Harper is a strong leader
$1:
So you defend a plan you disagree with just to help out us poor thick Tories?
You are just a stand-up guy for a far lefty type. Kinda Jesus of the NDP......
No, I defend it in hope of something other than snide remarks, purposeful ignorance, outright lies, and personal attacks coming from the Conservative side.
$1:
Who will ultimately bear the tax incidence? There is very little elasticity in the demand side of things in the energy sector, who's to say the major energy companies hit by the tax do not pass the tax onto the consumer?
We all ultimately bear the tax incidence. The point is that by taxing pollution instead of income...and it's a shift, not a tax increase...we will choose to pollute less in order to pay fewer taxes.
So as a resident of Manitoba, I can choose to heat my house with electricity instead of heating fuel or natural gas, since our electricity is relatively clean. Therefore I don't have to pay as much tax.
I can also choose to reduce consumption by upgrading my house and making it more efficient, again lowering my personal tax burden.
The same goes for corporations. A factory run on coal is going to pay more tax than one run on wind power. Therefore the factory run on coal is going to have to charge more for its goods. It can either switch to a less polluting source of energy or become less competitive.
$1:
What is the cost of administering the tax? Who will the tax incidence be placed on then? The government or tax payers?
Administering a tax costs less than enforcing regulation. If you look at the Conservative plan, they have to create an entirely new department just to do the paperwork. Of course they haven't done that because they have no plans to reduce emissions.
$1:
The problem is, as great as the plan is, I don't know squat about it. Do you know why?
Because you've done little or no research on the subject, have not read the plan, and yet are unwilling to accept the broad strokes that the plan is painted in due to the reality of modern politics.
Let's face it, you aren't going to sit there in front of the TV while Dion or Layton go through an eight or ten hour explanation of their plans. You could go do a little research on how similar plans have worked elsewhere though, how the various experts view the various approaches, and how both Dion's and Layton's plans are supposed to work.
Charisma politics leads to bad leadership. Harper is a prime example of that. He has provided little or no leadership, has acted as a bully, has shown contempt for parliament and our democratic institutions, and acts more like a petulant child than a Prime Minister.
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
Because you've done little or no research on the subject, have not read the plan, and yet are unwilling to accept the broad strokes that the plan is painted in due to the reality of modern politics.
Let's face it, you aren't going to sit there in front of the TV while Dion or Layton go through an eight or ten hour explanation of their plans. You could go do a little research on how similar plans have worked elsewhere though, how the various experts view the various approaches, and how both Dion's and Layton's plans are supposed to work.
Charisma politics leads to bad leadership. Harper is a prime example of that. He has provided little or no leadership, has acted as a bully, has shown contempt for parliament and our democratic institutions, and acts more like a petulant child than a Prime Minister.
Are you kidding me? Harper has as much charisma as a stapler. Yes he's a bully and an arse and he won't be getting my vote this october. However, my problem is with the liberal leadership. I don't mind Dion, but he is simply not leadership material. His lack of communication will allow the Tories to gain a majority, and fuck us with a rubber vibrator for 5 years straight!
If Ignatieff was explaining the plan, I bet he could make it sound more convincing.
RUEZ RUEZ:
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
It's a great ad. It points out that Harper isn't a leader at all. He's had two years and, if he'd wanted to address any of those things, would have found support on the opposition benches. He has refused to seek that support though, instead preferring to bully, lie, and evade. That ain't leadership.
If that's the criteria for a leader then Paul Martin wasn't a leader, and Jean Chretien wasn't a leader. It would be nice if Layton would point that out as well. These Canadians didn't lose their doctors in the two years Harper has been in office. And people didn't become poor in the two years Harper has been in office. In fact he's trying to reduce taxes to help the poorer Canadians. Dion would like to raise them. A revenue neutral carbon tax doesn't help you much if you are already making so little that you don't pay income tax.
Layton always attacks whomever is in the PM's chair. He ripped into Martin in '06, now he's going after Harper.
While I do agree with your assessment of the Green Shift, though, the only way it will happen is if Dion wins a majority. With a minority, it'll get shot down and his government will fall. It's not going to happen, so it's a distraction in this campaign, much as funding faith based schools was in Ontario.
Unfortunately, it looks like Harper's going to make seats just like McGuinty did. Will Dion fail to win his seat as John Tory did? Oh well, that's democracy for you.
$1:
Unfortunately, it looks like Harper's going to make seats just like McGuinty did. Will Dion fail to win his seat as John Tory did? Oh well, that's democracy for you.
It's a beauty
CommanderSock CommanderSock:
The problem is, as great as the plan is, I don't know squat about it. Do you know why?
Ooh! I know! I know!
Because you never clicked on any one of the hundreds of links on this site and many other so that you could read the plan?
http://thegreenshift.ca/pdfs/green_shift_book_en.pdfOr because you never used the Green Shift Calculator to figure out how the tax would actually impact *you*? Cause it will tell you how much tax you will likely pay and how much your refund will be.
http://thegreenshift.ca/content/calculator_e.aspx
$1:
Are you kidding me? Harper has as much charisma as a stapler.
I think you give him too much credit.
$1:
However, my problem is with the liberal leadership. I don't mind Dion, but he is simply not leadership material.
A lot of that depends on what you consider to be leadership qualities, I guess, or whether you think that strong leadership in the traditional sense is important.
I don't worry about it much since I was never going to vote for him in the first place, but it's the kind of question that I think should take a back seat to policy. I don't think a Prime Minister's job is to look good on camera, and I feel that we'd be way better off if the press paid more attention to the second and third echelons of candidates during an election.
The way our Parliament is set up, we have ministers and shadow ministers. They tend to be the experts on any given area of policy. So I'd rather see Baird, Cullen, and McGuinty fighting over environmental policy than Harper, Layton and Dion.
The third echelon are the committee members that aren't part of the cabinet/shadow cabinet. They do a lot of research and talk to a lot of expert witnesses about any given subject. A lot of them sit on more than one committee and can show how policies in one area affect another area. Again, they know their stuff and are generally able to make cogent arguments based on facts.
Unfortunately, the way our press and campaign logistics are set up, the cameras tend to follow the leaders.
So my advice is to look at the policies as best you can and go by those. Forget about the whole "leadership" thing...it's a load of crap.
$1:
If Ignatieff was explaining the plan, I bet he could make it sound more convincing.
Would he be? The plan is about as thick as a phone book. Dion's been pretty clear about the broad picture since the writ dropped, and that's all that Iggy would have time for too.
$1:
While I do agree with your assessment of the Green Shift, though, the only way it will happen is if Dion wins a majority. With a minority, it'll get shot down and his government will fall. It's not going to happen, so it's a distraction in this campaign
I disagree. I think if the Liberals get a minority, they will be able to work with the NDP and Bloc to reach a compromise. More importantly, I think they'd have little choice since a Liberal minority will have the Conservatives trying to force an election almost immediately and the Liberals cannot afford another election right away.
Such a compromise is likely what will give us the best legislation anyway, since it will allow them to take the best ideas from each plan in an atmosphere less heated than that of an election campaign.
$1:
Exactly!
That's because as a voter, I'm supposed to be lazy, and if the leader can't explain to me, Joe1, then he fails, because for every Joe1, there is a Joe 2, 3, 4, 5 etc etc, so on and so forth.
I left a question mark at the end of that rhetorical question because I knew exactly what the responses would be. That as a voter I should do research.
Do you understand that most voters are busy, don't bother spending hours reading up on a plan. If Mr Dion cannot explain his plan in the TV media, or summarize it nicely, people will be turned off. I know plenty of people who now will vote Con because they say "I don't want more taxes". I know it's not more taxes. I know it is really just a "shift" of taxes from one area to another, but most voters don't see it that way.
Because Mr. Dion can't speak good english and can't explain what the hell the plan is about. And because of that, the Tories are gaining record numbers at the poll. (And the fact we have 4 liberal parties, and 1 conservative one).
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
$1:
So you defend a plan you disagree with just to help out us poor thick Tories?
You are just a stand-up guy for a far lefty type. Kinda Jesus of the NDP......
No, I defend it in hope of something other than snide remarks, purposeful ignorance, outright lies, and personal attacks coming from the Conservative side.
$1:
Who will ultimately bear the tax incidence? There is very little elasticity in the demand side of things in the energy sector, who's to say the major energy companies hit by the tax do not pass the tax onto the consumer?
We all ultimately bear the tax incidence. The point is that by taxing pollution instead of income...and it's a shift, not a tax increase...we will choose to pollute less in order to pay fewer taxes.
So as a resident of Manitoba, I can choose to heat my house with electricity instead of heating fuel or natural gas, since our electricity is relatively clean. Therefore I don't have to pay as much tax.
I can also choose to reduce consumption by upgrading my house and making it more efficient, again lowering my personal tax burden.
The same goes for corporations. A factory run on coal is going to pay more tax than one run on wind power. Therefore the factory run on coal is going to have to charge more for its goods. It can either switch to a less polluting source of energy or become less competitive.
$1:
What is the cost of administering the tax? Who will the tax incidence be placed on then? The government or tax payers?
Administering a tax costs less than enforcing regulation. If you look at the Conservative plan, they have to create an entirely new department just to do the paperwork. Of course they haven't done that because they have no plans to reduce emissions.
$1:
The problem is, as great as the plan is, I don't know squat about it. Do you know why?
Because you've done little or no research on the subject, have not read the plan, and yet are unwilling to accept the broad strokes that the plan is painted in due to the reality of modern politics.
Let's face it, you aren't going to sit there in front of the TV while Dion or Layton go through an eight or ten hour explanation of their plans. You could go do a little research on how similar plans have worked elsewhere though, how the various experts view the various approaches, and how both Dion's and Layton's plans are supposed to work.
Charisma politics leads to bad leadership. Harper is a prime example of that. He has provided little or no leadership, has acted as a bully, has shown contempt for parliament and our democratic institutions, and acts more like a petulant child than a Prime Minister.
Rev, why would you defend something you admit you disagree with politically?
This is a political thread on a mostly political forum.
I see it as disingenuous to attack people over their opposition to a political aim that you don't even support yourself.
Do you hate Tory voters so much that you are quite willing to give up your own priciples just so you can attack them?
I may make the odd 'snide' remark but I stick to my beliefs and I don't espouse other parties policies that I don't believe in.
You are making yourself less credible with arguments like this.
$1:
I see it as disingenuous to attack people over their opposition to a political aim that you don't even support yourself.
It isn't the opposition I have a problem with, it's the complete lack of honesty coming from the Conservative side. You are practicing the worst kind of Republican wedge politics...those based on dishonesty and purposeful ignorance.
If you want to try how and why Harper's plan is better for both the economy and the environment, go for it. Stating blatant untruths about the Liberal plan doesn't do that though.
$1:
Do you hate Tory voters so much that you are quite willing to give up your own priciples just so you can attack them?
Not at all. it's just that it's impossible to have a coherent discussion about policy when those policies are being misrepresented...outright lied about...by some. It derails the conversation.
It is the Conservatives who lack credibility on this. I have yet to see a Conservative on this site attempt to defend their plan. Of course that plan is in itself dishonest because it doesn't use the same starting point as the rest of planet and depends on intensity-based targets and "aspirational" goals. I'm not sure that Conservatives even know that they have an alleged plan though. They sure don't seem willing to discuss it, perhaps because so many have yet to make the effort to understand the science.
$1:
Because Mr. Dion can't speak good english and can't explain what the hell the plan is about. And because of that, the Tories are gaining record numbers at the poll.
He has explained it though, quite clearly and succinctly, since the campaign started. Surprised the hell out of me.
Dion explained that it was a shift to taxing pollution instead of taxing income, giving us all an incentive to reduce our pollution and therefore reduce our tax burden.
Where I don't agree with the plan is that I don't think it will reduce emissions quickly or deeply enough and that will leave it susceptible to the kind of attacks we saw on Chretien's original attempts to act. Chretien's attempts, what little there was, were derailed by those attacks and I have no doubt that the same group of denialists and 19th century Luddites will try to do the same to Dion.
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
$1:
I see it as disingenuous to attack people over their opposition to a political aim that you don't even support yourself.
It isn't the opposition I have a problem with, it's the complete lack of honesty coming from the Conservative side. You are practicing the worst kind of Republican wedge politics...those based on dishonesty and purposeful ignorance.
If you want to try how and why Harper's plan is better for both the economy and the environment, go for it. Stating blatant untruths about the Liberal plan doesn't do that though.
$1:
Do you hate Tory voters so much that you are quite willing to give up your own priciples just so you can attack them?
Not at all. it's just that it's impossible to have a coherent discussion about policy when those policies are being misrepresented...outright lied about...by some. It derails the conversation.
It is the Conservatives who lack credibility on this. I have yet to see a Conservative on this site attempt to defend their plan. Of course that plan is in itself dishonest because it doesn't use the same starting point as the rest of planet and depends on intensity-based targets and "aspirational" goals. I'm not sure that Conservatives even know that they have an alleged plan though. They sure don't seem willing to discuss it, perhaps because so many have yet to make the effort to understand the science.
Ok, point out to me where I have engaged in I quote: "practicing the worst kind of Republican wedge politics...those based on dishonesty and purposeful ignorance."
I have not commented on any policy issues re 'green shift' etc.
Just because I have a little Tory icon by name doesn't make me a tub-thumper for everything Stevey says. I'll vote Tory until something better comes along.
This is not my religion or the cult I follow, it's just politics.
You on the other hand are defending policies you don't agree with, your words.
Spare me your dogmatic preaching Rev, just try and keep a credible argument in debates instead of posting shite you don't believe in and trying to justify it in a few hundred cliché ridden words.
If you can...
I'm sorry that you seem to be taking these criticisms personally instead of as a criticism of the Conservatives as a group. If you take the time to actually read the post about Republican wedge politics, I think it's pretty clear that "you" refers to the group, not you personally.
Listen to the overall Conservative message on this, Eyebrock. It doesn't say that the Conservative plan is better, doesn't even acknowledge that there is a Conservative plan. Instead it misrepresents the Liberal and the NDP plans.
That goes directly back to Harper's leadership. He has framed the message, and his framing is inherently dishonest. It ignores the facts, contradicts the facts. It ignores and contradicts the best expert advice on the planet. That dishonesty in Harper's leadership travels down the ladder and infects the political conversation at all levels. It is the kind of thing that causes people to stay home on election day.
I suspect that's just fine with Harper. The last thing he wants is for Canadians to become politically engaged.
Of course Harper's a great leader. If not, Blair wouldn't be on his current hatefest.
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Pseudonym Pseudonym:
Pshaw. Our minimum wage is lower!
Federally, it's $6.55 until 2009, when it'll bump up to $7.25.
Although I think the US dollar has picked up a little value recently, if I'm not mistaken.
My American friends complain about their wages all the time. My friend makes pretty much shit... $3-something plus tips. That's just slavery, dammit.
I also don't exactly understand some of the American rules about Minimum wage... Do you have to follow it, like in Canada? Why do i hear stories about Wal-Mart employee's getting paid $2?
The federal minimum wage is mandatory. The only way I think you can justify being paid less than that is if the company is doing something illegal or if you are in a service job where you are compensated by tips. Then again, I don't have the federal law at my fingertips at the moment, so I might be lying out my bum.
RUEZ RUEZ:
Yes we have oilsands, if Harper never wants to get elected again he can try to shut them down, that goes for any other politician.
How about a leader that can stop the sands, save the environment and bring the children in each of our villages and cities out of poverty WHILE cutting corporate taxes by 50 billion bucks, providing more, better good paying jobs to everyone in every region? All while keeping the cost of our 89 grade gasoline around $.90 a litre...
How about a MRI in every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in CANADA. And someone with half a fucking brain to run it who speaks fucking CANADIAN or American at least.
DON'T YOU THINK WE DESERVE THAT YOU MOTHERFUCKERS (Dion, Harper, May, Layton)?
Jusk kidding...