Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Iffy seeking to explore new depths in polling numbers

From the "You've got to be kidding me" file... Ignatieff is set to begin openly discussing tax hikes in an "adult conversation" with Canadians.

Yea, it'll be an "adult conversation", with most Canadian adults saying things along the lines of, "TAX HIKES?!?!?! Are you freaking kidding me? Okay, so how do we get rid of this moron once and for all?"

Of course, his "adult conversation" on spending cuts might be worthwhile, so we'll have to give it a listen. I think most Canadians would agree that the Government spends too much money. Hey, here's an idea that'll save us MILLIONS right off the bat... what about those political subsidies Mr. Ignatieff? I'm sure that between your Liberals and the Conservatives, you'd have enough votes to get that done IMMEDIATELY! Hey, when you've got a great idea all ready to go, what's the sense in holding off?

Seriously, I'm just shaking my head as I watch the Liberals these days. I mean, as much as I LOVE watching the Liberals polling numbers plummet, I'm just utterly shocked that Mr. Ignatieff would be willing to openly muse about raising taxes... something we've been saying all along that he would do if he got elected.

With all the bad news for them coming out of Ottawa, you'd think that for the Liberals right now, job NUMBER ONE would be to stem the blood-letting, and seek to regain their footing in the polls. But instead, they've chosen to open a can of worms that Canadians really DON'T want opened. Who knows... this might just be enough to push those wavering Liberal MP's across the floor.

I mean, sure it's gutsy move alright, being willing to take on such a serious of issues... but it's downright suicidal, electorally speaking. Remember today's Gazette headline? "Harper tickles while Ignatieff burns".

I just honestly didn't expect to see Ignatieff trying to douse the flames with kerosene.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Christian Conservative @ 9:05 p.m.  

10 Comments:

  • At Wed Oct 07, 10:22:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Northern Ontario Tory said…

    To paraphrase a recent column by Monte Solberg..... I'm sure that Canadians sit around the kitchen table and discuss how much more in taxes they would like to pay, while they dine on roasted unicorn. :-)

     

  • At Wed Oct 07, 10:24:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Northern Ontario Tory said…

    And kudos to Gerry Nicholls for another zinger "This idea is to political strategy what Kamikaze pilots are to World War II." ROTFLMAO!

     

  • At Wed Oct 07, 10:28:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Advice for Iggy: dig up, stupid.

     

  • At Wed Oct 07, 10:29:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Platty said…

    Are you freaking kidding me? Okay, so how do we get rid of this moron once and for all?"

    Not to worry, Iggy and his crew will take of that all on their own.....

     

  • At Wed Oct 07, 10:49:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Grant said…

    Wow. Just..........wow.

    More and more, it makes you wonder if Ignatieff is deliberatley sabotaging himself. WK must be tearing his hair out.

     

  • At Wed Oct 07, 11:32:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Dear CC:
    I have two points to make.
    1. The subsidies. I have come across various works of political philosophy/democratic theory that argue that the public financing of elections is essential to democracy, insofar as it reduces the influence of money on the political process, so that there is more than mere legal equality between individuals.
    (Consider the health-care debate in the United States right now, and how much of the Insurance Companies' money is being spent on trying to stop universal coverage).
    I don't think that public financing of elections in Canada was instituted for the benefit of the ruling (liberal) party. I think they would benefit more from relying on large corporate donations, which are no doubt easier to solicit if you are a party in power. Think: the Desmarais family.
    As a voter, I like knowing that if I do not vote, then the 2 dollars that might have gone to a party goes no where, and if I do vote, 2 dollars goes to the party I voted for. If I'm not willing to have 2 dollars of my tax money go to the party I vote for, I probably shouldn't vote at all.
    Also, the subsidies are not that expensive as expenses go. Granted, my source here is Rick Mercer, but I figure since he's been mentioned favourably here before, I can use him as a source. But I digress. Mercer claims (here) that the move to eliminate the subsidies in October 2008 would have saved 26 million dollars, "or about the same amount of money that Harper spends every year on body guards when he travels to danger zones like Thunder Bay or Nunavut".
    Which brings me to my second point...
    2. The 2 percent GST cut.
    The GST cut, in contrast, reduced the government's income by something like 12 billion dollars. Twelve-thousand-million dollars. [Source: Globe and Mail. Jeffrey Simpson's column. 24 July 2009. Page A13. I'd find his source if I had the time. Let me know if you don't take my or his word for it. I wouldn't blame you]. I didn't notice the GST cut, by the way. My purchases are too small. I have not noticed any cut to my taxes under Harper. After his first budget, as someone in the lowest tax bracket, my income taxes went up slightly. [Compare lowest tax rate in for 2005, 15% to 2006, 15.25%. (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/2005_rt-eng.html. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/2006_rt-eng.html#federal)].
    Taxes are a given. They cannot be reduced indefinitely. What matters (to me at least) is what the rates are, who is taxed, what is taxed, how they are taxed, and (most important of all) what the money is spent on and how it is spent. We have taxation with representation. We can (and to some extend, do) work out these issues as citizens. I would like to see politicians be honest about this. (The article you link to, by the way, mentions the Conservatives' plan to raise EI premiums to gather 14 billion per year. The current government, in other words, will say that they are not raising taxes, and then raise taxes in a way such that it is plausible to say that it is not a tax increase).
    That said, I agree with you Ignatieff is not doing himself any favours by trying to talk about this. (Unfortunately) I have never heard any one say that Kim Campbell was wrong when she said that "an election is no time to talk about serious issues." Quite the opposite in fact. I'm not looking forward to the coming election. The last election campaign I witnessed was the Ontario election in 2007. I wanted to bang my head against a wall every time I heard or read about it. The way the issues were chosen/framed/debased was infuriating. (I'm thinking specifically of the way the funding religious schools issue was used by the Liberals).
    I'm going to stop here before I start banging my head against the wall. If you have read this far (or even just scrolled down this far), thank you. I wish I was able to be more concise. I think there is a famous quote (by Blaise Pascal? Voltaire?, ?): "I would have written a shorter letter if I had had more time."
    -Anon1152.

     

  • At Thu Oct 08, 06:00:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Shawn Abigail said…

    I'm thinking of sending Iggy a fan letter, urging him to stay on as Liberal leader, for the good of the country. 8-)

     

  • At Thu Oct 08, 09:31:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Read the WHOLE THING 1152... thanks for throwing some real meat into the debate!

    I agree that it's not much, but $26 million dollars is just some really easy low-hanging fruit... if Mr. Ignatieff was serious about "cutting the fat", all he has to do is lend the Tories 12 votes to get it done.

    As for the "public financing of elections", your analysis is a little off... we're talking about the public financing of PARTIES themselves. And as for keeping "big corporate money" out of the political process, I'm 100% in favour of that. I'm also in favour of keeping any form of "big money" from the corporate elites of this country out of the political process, which is what the $1100 limit under the FAA has accomplished. NOW, political parties have to do the unthinkable... put forward an articulate platform to their own members in order to get them to finance their vision.

    My biggest problem with the federal subsidies is that the parties can continue to sustain themselves WITHOUT having to even appeal to their base. They can just BE, sitting there like a blob, and collecting public monies to keep themselves alive.

    My feelings about the Liberal Party of Canada are well documented... they're a blight on genuine political discourse in this country. If we can cut off the flow of money, it will force REAL political change in this country. It would mean that instead of being the "Natural Governing Party", the Liberals would be forced to examine and reinvent themselves. It would allow for real political realignment in this country, and would invariably end up splitting up the current makeup of the parties. We may end up with more smaller parties, we may end up with two bigger ones on the flanks and a smaller one in the middle, which would allow voters to have a REAL CHOICE when elections roll around... it would get rid of this do nothing "mushy middle" that the Liberals currently occupy.

    My fifty-two cents worth. ;-)

     

  • At Thu Oct 08, 09:37:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Oops, never touched on the subject of taxes. ;-)

    I was in favour of the GST cut, it's made a real difference of several hundred dollars to me over the last few years. I've had to buy two cars, and a house, so I saved on the cars themselves and on all the fees associated with buying my home. It's made a much bigger inpact on my finances than a simply income tax cut would have made.

    It SHOULD help the lower income brackets as well, those who were already below the income tax threshold. As to why you ended up paying more in taxes, there could be any number of reasons, but not knowing your situation, I can't suggest why, because the general tax rates have gone DOWN, and the Tories INCREASED the Basic Income Amount, therefore reducing the amount of income you pay taxes on in the first place.

    As for the biggest tax burden in Ontario... I suggest you talk to Mr. McGuinty about his "Health Premium"... it wiped out every tax reduction that the Harris government implemented during their tenure. (bet you didn't know that!)

     

  • At Thu Oct 08, 04:22:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Thank you for your 52 cents.

    My 50 cents change:

    I agree with you about the campaign finance limits. And I have to admit that the Conservatives, to their credit, rely on more small donations. I'm not sure that this on its own is good for the political process. I'm thinking here of the 2002 fundraising letter sent by Mr. Harper that, in my opinion, completely distorted the Kyoto debate. I won't go into details (which I'm sure we disagree one) but saying (among other things) that the problem with Kyoto was that it focused on carbon dioxide completely misses the point).

    http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/HarperLetter.pdf
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html

    Since that's a controversial and partisan issue, I should say that the liberals can and do misuse issues too. Consider the Body Bags sent to the Manitoba reserve. That the issue was blown out of proportion seems proven now: (http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2079473).

    As for the tax issue:
    My payroll deductions went up in absolute numbers. The amount was small (0.25%). But it was there. I was a little miffed that the bottom rate went up and the others went down. Keep in mind that any tax cut in the bottom bracket also benefits people in the upper brackets, all other things being equal.

    As for the Ontario Health Premium:
    I don't mind paying taxes so long as the rates are reasonable, and as long as the money is well spent. A solid universally accessible healthcare system is something I'm willing to pay for.

    McGuinty inherited a deficit from the Conservatives. (One of the last finance ministers of Ontario under the conservatives was, for the record, Jim Flaherty. In the economic climate they enjoyed, that was completely unnecessary. I don't think the federal conservatives and the former provincial conservatives who have "graduated" to the federal level have the fiscally responsible record that they claim to have).

    -Anon1152

     

Post a Comment

<< Home