Discussions

loeog, I don't know what to say except wow! Not going to get into a pissing match with you but in case you didn't notice, I edited my original post and apologized to you with that last sentence. I also don't think I called lower income people "crap" and I'm not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. I happen to be one of those low income people and some days by the end of the month it ain't pretty

WestWind said "loeog, I don't know what to say except wow! Not going to get into a pissing match with you but in case you didn't notice, I edited my original post and apologized to you with that last sentence. I also don't think I called lower income people "crap" and I'm not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. I happen to be one of those low income people and some days by the end of the month it ain't pretty "

I think I'm tired of people playing games with the truth.  
 
Your post in question appears to call the 1 percent lowering of the tax rate a lie.  
Why did you leave your mistake in the post and not remove it when you realized you made an honest mistake and edited a correction at the bottom.  
 
To be honest, I was unaware you had made the correction and couldn't understand why you hid the truth at the bottom.  
 
 
 
Edited by loeog, 2015-10-17 22:10:06

Loeog, I think we are all tired from this election. Thank goodness the Blue Jays are a nice distraction! As to why I didn't edit properly and just added the apology to the bottom its because I'm one of those "older" folks still intimidated by these techie online forums. I just wanted to correct my mistake as quickly as possible after I had gone back to the Government website and checked out some years prior to 2005. Will have to get more lessons from my grandkids. I will eventually learn to edit properly but til then, just bear with me and have a good evening!

Regardless of the many other issues in the election, the idea of increasing spending by $11 billion a year makes me nauseous.  
 
I understand that promises need to be made to win, but what a cost to so many millions of people, and todays young people. We are so fortunate to have come through the world recession well. Why tinker with all our futures and our livelihoods just to get power?  
 
There were enough political value differences, that huge debt just doesn't seem necessary in the bid to win.

My post above mentioning $11 billionper year increased spending by Trudeau was from Global.  
 
This CTV article pegs his planned increased spending at $149 billion in 4 years.  
 
That's just insane. Not change, its Canadian suicide.

Just like this town couldn't afford the price tags of SDH and most candidates, this country cannot afford the price tag of Trudeau or Muclair (NDP are spenders and tax hikers by the last 20 year track record).  
I don't buy a fancy winter jacket if my budget only allows for a modestly priced, reasonable one. I don't vote fancy if my budget only allows for a modestly priced, reasonable Prime Minister. Most people live within the means of our already stretched budget as best as we can. The government of Canada needs to do the same as best it can. I will be voting conservative because in this election, like Rick Chrest, they are not making huge pipe-dream plans that we, the vast majority, cannot afford the price tag of.

If you wanted it still there in 4 years Harper. If you asked who would you like to party with Trudeau, but once your bank account is drained, the party is over.

Just looking over my life and all the changes I have seen with governments I have come to the conclusion that very few of us pay much attention to platforms, we are a population that isn't really voting a party in but voting a party out. Things like scandals, corruption, and the party forgetting about all Canadians happens under all governments. I don't believe that we fear change, since a persons life is a series of changes right from day one and as has been posted on ebrandon under many different topics, if you are unhappy with a situation change it. I don't believe there are things such as election promises, they are just ideas. One thing I do know is regardless of who wins government spending will increase, and you and I will have to pay for it, good thing or bad thing I don't know for sure, if it only helps a few I don't believe that's good, but if it helps us all perhaps that's good,

I agree with every single word in this article. Always have.  
 
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/adam-why-i-cant-vote-for-stephen-harper

I didn't find anything of note in that article besides more words of fear as interpreted by the CBC.  
 
I guess my feeling about this electionis that conservatives will vote conservative, and life long liberals will vote liberal. But its the undecided and also those who really aren't invested in politics who may vote for change without understanding what a return to liberal government means.  
 
If a change of government is good for the country then yes, vote for change.buti hear so many treating it like buying a lot ticket...i think maybeits time for change so let's give it gamble & hope it works out.  
 
Again I'm talking about those who aren't firmly decided with allegiances.  
 
I wish we had less rhetoric & more numbers in the campaign. Change is nice but change can be bad. What are your cold hard numbers for the economy.  
 
That's what concerns me rather than 'severely' limiting access to media lol. Severely destroying our economy with full media access doesn't do much good.

You might really enjoy this article as well:  
 
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/william-thorsell-the-editorial-id-write-if-i-were-still-writing-them/  
 

Majority government means that it becomes easier to pass bills and laws. Having to show identity for voting has and should always be a requirement. Most provinces had a provincial ID (for those who do not drive), just because Manitoba is behind the times doesn't make it wrong.  
Having to show your identity protects your vote from being stolen by fraudulent means. No identity means I could randomly pick up peoples voting cards and run around town voting multiple times under different names.  
If you don’t like the ID (or lack of) being offered in Manitoba, you should be hounding the Provincial Government to offer what other provinces have been offering for over 20 yrs. Looks very similar a driver's license, but is just an Identification card.  
No, I don't think asking for proof of identification has to be disrespectful. If someone has their face covered, it can be as simple as going to a screened off area to privately show one's face to one or two members of the same gender. Who are verifying identifications.  
No, if I have to prove my identification when buying a house or registering a car, or when getting prescription drugs, I think it is only logical that our elections system have the same rights. If it helps force the Manitoba government be forced to actually provide ALL it's residents (over the age of 18) with a valid picture ID, then great...it is LONG overdue. 20 years too long.

loeog said "    WestWind said "Loeog said "the liberals fought against the conservative bill that lowered the tax rate to 15% for the lowest earning Canadians". Out of curiosity I checked out the tax form archives at   http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/formspubs/t1gnrl/llyrs-eng.html   and the tax rate has been 15% for the lowest earners since at least 2005 so not sure when the Liberals voted against this. In 2005 the lowest income earners paid 15% if they earned up to $35,595 ($43,953. in 2014) and in 2005 if you earned $115,739 or more($136,000 in 2014) you were taxed at the highest rate of 29%. There are other categories in between taxed at 22 and 26%. One thing that has changed though is the amount of tax credits and a much more complicated 2014 tax form. If you have other information I missed somewhere I'd be interested in knowing your source. An interesting series in Macleans magazine is "Election Issues 2015" that gives you the breakdown on where each party stands on several different issues. Ooops, I just looked back to 2004 tax form and it was 16% for the lowest income so I apologize to Loeog - that must be what the liberals objected to.     Edited by WestWind, 2015-10-17 20:53:54" You call me a lair for the first 90 percent of your liberal lie and try not to get caught, then you admit I was right in the last sentence.     Liberal smoke and mirrors.     Yes the rate changed from 16 to 15 percent for the lowest income bracket. That change pays the lowest income the most return.     The liberals are offering 1.5 percent to people with taxable income in the 47 to 90 thousand taxable range. Their great deal pay 58 dollars at $50,000.     Fact is you just called 1% to Canada's lowest income families crap so why is the smoke and mirror offer of 1.5% to high middle class earning Canadians so fantastic?               Edited by loeog, 2015-10-17 21:09:30"

the facts in a well orchestrated way as taught to you by Harper and the Cons.  
 
In 2006 Jim Flaherty in his budget announced the implementation of the LIBERAL PROPOSAL to reduce the lowest effective personal income tax rate to 15%.  
 
During this budget he also announced the lowering of corporate tax rates as well as a 1% cut to the GST.  
 
This reduction was soundly rejected by many economists as not a wise move at the time and now with history behind us and 150 billion dollars added to our debt under Harper rule it's clear to see the government was giving away money that we never had to give away in the first place.  
 
The Liberals voted against the budget as a whole! They did not specifically vote against personal income tax reduction as this reduction was first proposed in the Liberal election platform, then adopted by the Cons.  
 
To suggest anything else is like Harper trying to tell Canadians that Justin will eliminate income splitting for seniors.  
 
Something again that is simply NOT TRUE!

We have heard that one of Harper's strong suits is his good judgement, and that we should consider this when we vote.  
 
Last night, in Toronto, was is that good judgement that was on display when he attended a rally with Rob and Doug Ford ? Depending on who you believe either the rally was organized by the Fords, or the CPC organized it and the Fords attended. Either way, does Harper associating with the Fords demonstrate that good judgement ?  
 
During the election Harper said that marijuana is infinitely worse than tobacco. For the moment let's ignore his woeful lack of understanding of basic mathematics. Where does smoking crack fall on the scale ? He chastises Trudeau for his stance on marijuana, but then accepts the endorsement of a crack smoking former mayor ?  
 

Can someone who is voting g for.change and the liberal party please explain to me how voting for the same old corupt liberal party voting for change? I understand not voting for harper his autocratic style has me no longer able to support him and the conservative party. Harper has abandoned the values of the reform party that drew so many Canadians to the right transparency and accountability and kept only the parts that divided Canadians.  
If you want change from this style how does voting liberal change anything treaudeau and the liberals have never allowed freedom of members to represent their ridings it has always been to down look at their candidate selection if you didn't drink the kool-aid and toe the party.line everywhere you could not run under the liberal banner.  
How is voting conservative liberal or ndp not the defanition of insanity

The liberals did not vote against one item, they did indeed vote against the entire bill.  
 
The liberals did say they had a better plan, a plan we now see offers tax breaks to high "middle income" Canadians instead of low income people. A plan they want you to know doesn't touch senior income splitting.  
Aren't the high income middle class and seniors the people that have the largest turnout for voting.  
 
As for adding to the debt of Canada, buying votes to the tune of 10 billion dollars isn't cool in my books.  
 
The best part of the liberal plan is engaging the young to get involved and voting for these changes.  
 
 
Edited by loeog, 2015-10-18 11:16:13

Will be voting green. Btw I have voted liberal cons and green in the past. We do not inherit the land from our Ancestors we borrow it from our children. Ancient Native Proverb. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Lao Tzu

loeog said "The liberals did not vote against one item, they did indeed vote against the entire bill.     The liberals did say they had a better plan, a plan we now see offers tax breaks to high "middle income" Canadians instead of low income people. A plan they want you to know doesn't touch senior income splitting.   Aren't the high income middle class and seniors the people that have the largest turnout for voting.     As for adding to the debt of Canada, buying votes to the tune of 10 billion dollars isn't cool in my books.     The best part of the liberal plan is engaging the young to get involved and voting for these changes.       Edited by loeog, 2015-10-18 11:16:13"

increased child tax credit bundled with the income splitting to families that Harper and his Cons have brought in benefit Canadians as follows:  
 
376,000 people earning less than $60,000.  
 
1,011,000 people earning $60 - $120,000.  
 
361,000 people earning $120 - $180,000.  
 
233,000 people earning OVER $180,000.  
 
By doing my simple math it's clear to see which income groups will benefit that shouldn't.  
 
A total of 600,000 people earning over $120,000. will benefit including Justin!!!  
 
Simply not good tax policy and Justin will reverse it!!!

DarMar said "    loeog said "The liberals did not vote against one item, they did indeed vote against the entire bill.     The liberals did say they had a better plan, a plan we now see offers tax breaks to high "middle income" Canadians instead of low income people. A plan they want you to know doesn't touch senior income splitting.   Aren't the high income middle class and seniors the people that have the largest turnout for voting.     As for adding to the debt of Canada, buying votes to the tune of 10 billion dollars isn't cool in my books.     The best part of the liberal plan is engaging the young to get involved and voting for these changes.       Edited by loeog, 2015-10-18 11:16:13" increased child tax credit bundled with the income splitting to families that Harper and his Cons have brought in benefit Canadians as follows:     376,000 people earning less than $60,000.     1,011,000 people earning $60 - $120,000.     361,000 people earning $120 - $180,000.     233,000 people earning OVER $180,000.     By doing my simple math it's clear to see which income groups will benefit that shouldn't.     A total of 600,000 people earning over $120,000. will benefit including Justin!!!     Simply not good tax policy and Justin will reverse it!!! "

Liberal speak that avoids the obvious.  
 
Almost 1.4 million low and middle class Canadians will lose this benefit.  
I'm one of the 376,000 that earn under 60,000 taxable.  
 
On the top end both parties could do better, but why did the liberals say the income splitting mainly affects high income Canadians.  

to wake up to a new Canada on Tuesday! I have faith that fellow Canadians are going to really get out there and have their voices heard this time, See ya Harper!

New Canada? Optimism is nice, but it will only bring reality. Same 'old boys' of liberal party will do same things as before.  
 
Now they are defending honor killings and oppression of women. Now some of those running have openly stated links to extremist groups or deny that Hamas & Hezbollah are terror groups.  
 
But there is Justin walking in, hugging & shaking hands for the camera with his OPTIMISM that they won't really turn against nice Canadians.  
 
Diplomats also conceded before Hitler, optimistic that negotiations & cooperation would stop him. I just don't think Justin understands the dangers or recognizes friend vs foe.

This is what i mean:  
 

the OBVIOUS thing to do is to not give rich tax breaks to 361,000 families earning over $120,000 PLUS an additional 233,000 families earning OVER $180,000 DOLLARS.  
 

it is sad that you would stoop to the level of saying "Now they are defending honor killings and oppression of women". Are you really that desperate ? Have you no regard for the truth ?  
 
More fear and loathing in support of the CPC.  
 
Please either acknowledge that your statement is false, or provide clear documentation of "defending honor killings". Documentation is not from CPC talking points or opinion of candidates or loyalists.  
 
Edited by standard standard h8r, 2015-10-18 14:59:43

Heritage said "New Canada? Optimism is nice, but it will only bring reality. Same 'old boys' of liberal party will do same things as before.     Now they are defending honor killings and oppression of women. Now some of those running have openly stated links to extremist groups or deny that Hamas & Hezbollah are terror groups.     But there is Justin walking in, hugging & shaking hands for the camera with his OPTIMISM that they won't really turn against nice Canadians.     Diplomats also conceded before Hitler, optimistic that negotiations & cooperation would stop him. I just don't think Justin understands the dangers or recognizes friend vs foe. "

now you've just resorted to making things up in your mind, just like Harper!!!  
 
I can guarantee you no one who defends honor killings and the oppression of women will or would last in the Liberal party for longer than 5 minutes!!!  
 
You can't just make stuff up in your mind and print it here, that makes no sense!

Oppression of women = being forced out of fear for your life to wear a complete covering obscuring your very identity as a woman and as a person, so as not to tempt men.  
 
You're correct, i should have stated more clearly. Although i have not seen that been done either by other parties with many of their statements.

As for honor killings, perhaps i should state it more clearly as..."defending the condemnation of honor killings, saying it is insensitive to call honor killings barbaric".  
 
As found here http://www.themetropolitain.ca/articles/view/1502  
 
My apologies, i do want to spread truth & not lies.  
 
I also want my prime minister to uphold truth and not be sensitive to lies.

Would be curious to compare the number of Canadians that have died from terrorism against those who have died from food borne illnesses, if we are really concerned about our safety one would have to wonder why the present government reduced the number of inspectors and slaughtering plants in Canada. An outbreak of a food borne illness is a reality that has happened on occasion in this country and after the problems that Mapleleaf had there were questions of whether the company would recover financially. When it comes to fears mine are greater of the known than the unknown.

tafeel said "Can someone who is voting g for.change and the liberal party please explain to me how voting for the same old corupt liberal party voting for change? I understand not voting for harper his autocratic style has me no longer able to support him and the conservative party. Harper has abandoned the values of the reform party that drew so many Canadians to the right transparency and accountability and kept only the parts that divided Canadians.   If you want change from this style how does voting liberal change anything treaudeau and the liberals have never allowed freedom of members to represent their ridings it has always been to down look at their candidate selection if you didn't drink the kool-aid and toe the party.line everywhere you could not run under the liberal banner.   How is voting conservative liberal or ndp not the defanition of insanity "

Here is why I vote for change... Canada's electoral system is broken and stuck in the 19th century. The whole concept of party politics is diseased and fraught with peril for ordinary Canadians. It is a system that allows a government to have total control over a country with only the support of less than 25% of eligible voters. That is not democracy.  
 
Of the 4 national parties, only the CPC has outright refused to consider electoral reform. The other three have promised anything from consultations to referendums and study, but they all say that our broken electoral system will be changed before the next fixed election date in 2019.  
 
Getting away from the party system might be hard for a lot of Canadians to understand and accept. Right now, a lot of voters believe that coalitions among 2 or more parties to "force" a sitting minority government to "bend to their will" is mutiny. People believe that such a coalition taking power away from a sitting minority government and forming their own government is illegal. Nothing could be further from the truth.  
 
In fact, should a minority government be elected on Monday, they have less right to form government than do the other parties who collectively represent the majority of voters. With a reform to Canada's election laws, every vote will count. A party will only receive the number of seats in the House of Commons that is directly proportional to the number of votes they receive as a party. Coalition governments will become the norm because there will be no chance for a "split vote" allowing a candidate to "win" with a minority of votes.  
 
The majority of democracies in the industrialized world utilize some form of Proportional Representation. Even Great Britain, where First Past the Post originated, is seeing parts of Ireland using a PR system and there are many groups pushing for the abandonment of FPTP altogether.  
 
This, tafeel, is why we need change. Change is required to precipitate more change. It will allow change that will let us all vote for the party we favour without fear of wasting our vote. It will allow true democracy in Canada for the first time since we had only a 2-party system.

Apparently, even life-long conservatives, like this former lawyer for the PMO, are voting for change. He says that Harper has "lost the moral authority to govern".  
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-has-lost-the-moral-authority-to-govern-says-former-pmo-lawyer/article26864767/