 

Arts/Multicultural and CBC funding: God knows we wouldn't want to have any Canadian culture. That's for them pinko commies. As for the CBC, it's a valuable tool. It's by far the best quality station, and the most neutral (Global etc. is so influenced by their parent company it's disgusting).

 

Immigration: Blanket bans are stupid. Decide each on a case by case basis. That way if people like Aung San Suu Kyi decide they want to immigrate, they can.

 

Make Taxes Fair so the rich aren't unfairly targeted: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Christ, do you buy that ****? Won't someone please think of the rich? They're so neglected and their lives are terrible! By all means, lets unload more tax burden on the middle class so we continue to shrink it. What has the middle class ever done for Canada? Unless you are from the upper class (CEO, old money etc.), this is the equivalent of economic suicide. Taxes should be fair, but to say cut the rich, they have it so unfair is stupid.

 

Same Sex Marriages and Abortion: You know the only way to do this? Get rid of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's the only way to systematically deny the citizens in certain provinces basic human rights. Again, at that point, we would cease to be a country. I'm not touching the abortion issue besides stating that abortion availability needs to be EQUAL across the country.

 

Protect Manufacturing jobs: Very difficult. We'd have to tariff the crap out of stuff to do that. Which means that all those nice cheap TV's etc. that you buy are gonna cost much much more. On top of that, it's hard to compete in manufacturing, when a plant in China can pay $1/hr for labour.

 

Death Penalty: Seriously? You ***** about taxes and want to bring this back? It's well proven that it DOES NOT DISCOURAGE CRIME and costs much much more than simply throwing people in prison till they die. It costs the USA $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay for the death penalty. And you wanna expand the criteria to all serious crimes. Where is the cash gonna come from? You think taxes are bad now? And that cost doesn't even include the fact that you can't un-execute people if they are later proven innocent (happens in the states on a regular basis). And it's impossible to insure that nobody would be wrongly convicted.

[NLengr]

And the thing is that I wouldn't consider abortion and same-sex marriage fundamental rights. This country would be the same without same-sex marriage and even abortion (except therapeutic abortions). Freedom of speech is a different thing. I'd even go as far as taking gov't entirely out of marriage and letting the churches and temples handle marriages. If two people want the benefits of a marriage, they can enter into a civil agreement. This way the religious people are happy and the civil rights groups can't say the gov't is discriminating. And if they want to call their union a marriage, there are plenty of churches that do same-sex marriage.

 

What about getting rid of the right to unreasonable search and seizure? The country would be basically the same if we didn't have that. Right to legal council? No big change in the country if we remove that one. Minimum number of legislature sittings? No change in the long run. What about the right to use French or English in parliament? No big change there.

 

You have NO idea how the Charter actually works in this situation. I'll spell things out for you very very clearly:

 

Equality rights: (section 15): equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination.

 

Homosexual people are entitled to THE SAME RIGHTS as heterosexual people. That's what the same sex marriage act is founded on.

 

You can't dismiss areas of the Charter because you think it wouldn't change things if it was gone. Charters don't work that way.

 

If you want the church to solely perform marriages and the govt. to perform civil unions only, they you better make sure that the "church marriage" has absolutely ZERO legal standing, or it will lose a charter challenge. Which would mean to get the benefits of what we now consider marriage, you'd have to get a govt. provided civil union in addition to your church marriage anyway.

 

Also, why should the church keep the word marriage? It's not like it only has a religious connotation. It has a completely valid non religious meaning. I think the govt. should keep that one, and the church can have the term "Jesus sponsored family joining ceremony".

[mdDave]

Couldn't vote for the last few points.

 

Taxing the rich with a flat rate: Bad idea, economically speaking. Fact is if you tax obscenely rich people with higher rates, they'll still stay obscenely rich. It's the price you pay for living in a country that allows you to accumulate such wealth. Again, rich people sit on money while poor people spend it. You want to keep flowing in the economy rather than out of it. Of course, tax-credits for spending and domestic investment would be reasonable.

 

 

Not saying that you are wrong, I don't have alot of information on this topic but is there any evidence of what you said? What do you mean by "sit on their money"? Worst case scenario they have it sitting in banks at low interests rates where the bank is basically using it for it's own investment purposes, thus stimulating the economy in some way. Best case they use it more actively to invest, start businesses, finance their kids education...

I'm just not sure what you mean by "sitting on money". Would an ideal society be one where everyone lives paycheck to paycheck?

[NLengr]

Worst case scenario they have it sitting in banks at low interests rates where the bank is basically using it for it's own investment purposes, thus stimulating the economy in some way. Best case they use it more actively to invest, start businesses, finance their kids education...

 

[mdDave]

 

Also, why should the church keep the word marriage? It's not like it only has a religious connotation. It has a completely valid non religious meaning. I think the govt. should keep that one, and the church can have the term "Jesus sponsored family joining ceremony".

 

Marriage was a religious ceremony before the federal government even existed.

[mdDave]

 

that's funny, but what is exactly inaccurate in what I said? Don't they have money in banks?. Are you saying most rich people keep cash in their house?

 

off topic: since you brought Regan into this, the economy actually improved after his policies... what's your point?