Looming Federal Election

[Bagotricks]

Trickle down economics never works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

It was originally called the horse-and-sparrow theory.

"Feed enough oats to a horse and eventually enough oats will pass through the horse and end up on the road for us sparrows"

Right - so you over-feed a gluttonous horse ( the rich ) to the point where they cant get fatter ( richer ) so little scraps are crapped out for the lower classes to fight over. Very nice.

Its great politics however, and easy to scare up fears ( you'll loose your job - high prices ) while giving the weathiest people in the country the biggest tax breaks - who are your main campaign contributors.

Then you have jokers complaining that "There isnt enough money to fund these social programs" or "If you dont like the HST- how can we afford roads" which of course are all BS arguments. The reason we are broke is because the wealthiest are not paying their share.

You have the lower classes fighting against themselves for scraps and crumbs cutting eachothers arms off to get at it - while the big boys eat steak and lobster at the main table without any interruptions.

Trickle down economics, Reganomincs or horse-and-sparrow either way - it doesnt work.

[NAB]

Something I would like to know is, when the opposition forces an election and the PM dissolves parliament, that suggests to me that all MP's are at that point out of a job (with the possible exception of certain Cabinet positions? - someone has to keep running the country while an election is going on I would think),

....so does that mean that the moment the deed is done that at that point all EX MP's stop getting their taxpayer funded paycheques and perks? I would hope so. When unions go on strike their employer doesn't keep paying them while negotiations are going on. Anyway, there are still about 24 hours for someone in the opposition to step back from the brink, but I rather doubt the Government will make it easy for anyone there to do so. The Conservatives can smell their elusive majority government, and that has to be something that trumps all else for them. I think the big losers that will come from all this is going to be Layton and the NDP. But I think Layton has just about run his course anyway, and likes the idea of going down fighting. I'll bet the Liberals are just slavering at the thought of taking out the NDP this election. Possible even more so than the thought of taking out Harper.

Nab

[Merry]

I'm not happy to hear we're heading for yet another Federal election because I think there's a very good chance that after all the dust settles we'll just end up with pretty much what we have right now. But I could be wrong. I know that I for one am begining to have doubts about the wisdom of continued Conservative leadership if it means a much harder swing to the right than we've experienced to date, and if I'm not the only one feeling that way, then we could be in for a surprising outcome following this election.

It is only the minority position that has tempered some of Harper's far right ideologies, and I'm very concerned about what Canada will become if the Conservatives win a majority this time around.

There is an article in the Globe and Mail which points out that this latest budget was actually a bit of a "wolf in sheeps clothing". The author draws attention to the fact that it is only through significant reductions in federal spending that the projected surplus budget could be acheived by 2015, yet no details are given as to exactly what those federal spending cuts will be . And, as the Conservatives have already made public committments to increasing spending on the military and prisons, as well as reducing taxes, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what types of things will be cut.

Are we, as a nation, ready to see our social programs completely decimated within a few short years? Particularly those of us who are heading into an uncertain financial future due to our looming retirement? The gap between the rich and poor has already widened considerably over the past few years, and the middle class is shrinking more and more, and may disappear altogether if the trend isn't soon reversed. What good are the numbers stating that Canada's overall economy is improving if we, the man in the street, don't get any benefit from it?

Obviously it is important for government to create a favourable business climate in order to attract new and retain existing business, because ordinary people need business to provide them with work. But we working people want the work in order to provide a decent lifestyle for ourselves and our families, not to be working slaves providing a luxury lifestyle for others. Social programs are never seen as important by the "well heeled" among us, because they can afford to buy whatever health care they need, and pay for a fancy retirement home if they need it. But for the rest of us, affordable housing and access to good health care is an important priority. One which we do not want to see disappear.

Read the article for yourself, and then think about the implications of the proposed massive spending cuts.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1954533/

[CJT84]

Trickle down economics never works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

It was originally called the horse-and-sparrow theory.

"Feed enough oats to a horse and eventually enough oats will pass through the horse and end up on the road for us sparrows"

Right - so you over-feed a gluttonous horse ( the rich ) to the point where they cant get fatter ( richer ) so little scraps are crapped out for the lower classes to fight over. Very nice.

Its great politics however, and easy to scare up fears ( you'll loose your job - high prices ) while giving the weathiest people in the country the biggest tax breaks - who are your main campaign contributors.

Then you have jokers complaining that "There isnt enough money to fund these social programs" or "If you dont like the HST- how can we afford roads" which of course are all BS arguments. The reason we are broke is because the wealthiest are not paying their share.

You have the lower classes fighting against themselves for scraps and crumbs cutting eachothers arms off to get at it - while the big boys eat steak and lobster at the main table without any interruptions.

Trickle down economics, Reganomincs or horse-and-sparrow either way - it doesnt work.

I'm not arguing trickle down economics. The wealthiest pay 40 odd percent of the taxes, how is that not their share? If you had a general tax break of 5% yes the wealthiest would benefit the most because they PAY the most.

Your interpretation of trickle down theory negates stocks and investments and seems to imagine the rich hoarding currency and only purchasing boats and homes (but dont worry they magically spring out of wonderland and no one is employed to build those homes or boats).

You have no understanding of economics at all, you're just parroting some dogma. Go readhttp://books.google.com/books?id=C2y7AAAAIAAJ by Thomas Sowell or some Hayek, Mises or Rothbard please.

[Merry]

The British Government applied the theory of "trickle down economics" and "laissez-faire" government during the days of Charles Dickens, and one only has to read his novels to know how well that policy turned out.

[CJT84]

The British Government applied the theory of "trickle down economics" and "laissez-faire" government during the days of Charles Dickens, and one only has to read his novels to know how well that policy turned out.

So you're saying that before the industrial revolution the standard of living was higher? I come from the UK and I will debate you any time on its history. You're completely wrong and the fact you use Charles dickens as a reference point is absurd. I'll use Charles Bukowski as a reference for 1960's USA if you like too.

[Bagotricks]

If the goal of trickle down is to "make everyone prosperous" - then why give the people at the top breaks? The guys at the top are eating steak and pretty comfortable ( recession their pay went up after all ) and on the other end people are suffering, spending the winter in a cold house or going without proper nutritious food. Why not help the people on the bottom - after all, if the masses have money in their pockets, doesn't the economy function better and the more people buy things, the more jobs there will be?

If it can trickle down - cant it trickle up?

...but then the ultra rich wouldn't get their tax breaks.

Funny how that works.

Even more amusing is how people are still chirping on about Reaganomics.

[Merry]

:So you're saying that before the industrial revolution the standard of living was higher? I come from the UK and I will debate you any time on its history.

The Industrial Revolution ushered in great changes in society, many beneficial, but many great hardships as well. And for the most part, those hardships fell on the working poor, while the rich got richer at the expense of those in the lower classes. It's true that "trickle down economics" provided plenty of jobs at that time in history, but they were not well paying jobs, and the working conditions were usually horrendous. It was only later, with the birth of trades unions, and the social activism of people like Dickens, that working conditions began to improve. The improvements did not result from the largesse of the mill owners or the compassion of government.

It is human nature to be greedy and selfish, and the idea that enriching those at the top will enable them to be more generous to those at the bottom is mainly "pie in the sky" stuff. Sure, there are a few philanthropists who share their wealth but, for the most part, the rich keep as much of what they have as possible.

I repeat that, it is in everyones best interest, for governments to provide a climate that benefits both new and exisiting business, BUT to take that to the umpth degree and design only policies that benefit business in the assumption they will voluntarily share their wealth is nothing but a pipedream. We need government policies which ensure that EVERYONE in society will benefit in some way from a healthy economy, not just those at the top.

[NAB]

Not to interfere with your off topic derail folks, but back to this..

I'm not happy to hear we're heading for yet another Federal election because I think there's a very good chance that after all the dust settles we'll just end up with pretty much what we have right now. But I could be wrong. I know that I for one am begining to have doubts about the wisdom of continued Conservative leadership if it means a much harder swing to the right than we've experienced to date, and if I'm not the only one feeling that way, then we could be in for a surprising outcome following this election.

It is only the minority position that has tempered some of Harper's far right ideologies, and I'm very concerned about what Canada will become if the Conservatives win a majority this time around.

There is an article in the Globe and Mail which points out that this latest budget was actually a bit of a "wolf in sheeps clothing". The author draws attention to the fact that it is only through significant reductions in federal spending that the projected surplus budget could be acheived by 2015, yet no details are given as to exactly what those federal spending cuts will be . And, as the Conservatives have already made public committments to increasing spending on the military and prisons, as well as reducing taxes, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what types of things will be cut.

Are we, as a nation, ready to see our social programs completely decimated within a few short years? Particularly those of us who are heading into an uncertain financial future due to our looming retirement? The gap between the rich and poor has already widened considerably over the past few years, and the middle class is shrinking more and more, and may disappear altogether if the trend isn't soon reversed. What good are the numbers stating that Canada's overall economy is improving if we, the man in the street, don't get any benefit from it?

Obviously it is important for government to create a favourable business climate in order to attract new and retain existing business, because ordinary people need business to provide them with work. But we working people want the work in order to provide a decent lifestyle for ourselves and our families, not to be working slaves providing a luxury lifestyle for others. Social programs are never seen as important by the "well heeled" among us, because they can afford to buy whatever health care they need, and pay for a fancy retirement home if they need it. But for the rest of us, affordable housing and access to good health care is an important priority. One which we do not want to see disappear.

Read the article for yourself, and then think about the implications of the proposed massive spending cuts.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1954533/

May I submit that, so far, the Harper Government has been fairly good at achieving balance between social and business policy. The real question seems to be - is that their nature? I suggest it is, whether in a minority or majority position. In fact, it may just be that, given a majority position, many of these issues could proceed much faster if they didn't get continually hung up in opposition sabre rattling over elections. Remember, what is it - 4 elections in 7 years, and the Liberals haven't succeeded in any of them? Yet they want to give it yet another try? What's wrong with those power hungry people????

Nab

[Merry]

May I submit that, so far, the Harper Government has been fairly good at achieving balance between social and business policy. The real question seems to be - is that their nature? I suggest it is, whether in a minority or majority position. In fact, it may just be that, given a majority position, many of these issues could proceed much faster if they didn't get continually hung up in opposition sabre rattling over elections. Remember, what is it - 4 elections in 7 years, and the Liberals haven't succeeded in any of them? Yet they want to give it yet another try? What's wrong with those power hungry people????

Nab

I agree with you Nab that up until now Harper's Conservatives have provided fairly balanced government. However, I firmly believe that it is the restrictions of being in a minority position that has encouraged this and I fear that if given a majority we will see a decided swing to the right. The United States has always favoured a more right wing form of government (even when ruled by the Democrats) and look what a mess they're in. I do have right wing leanings myself on many issues, but I don't want to see the swing to the hard right that some advocate. Social programs are necessary if we are to spread the wealth that is generated by a healthy economy. We can't rely solely on the generosity of business.

[Urbane]

If the Harper government got a majority and then dismantled Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, and other social programs they would be out the door in a hurry. And you don't dismantle those programs overnight either. Politicians generally have a survival instinct and the Harper government is no different. I really don't look forward to an Ignatieff government with Jack Layton in cabinet and Duceppe having more influence so I hope the Conservatives are returned to power. And if we're looking at either a Conservative majority or a coalition government I will opt for a majority Conservative government.

It just seems so strange to me when Canada is doing better than most other countries in the world to be told that we're really doing poorly or at least heading in the wrong direction. Political dogma seems to be trumping reality for some people.

[NAB]

May I submit that, so far, the Harper Government has been fairly good at achieving balance between social and business policy. The real question seems to be - is that their nature? I suggest it is, whether in a minority or majority position. In fact, it may just be that, given a majority position, many of these issues could proceed much faster if they didn't get continually hung up in opposition sabre rattling over elections. Remember, what is it - 4 elections in 7 years, and the Liberals haven't succeeded in any of them? Yet they want to give it yet another try? What's wrong with those power hungry people????

Nab

I agree with you Nab that up until now Harper's Conservatives have provided fairly balanced government. However, I firmly believe that it is the restrictions of being in a minority position that has encouraged this and I fear that if given a majority we will see a decided swing to the right. The United States has always favoured a more right wing form of government (even when ruled by the Democrats) and look what a mess they're in. I do have right wing leanings myself on many issues, but I don't want to see the swing to the hard right that some advocate. Social programs are necessary if we are to spread the wealth that is generated by a healthy economy. We can't rely solely on the generosity of business.

Urbane makes some valid points in that regard when he suggests that no matter what government emerges from this continued idiocy, programs and policy don't turn on a dime Merry, and one more year of current policy is IMO necessary to see where we really stand as a result of current economic policy. (I don't want to lock in on any change that could potentially last 4 years right now). Typically it takes 3 to 6 years before any major shifts can show their results and by then it may well be too late. In that context I understand your concern that a majority Conservative government MIGHT be forced to take some drastic measures along the way, although most of those have already been taken and it is just a matter of being able to stay the course and on plan, which IS WORKING!.

Personally, at this point I am more concerned about a potential swing hard left wing as I perceive where Iggy would take us. That has far more potential IMO of leading to disaster than a Conservative majority. I am reminded in many ways of what lead us into the economic disaster that was the Trudeau Liberal years, and I fear Ignatieff and his Liberals may be on the verge of repeating that horrific mistake again, or even Dion's, should they take power. I have lived through and experienced it all since the St. Laurent years, but so many who will help decide this thing now have not. It is up to us who have experienced these shifts many times to try to share with them the potential downside if another generation rides a hard left wave right now, particularly one led by an individual like Ignatieff who's REAL vision for this country is still well hidden.

Nab

[butcher99]

Cutting taxes to corporations only affects those corporations who already make a profit. They are making profits and we give them more profits. That is about all it accomplishes.
Those corporations who need a hand or who are not making much profit will feel nothing from this.

It doesn't bother me that corporations make more profit if that in turn benefits the entire economy. And that's what's happening with the corporate tax cuts. Canada is doing exceedingly well relative to the other G20 countries and establishing a good climate for business is a big reason. As to the cuts not working here is a rebuttal from John Manley (former Liberal Finance Minister):

One reason for the more positive fiscal outlook is that federal government revenues from corporate income taxation are projected to increase by an annual average of 6.3 percent between 2010-11 and 2015-16.

Indeed, the budget indicates that corporate income taxes now represent the single fastest growing source of government revenue. Despite recent reductions in the statutory corporate tax rate, federal revenues from business taxation are expected to rise by 12 percent over the next year – more than double the increase in personal income tax revenues.

Well then I guess you should be bothered because giving corporations these unneeded and totally unnecessary tax breaks does not benefit anybody or produce one more job.

If they do not give them this tax break they could grow by a much larger percentage. There is often, especially with right wing governments, a huge difference between projected and actual.

Usually in a manner which does not help.

[albertabound]

You people who hate Harper must be really brainwashed with liberal propoganda. He has done a great job with his hands tied.
Jack Layton can smell blood, he sees that iggy is not going to win and now he has a chance to come out as number 2 , with a Harper majorioty and the demise of the lierbals, good bye iggy.

[NAB]

I agree butcher. That's why I beleive we should not make change based on budget projections as is now being contemplated, but rather on actuals at the end of a fiscal period. But the opposition don't care for that approach, as the actuals are very much in the Conservative Government's favour. Personally, I would sooner make a decision based on what HAS been done, not on what some ex-spurts think will occur. In that regard. none of the opposition parties have a leg to to stand on as they have accomplished nothing but gabbleflab and stalling. heck, in the case of the Liberals they haven't even managed to get their own house in order. How could we possibly trust them to be able to keep Canada's house in order?

Nab