The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/story.html?id=49499a54-fedc-4785-956d-1dd081825bac

WINNIPEG - Liberal Leader Stephane Dion plans to propose extra breaks for farmers, truckers and fishermen to buffer the impact of fuel price hikes under his Green Shift carbon tax proposal, an election campaign centrepiece.

The list of industries getting breaks under the Green Shift are the ones where he hopes to be winning votes. The more "breaks" he keeps adding, the more blatant the wealth redistribution shift becomes.

He's not helping the environment, he's taxing some regions and providing breaks to the others. If he's concerned about the environment, he'd tax gasoline more to drive down automobile demand and use and not increase the tax of diesel, which is used by public transportation and newer model fuel efficient vehicles...

You have a serious persecution complex if you believe that tax relief to fishermen, truckers, and farmers stems from a particular anti-Alberta agenda.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


You have a serious persecution complex if you believe that tax relief to fishermen, truckers, and farmers stems from a particular anti-Alberta agenda.

It's not per se an anti-Alberta agenda.

But the simple, basic facts are Alberta will be hit hardest by this tax by the nature of its infrastructure, resources, and economy. Dion has announced NO such exemptions or subsidies there.

Yet in the east coast, he adds subsidies for fishermen. Wonder why? He gets votes out there.
In Ontario, he adds subsidies for the trucking industry. Wonder why? He gets votes out there.

It's completely obvious that the Liberal vote-rich areas are getting exemptions for their critical industries. Alberta is not.

You can call that what you want, but it's seriously ****ed up. Either this is a plan to protect the environment (where all polluters are taxed equally for their pollution, period) or it's a wealth redistribution plan. The more he tweaks it the less it becomes about the environment, and the more it becomes about taxing Alberta more and giving tax cuts to Ontario, Quebec, and the east coast.

But it's revenue neutral. He's just shifting where the revenue is coming from to win votes out east.

I don't expect you to care or intellectually understand what I'm saying, so don't you worry. The Green Shift is DOA and so is Dion.

[Fake Boris]

What about farmers? No beef and wheat industry in Alberta, eh?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


Harper's problem is that he always claimed setting a date for our departure would provide motivation to the Taliban and now he has gone and set a date. It pisses me off b/c he slandered those of us opposed to the mission as "cut and run" types for years and now has become a cut and run type himself. *spit*

Its all a matter of perception I guess. While I would portray an immediate pullout as cutting and running, I really don't see Canada giving its NATO partners 2-3 years notice of our intention to rotate our troops home in the same light. My perception is that we have more than carried our fair share of the load ( based on population and military capabilities and if it is to be a long mission (lets say 10 more years), it is only appropriate to look at the rest of NATO and say "your turn now folks"


I mean I count 26 member countries in NATO and Canada has about 1000 of 8000 troops there (July 2005
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanist...-factsheet.htm)

I was actually shocked that the troop deployments were so low and wondered if the US would SURGE there with 10,000 new troops in the home fo the taliban, it might actually do a lot of good

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Agreed. If he's toppled afterwards you've still won.

If a coalition is formed right away, the victory is mine.

It would be interesting to see how such a scenario plays out. If the coalition plan is serious would Harper even try to form a government?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
What about farmers? No beef and wheat industry in Alberta, eh?

It's not as big a part of the economy as you'd think.

And yes, they'll still be shafted disproportionately. Look at where they get their electricity from and how much it'll be taxed vs farmers in, say, Ontario.

It provides a competitive advantage to farmers in Ontario as they'll have lower cost.

[Wezil]

Flubber - It's all a matter of Conservative spin. He has done what he condemned, spin be damned.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


You have a serious persecution complex if you believe that tax relief to fishermen, truckers, and farmers stems from a particular anti-Alberta agenda.

I don't think there is ANYTHING intentionally anti-Albertan in the Green Shaft-- instead it is an obvious vote-buying scheme designed to buy votes mainly where it does the Liberals will get the most benefit. As a result is does have more negatives than positives for Alberta

I hope the electorate soundly defeats and denounces this plan to redistribute money.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


You have a serious persecution complex if you believe that tax relief to fishermen, truckers, and farmers stems from a particular anti-Alberta agenda.

I think to him, everything the Liberals do is anti-Alberta .

Still, I'd honestly like the carbon tax better if it didn't kick in as fast, had no exemptions, and was refunded by cutting the federal sales tax instead of income taxes. (It'd make more sense too... tax goods and services by carbon footprint rather than sales price.) Then you'd see "clean" things get cheaper and "dirty" things get more expensive.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I think to him, everything the Liberals do is anti-Alberta .

Would you disagree with the assertion they've no reason to make voters in Alberta happy?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil
Flubber - It's all a matter of Conservative spin. He has done what he condemned, spin be damned.

What did he condemn? Was it the idea of EVER setting a date to leave? Obviously we don't intend to be there forever and if we leave in 2011 that will have been a 6 year mission--

AS for the concept that the Taliban would take heart with a set leave date, I agree they would only if we are talking about the OVERALL mission ending. If the departure of 1000 Canadians meant that a 1000 Poles or Brits or French came in I would think that would be DIS-heartening-- it brings the realization that the opposition has an massive resource pool on which to draw.

[Wezil]

The old position was "We can't leave until the job is done." To do so would be to cut and run.

The new position is "We will leave in 2011 whether the job is done or not." And the argument used is the one you offered - 6 years is long enough for the Afghan gov to be able to stand on it's own.

The mission is becoming a US mission. The netherlands have also decided they're leaving as well.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher


Would you disagree with the assertion they've no reason to make voters in Alberta happy?

Alberta needs to put some seats in play so the parties can pander to them too.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Victor Galis




Still, I'd honestly like the carbon tax better if it didn't kick in as fast, had no exemptions, and was refunded by cutting the federal sales tax instead of income taxes. (It'd make more sense too... tax goods and services by carbon footprint rather than sales price.) Then you'd see "clean" things get cheaper and "dirty" things get more expensive.

and it might perhaps have the intended consequence of cutting emissions although if I find a way to do something 8% cheaper while increasing emissions by 6%, it will still pay to pollute more

If you actually want to reduce I still like cap and trade where the idea is that regardless of the economics you MUST find a way to reduce emissions and eventually a market will set a price on what a ton of carbon reduction is worth

Mandating a tax rate now into the future means you are plucking numbers from the air when you have no idea as to the real cost of reductions. A tax could be too low and have no real impacts or far too high (so the price of some necessaries like electricity goes up far too much despite the fact the need for it is pretty inelastic)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil
The old position was "We can't leave until the job is done." To do so would be to cut and run.

The new position is "We will leave in 2011 whether the job is done or not." And the argument used is the one you offered - 6 years is long enough for the Afghan gov to be able to stand on it's own.

The mission is becoming a US mission. The netherlands have also decided they're leaving as well.

To be honest-- my opinion of the conservatives WAS diminished by this decision/ announcement. I think it was election pandering.

Its not that I want our troops to stay in Afghanistan. My personal position was that after the Liberal commited us to go, we were obliged to stay for a reasonable period of time to live up to that commitment. I think six years is a credible amount of time given our military capabilities so I am not disappointed that we are leaving. I just wish it had been an announcement that didn't seem so obviously designed to win votes