*June 28th* Canadian Elections Thread

Here in Canada, there are only eight days left before election day. For all of those who are of voting age, are you planning on doing so? If so, which party do you plan on voting for?

Just to put my views out there, I'm voting for NDP because:

a) Paul Martin=wasted tax money (long-gun registry, sponsorship scandal, hoarded gas money, ect).

b) Steven Harper is Canada's equivalent of George W. Bush: he's anti-gay/pro-war, he wants healthcare privatized, and like Paul Martin, he's for the Star Wars program, (can we really trust a "defence" system that's named after a damn movie? And having missiles circling the globe isnâ??t too smart either, imo).

c) I like Jack Layton's platform. Solid social programs, protection for the environment, and a student tuition reduction of 10% are what I want from a new government. Ironically, I think that the NDPâ??s environmental strategies are superior to the Green Partyâ??s.

Before the government can give, they have to take. If they they plan on giving more, then you can bet they plan on taking more.

Toker

Jacking Up Taxes:
http://www.liberal.ca/SayAnything/pr.html

Layton Misleads Canadians On Tax Reductions; Calls for 33% Small Business Tax Hike

In a desperate attempt to cover up his own misstep, Jack Layton is advocating a 33% tax hike on small businesses from coast to coast. Caught in a lie, or with shoddy and inaccurate research, Say Anything Jack is now scrambling to save face and is putting Canadian jobs at risk in the process.

NDP Leader Jack Layton has repeatedly suggested that a $4.4 billion corporate tax cut is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2004:

"Well, who are we going to believe? Are we to believe the former Finance Minister who only weeks ago said that there was to be a $4.4 billion tax cut on January 1?" (Jack Layton, Newsworld, "Politics", Dec. 16, 2003)

Mr. Layton's many statements like this example are both incorrect and deliberately misleading.

In fact, the government's tax cut for small businesses and companies was a relatively modest part of the overall tax reductions commenced in 2000. Only the last scheduled reduction of corporate tax, $1.1 billion, takes effect on January 1, 2004. Nonetheless, Jack Layton insists that a $4.4 billion corporate tax cut is about to take effect. Caught in this lie by journalists, Say Anything Jack continues to bull through refusing to admit that he has not been telling the truth.

To avoid recognizing his lie, Mr. Layton is now advocating a huge tax hike, rolling back the reductions of the past four years. The proposal would result in job losses in all sectors of Canada's economy. These losses would most heavily impact small and medium-sized businesses, which employ about seven of every ten Canadians working in the private sector. Eliminating the entire tax reduction as Mr. Layton suggests would result in tax hikes to Canadian small businesses of 33%.

"Small business is the economic engine of our country, accounting for 85% of new jobs created," said the Hon. Joe Fontana, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister with special emphasis on Science and Small Business. "Taking actions that will devastate small businesses will also punish the men and women who work for them. It is beyond me how Jack Layton can purport to speak for working Canadians and then propose a tax hike that will put their jobs at risk."

Fontana noted that the government's corporate tax cuts will disproportionately benefit small and medium-sized businesses, which account for roughly 7 of 10 jobs in the private sector. This represents the hometown grocer, the shop on the corner, and the local laundromat - the types of businesses that make our communities strong.

In calling for higher taxes, it appears that Say Anything Jack is turning his back on working Canadians.

The fact is that 75% of the government's tax cuts have gone towards reducing the tax burden of Canadian families and individuals, not corporations. In fact, by next year, Canadians' average personal income tax will be 21% lower. And for families with children, it will be 27% lower than in 2000.

Stick to the Facts, Jack!

It is well known in political circles that NDP leader Jack Layton will say anything to get himself on television, but it appears he's more than willing to make things up for radio, too.

The NDP leader has proven himself quick to invent allegations, especially when on the defensive over his own record, but on a disastrous outing last Saturday on CBC Radio's "The House," Layton may have set a new land-speed record for the most number of fabrications per minute.

When the radio host put Layton on the hot seat and quizzed him on his low-ball tactics, personal attacks, vacuous stunts and self-promotion, a desperate Say Anything Jack began inventing "facts":


Layton claimed that the new parliamentary secretary responsible for public private partnerships (or P3s) has been given a "specific mandate to look at how any public service could be turned over to the private sector." That's wrong, Jack. As Layton acknowledged in the interview, one of the "P"s in P3 stands for "public" and these partnerships do not represent "the privatization model" as Layton claims. Nor has any member of Prime Minister Martin's government been given the mandate to pursue the mass privatization of government services. That's a Layton fabrication.


Layton yet again claimed "we are looking at a multi-billion dollar corporate tax cut as the very first act of government." In the past week Layton has maliciously claimed that Prime Minister Martin is bringing in a $4.4-billion tax cut on January 1, 2004. Wrong again, Jack. What we are in fact looking at is one of the final stages in a multi-year tax reduction package that is focused 75% on reducing the tax burden of Canadian families and individuals, not corporations. By next year, Canadians' average personal income tax will be 21% lower than 2000. For families with children the reduction is 27%. The government's tax cut for small businesses and companies was a relatively modest part of the overall tax reductions, which began in 2000. The last scheduled corporate tax reduction represents $1.1 billion, not $4.4 billion, as Layton claims. Perhaps Layton's invented attack is an attempt to cover the fact that his party voted against the budget that announced these tax reductions which have done so much to help working families. Or perhaps he is hoping to obscure the fact that his call to roll back the corporate tax reductions of the past four years would increase small business taxes by 33% and cost many Canadians their jobs.


Layton suggested that the Prime Minister will walk away from his commitment to share revenue with municipalities because the issue is "complicated". Under questioning from the host, Layton had to admit that Paul Martin had been a long standing friend of municipalities and that he had made good in the past by moving on Federation of Canadian Municipalities suggestions in his budgets. Layton then squirmed as the interview put directly to him the inconsistency between his personal attacks and Martin's actual record. "Good point" he finally allowed.


Layton stated: "I'm not going to call Mr. Martin names" and then broke his promise about 15 seconds later when, after the radio host doubted his sincerity, he called Mr. Martin a "practicing coal baron."


Layton claimed Prime Minister Martin will "walk away from Kyoto". Wrong. The Prime Minister remains committed to Kyoto protocol. In fact, he has stated that Canada's commitment to address the causes of climate change will proceed regardless of the status of Kyoto: "The fact is the quality of life that comes out of clean air, clean water ... has its own impetus and its own merit regardless of what international treaties are being signed."(Paul Martin, Toronto Star, December 6, 2003)


Layton further suggested that Prime Minister Martin will sign "Star Wars agreements." No. Prime Minister Martin has only said that Canada should have a seat at the table to ensure Canada's interests are respected as the U.S. pursues national missile defence. This proposal, by the way, involves 40 land- and sea-based interceptors. Sorry Jack, no Death-Stars here.

December 2003? This website is really outdated; it doesn't list any of its sources, and I need to see this through a non-Liberal biased lens.
Although Martin doesn't directly support a Star Wars-esque program, implementing 40 some odd land/sea based anti-missile systems would be a logical first step towards eventually putting weapons into space. This, by the way, wouldn't be a cheap program. I'd rather have a few billion dollars spent into saving the environment or helping health care then to invest it into a program based on shooting missiles at other missiles, (which is about as effective as trying to stop a fired bullet by firing another bullet at it lol).

Star Wars is old news, they can bounce a beam off the moon and fry you where you stand now.

http://www.viewzone.com/haarp11.html

peace :confused:

Tilde says: " I'd rather have a few billion dollars spent into saving the environment or helping health care then to invest it into a program based on shooting missiles at other missiles, (which is about as effective as trying to stop a fired bullet by firing another bullet at it lol). "

What good will a pristine enviroment do or health care handouts do,if Canada was unable to prevent being attacked by missiles armed with nuke,bio and chem warheads,that would destroy the enviroment and cause alot more than a few billion in health care needs ?

Y'all liberals and environuts,have it bass-ackwards..protection first-then ya can dilly-dally and fiddle-fart around with the enviroment and health care, afterwards.

Have a good one...Torog

Quote:

---

What good will a pristine enviroment do or health care handouts do,if Canada was unable to prevent being attacked by missiles armed with nuke,bio and chem warheads,that would destroy the enviroment and cause alot more than a few billion in health care needs ?

---

You're absolutely right. There's nothing I can say that can disprove your above statement...a nuke in the middle of downtown Toronto would kill/injure a lot of people and spew toxic waste in the areas surrounding the city; however, it's safe to say that your definition of "prevent[ion]" and mine are completely different.

Bulking up on the military by contributing billions of dollars into the construction of 40 anti-missile structures is NOT what I consider prevention...if the U.S. had a better foreign policy, they wouldn't need such elaborate protection. Canada's role, as a country, has always been that of peacekeeping, so as a result, we don't have very many SANE enemies, and no matter what they tell you, there will always be rogue states and terrorists in the world...ALWAYS. Our duty should be to control these threats, NOT overrun countries as an excuse to eradicate whatever terrorist cells may be contained within or how many WMD may be being built there (maybe the U.S. should set an example and dismantle all THEIR weapons of mass destruction first).

So, since these threats will always be around--lets face it, we live in an awesome country, and there are a lot of jealous extremists in the world--why donâ??t we invest in ourselves and prove to other nations that this is a path worth following? Death will never justify death, and so far, lasting peace hasnâ??t resulted from temporary wars, so obviously something else has to occur.

Quote:

---

Y'all liberals and environuts,have it bass-ackwards..protection first-then ya can dilly-dally and fiddle-fart around with the enviroment and health care, afterwards.

---

See, the thing isâ?¦there isnâ??t going to BE an â??afterwardsâ??. Complete protection from outside threats is never going to happen (unless of course we constructed an indestructible/impenetrable sphere around the countryâ?¦and I have a feeling that that would affect our economy lol)â?¦you can build a million anti-missile silos and put a thousand nukes into orbit, but we will be just as far behind as when we started (if you want proof, look at Russia. Thatâ??s what happens when you donâ??t invest in your own people). And in less than a few decades--just long enough for your newborns to graduate high-school--crude oil will no longer exist, and we will need to wear sunscreen thatâ??s SPF 6 Billion in order to step outside, so NOW is a good time to be investing in our environment, fossil-fuel alternatives, and health care.

I went on a rant there lol...can we now get back to the election?

"December 2003? This website is really outdated"

Do you really think he has changed much in 6 months? The point was that if they promise you more, then they will take more to pay for it.

"I need to see this through a non-Liberal biased lens."

Good luck finding a view thats not biased! Your gonna need it.

Toker

True, I agree. It takes more to do more...kinda like how it takes more Lego to make a replica of Buckingham Palace than it takes to build a replica of a rectangle.

And a non-biased view would be awesome! Pretty hard to find though...I just meant a biased view of your article that was non-Liberal. I'm guessing that "you're gonna need it" tag was an attack on my open-mindedness, which is pretty uncalled for...last year, I voted Liberal, but this year I changed my mind. Who knows? I might change my mind again by next Monday. In my opinion, no party leader or candidate is perfect, but out of all the parties, the new democrats are the only ones who have both: a) a platform I'd want fulfilled, and b) a platform I most believe will be fulfilled by that chosen party.
Those are the two factors that I wish everyone would base their vote on.
***(I'm looking at all of the necrovoters out there who cast ballots based on their great-granddaddyâ??s vote)*** :mad:

"was an attack on my open-mindedness"

It was not an attack. If your going to look for an unbiased opinion, you truely are going to need a lot of luck if you hope to find one.

An open mind is a good thing. Read the "what Libertarianism did for me" post. You might like it.

Toker

Will do man...it's hard to tell what people mean on this thing.
Anybody else want to submit their views on the upcoming election?

Yes, vote your heart not your wallet.

peace :)

Come now, with barely three days left, there must be at least a couple other Canadians on this board who want to share their position regarding the upcoming election... :confused:

There is a guy over at http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/boardview.shtml?1x0 that I am sure you would get an answer from. He lives in BC. His name is forced registration. He's a cool guy, and he his pretty smart also. If you want to hear a well thought out opinion on the politics of Cananda, he's your best bet. Call him by name, he will answer you. There are a few other Canadians over there as well.

Toker