Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rick Fuschi wrote:
Mac

To put it as simply as possible, the increased energy costs alone would top $2 billion. How on earth can that possibly help an already economically beaten province? And, as for the Conservatives, if the tax happens anytime before the next federal election, - which I believe must happen no later than next year- the singing could be fatal.

I wonder if McGuinty is figuring to run with the current 8% for a year or two and then drop it to 7% or possibly even 6% just before a provincial election? That way, he scores the revenue to avoid any program or spending cuts and looks like a hero by cutting taxes when he arrives at the ballot box...

-Mac
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Rick Fuschi wrote:
Mac

To put it as simply as possible, the increased energy costs alone would top $2 billion. How on earth can that possibly help an already economically beaten province? And, as for the Conservatives, if the tax happens anytime before the next federal election, - which I believe must happen no later than next year- the singing could be fatal.

I wonder if McGuinty is figuring to run with the current 8% for a year or two and then drop it to 7% or possibly even 6% just before a provincial election? That way, he scores the revenue to avoid any program or spending cuts and looks like a hero by cutting taxes when he arrives at the ballot box...

-Mac


The province is broke and will be even after the new income from the tax comes in. There are lots of well paying manufacturing jobs that are gone for good.
Taxes will have to rise or spending will have to be cut. There is no room for tax cuts.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
The province is broke and will be even after the new income from the tax comes in. There are lots of well paying manufacturing jobs that are gone for good.
Taxes will have to rise or spending will have to be cut. There is no room for tax cuts.

There have been some manufacturing jobs lost but not nearly as bad as the media would have you believe... and "well paying" is a relative term...

McGuinty doesn't want to cut spending or programs because to do so would incur the wrath of the unions. That's the problem with unions- they don't stay bought off; you have to keep bribing them and that gets expensive. McGuinty doesn't want to increase taxes either since he wants to be re-elected... which is why the HST suits him perfectly, particularly if he doesn't lower the PST portion.

Incidentally, tax cuts can result in increased revenue. Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve theory?

-Mac
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rick Fuschi wrote:
Cosmostein,

If you feel that way about this tax (wrong time, wrong place and by the wrong people) then you must like all taxes. Why don't we all become surrender monkeys and just send in our entire paycheque. Dalton will see to it that we get what we deserve, after he has hired a few more cigarette, or pit bull police.

This tax deserves to be fought to the last day for a couple of billion reasons. How are laughable projections - that it will stimulate economic activity - likely to unfold after we jack up all energy costs in Ontario by eight percent?

McGuinty's government is broke and needs our money. Nothing more about this tax, is true.


Welcome to the board Rick,

For starters, McGuinty and the Provincial Liberals are polling at 50% according to Nanos
About 8% higher then the number they secured at the last Provincial election.

Which shows me that the public en mass doesn't care enough about eHealth, HST or any of the other issues we are attempting to trumpet to make it at all difficult for the Provincial Liberals and their majority till at least October 6, 2011 to pass this legislation.

HST or DST or whatever it was called was a manufactured issue for the Provincial Progressive Conservative leadership race, its clear now more then ever that we don't have the support for the general voting population to do anything about it.

18 Liberals need to vote against the HST in order for it not to pass, or 25% of their sitting caucus. To the best I can tell are there even four Liberal riding where opposition to the HST is so high it could presure the MP to vote against legislation?

No.

The reality is that in order to enact change in our system of government we need at least an opposition voice in a minority parliament, which we don't have.

Couple that with the fact that our leader has been screaming eHealth & HST from the rooftops since he was elected and has seen the party drop in the polls.

We can thump our chests on issues we can't do anything about, and it will result in another Liberal Majority.

Tim Hudak needs to do two things:

1) Keep the Liberals Accountable.
Which he is doing.

2) Offer Ontario alternative legislation
Which he is not.

We won't stop the HST,
but where is the pressure from the PC party to make the tax neutral? Frank Klees kicked around the 5% PST number taking the HST to 10% would make this less of a pill to swallow.

Why are we not pushing for a plan B?
Why are we wasting our on legislation that will pass because we don't have the seats, support, or public interest to stop it?

Hudak could have posed the 5% alternative and run on that all summer, we could have had a policy stake that would have set us apart from the Liberals and perhaps created some public pressure.

But it seems the alternative is to run on stopping the HST which will pass 71 - 36 in October and will leave Hudak and the PC party standing there without an issue to go on about.
Rick Fuschi





Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Posts: 5


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cosmostein

Forget about logic and Hudak for a minute and answer the question, "Do Ontario Liberals have the intestines to ignore a groundswell of outrage?"
Now use your obvious intellect to find every small way to generate that outrage amongst the people you connect with. That is democracy in action. Armchair defeatism is the road to tyranny.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
fiscalconservative wrote:
The province is broke and will be even after the new income from the tax comes in. There are lots of well paying manufacturing jobs that are gone for good.
Taxes will have to rise or spending will have to be cut. There is no room for tax cuts.

There have been some manufacturing jobs lost but not nearly as bad as the media would have you believe... and "well paying" is a relative term...


Some guy working at the big 3 dropping a dipstick into an engine could easily make six figures including wages and benefits. With a little overtime, that could rise to over 100k - and thats without a highschool education. There were also hoards of skilled trades behind those people making more.
Those jobs are going fast.


Mac wrote:

McGuinty doesn't want to cut spending or programs because to do so would incur the wrath of the unions. That's the problem with unions- they don't stay bought off; you have to keep bribing them and that gets expensive. McGuinty doesn't want to increase taxes either since he wants to be re-elected... which is why the HST suits him perfectly, particularly if he doesn't lower the PST portion.


Even then its not enough. He is going to have to piss someone/everyone off to balance the books.

Mac wrote:

Incidentally, tax cuts can result in increased revenue. Are you familiar with the Laffer Curve theory?

-Mac


Yes I have heard of it, Bush was pushing it to show how he could balance the budget ...how did that turn out anyway ?
I take it as seriously as its name "Laffer". I agree with the idea that lowering taxes spurs growth, but to say that you get back more than what you cut is silly. It sounds like kind of a harmless lie because it leads to economic growth - but then you have people like Bush creating structural deficits and saying "hey, don't worry, Laffler will eliminate the deficit". Well guess what, Laffler didn't and Bush doubled the debt. The US now has a debt tax that will suck life out of the US economy until long after we are dead.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
Some guy working at the big 3 dropping a dipstick into an engine could easily make six figures including wages and benefits. With a little overtime, that could rise to over 100k - and thats without a highschool education. There were also hoards of skilled trades behind those people making more.
Those jobs are going fast.

If you add up the job numbers being blathered in the media, they add up to about 15% unemployment and we're still cruising along at just over 8%. What do you think that means? Either people are finding work, the job numbers are inaccurate or the media are spinning the stats... I still can't figure why they list the rate including young people starting at age 15. I don't know about you but I don't consider 15 year olds to be part of the labour market since they're usually still dependents.

Cost-benefit analysis time. I don't have the actual numbers at my fingertips to make the analysis precise or truly meaningful so don't draw firm conclusions.

A dipstick pushing dipsticks isn't worth six figures; we all know it but the unions keep the labour rates high, so high that the only way it was ever sustainable was through massive corporate welfare which both provincial and federal governments have obliging supplied for decades. High-paying jobs generate income tax and other taxes through consumption.

Are we better off without those jobs (and the taxes they generate) or does the tax burden to sustain those industries justify the corporate welfare?

fiscalconservative wrote:
Even then its not enough. He is going to have to piss someone/everyone off to balance the books.

I sincerely hope McGuinty pisses everyone off and I doubt he will balance the books, even with the HST gouge. Chances are McGuinty will follow the Liberal tradition and attempt to purchase votes from the unions and the minorities.

fiscalconservative wrote:
Yes I have heard of it, Bush was pushing it to show how he could balance the budget ...how did that turn out anyway ?
I take it as seriously as its name "Laffer". I agree with the idea that lowering taxes spurs growth, but to say that you get back more than what you cut is silly. It sounds like kind of a harmless lie because it leads to economic growth - but then you have people like Bush creating structural deficits and saying "hey, don't worry, Laffer will eliminate the deficit". Well guess what, Laffer didn't and Bush doubled the debt. The US now has a debt tax that will suck life out of the US economy until long after we are dead.

Bush was anything but a fiscal conservative and to make matters worse, he was faced with unprecedented strife during his tenure as president. Can you name any other president who led the US through as many disasters as Bush did?

A truer representation of the Laffer Curve was Reagan's tenure. As much as the Dems hated it, Reagan cut taxes and programs yet the economy rebounded and produced more tax revenue than before Reagan's cuts.

-Mac
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

If you add up the job numbers being blathered in the media, they add up to about 15% unemployment and we're still cruising along at just over 8%. What do you think that means? Either people are finding work, the job numbers are inaccurate or the media are spinning the stats... I still can't figure why they list the rate including young people starting at age 15. I don't know about you but I don't consider 15 year olds to be part of the labour market since they're usually still dependents.


The unemployment figure is a bit bogus, it does not include most welfare receipients for example. It also does not include stay at home moms that have just given up trying to find a job (I know a few people in this situation).

Mac wrote:

A dipstick pushing dipsticks isn't worth six figures; we all know it but the unions keep the labour rates high, so high that the only way it was ever sustainable was through massive corporate welfare which both provincial and federal governments have obliging supplied for decades. High-paying jobs generate income tax and other taxes through consumption.
Are we better off without those jobs (and the taxes they generate) or does the tax burden to sustain those industries justify the corporate welfare?


In the past though the Feds and the Provinces have got the better of the deal. They pay out $50 Million but collect $250 Million in taxes. Those days are gone, now the companies are expecting big bucks for fewer jobs.
Many of those people dropping in the dipsticks are almost unemployable and now instead of paying into the tax system, they are going to be a draw on it. I don't have a problem with people who work for minimum wage, but they are likely a net loss to the tax system since they pay little taxes but consume as much as the rest of us. You can take an entire Mcdonalds restaurant and the staff probably contributes less to the treasury than one Ford working eating there while he is supposed to be at work.

Mac wrote:

Bush was anything but a fiscal conservative


Really ?? :-)

Mac wrote:

and to make matters worse, he was faced with unprecedented strife during his tenure as president. Can you name any other president who led the US through as many disasters as Bush did?


Gee, the Korean war...the war in Vietnam..the oil shocks of the 70's. One should also look at the disasters as well. The US had half a million soldiers in Viet Nam at one point compared to only a peak of bout 150K in Iraq. They also suffered many more casulties and expended much more fuel and ordinance.
Really what happened at 9/11?. A handful of buildings in New York were destroyed. Pearl Harbour it wasn't. Very little effort was needed to topple Afganistan. Had Bush committed the troops at the time rather than move everyone to Iraq we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
I could also mention that none of these other governments were support by the massive consumering borrowing that stimulated the economy under Bush.

Mac wrote:

A truer representation of the Laffer Curve was Reagan's tenure. As much as the Dems hated it, Reagan cut taxes and programs yet the economy rebounded and produced more tax revenue than before Reagan's cuts.

-Mac


As it did all over the world, even in countries that did not have tax cuts. When Reagan came to power he faced an economy that was racked with record oil prices (when oil was a much bigger part of the economy than it is today). The economy was not performing anywhere near capacity. It had just gone through a prolonged recession.
During Reagans presidency, the price of oil collapsed and the economies of the world returned to normal, which they would have done no matter who was in the White House.

The tax cuts were a good thing, but they were not the only thing. They did have the effect of "jump starting" a slow economy, but it would have happened by itself.

Tax cuts are a good idea, but this economic fairy tale is dangerous. It allowed Bush to ignore the real problem which is spending.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
The unemployment figure is a bit bogus, it does not include most welfare receipients for example. It also does not include stay at home moms that have just given up trying to find a job (I know a few people in this situation).

I wonder if adding teenagers into the mix helps to balance up the unemployment stats to adjust for folks like you're describing? I can see no other purpose for doing so. It's hard to imagine I have two unemployed stats living under my roof as we speak. They're getting ready for the start of school.

fiscalconservative wrote:
In the past though the Feds and the Provinces have got the better of the deal. They pay out $50 Million but collect $250 Million in taxes. Those days are gone, now the companies are expecting big bucks for fewer jobs.
Many of those people dropping in the dipsticks are almost unemployable and now instead of paying into the tax system, they are going to be a draw on it. I don't have a problem with people who work for minimum wage, but they are likely a net loss to the tax system since they pay little taxes but consume as much as the rest of us. You can take an entire Mcdonalds restaurant and the staff probably contributes less to the treasury than one Ford working eating there while he is supposed to be at work.

Where did you get your $50m & $250m? Admittedly, I didn't search very hard but I never found any reference to the tax intake, just references to the corporate welfare outlay by various levels of government.

Your McDonald restaurant scenario is grossly oversimplified doesn't do justice to reality. For instance, when you talk about people being a net loss by paying little taxes but consuming as much as the "rest of us", your assumption is all citizens consume government services more or less equally. Such is not the case and has never been the case. Your point about contributions being unequal highlights the inequities of the current tax system. Flat tax, anyone?

fiscalconservative wrote:
Gee, the Korean war...the war in Vietnam..the oil shocks of the 70's. One should also look at the disasters as well. The US had half a million soldiers in Viet Nam at one point compared to only a peak of bout 150K in Iraq. They also suffered many more casulties and expended much more fuel and ordinance.
Really what happened at 9/11?. A handful of buildings in New York were destroyed. Pearl Harbour it wasn't. Very little effort was needed to topple Afganistan. Had Bush committed the troops at the time rather than move everyone to Iraq we probably wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
I could also mention that none of these other governments were support by the massive consumering borrowing that stimulated the economy under Bush.

If Bush Sr. had finished the job instead of listening to the UN! I didn't realize Viet Nam and Korean were in North America. :P

Regardless, it's apples and oranges. Aside from the military response, 9/11 provoked massive expensive changes in domestic security, changes which are still evolving even now.

fiscalconservative wrote:
As it did all over the world, even in countries that did not have tax cuts. When Reagan came to power he faced an economy that was racked with record oil prices (when oil was a much bigger part of the economy than it is today). The economy was not performing anywhere near capacity. It had just gone through a prolonged recession.
During Reagans presidency, the price of oil collapsed and the economies of the world returned to normal, which they would have done no matter who was in the White House.

The tax cuts were a good thing, but they were not the only thing. They did have the effect of "jump starting" a slow economy, but it would have happened by itself.

Tax cuts are a good idea, but this economic fairy tale is dangerous. It allowed Bush to ignore the real problem which is spending.

Here in reality, there are no "pure" situations which allow us to test theories like the Laffer Curve. I suggested Reagan's tenure was a better example than Bush's tenure. I can't tell whether you're agreeing, disagreeing or just making noise?

Bush wasn't ignoring the problem of excess spending, he was idiomatically unsuited to address it. He did not see it as a problem... and Obama is making Bush look like a tightwad...

-Mac
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rick Fuschi wrote:
Cosmostein

Forget about logic and Hudak for a minute and answer the question, "Do Ontario Liberals have the intestines to ignore a groundswell of outrage?"
Now use your obvious intellect to find every small way to generate that outrage amongst the people you connect with. That is democracy in action. Armchair defeatism is the road to tyranny.


Believe me,
I have been steadfast in my opposition to this tax grab by the Provincial Liberals, however while I spent the better part of Spring and Summer screaming from the hilltops in regards to this issue we say the amount of people who supported my position decrease.

To answer your question.

Yes, I think they do.
A groundswell would need to be a very active 50% + 1 screaming in every Liberal Riding in Ontario that they were opposed to this pending HST and even if that was the case the election will be two years away from when they pass this legislation, and we have already established that Ontario voters have short memories.

We have two months to drag the Liberal polling numbers down 20%,
Impossible? No.
Unlikely, Sadly Yes.

If it makes us all feel better to know that I am still against a combine 13% HST then by all means we are on the same side on this issue,

However...I am not opposed to a 10% HST.

I would much rather use our limited airtime to press that issue which we can continue to press for years which we can use as a primary policy stake moving forward.

I am very much opposed to a 5% increase on PST taxable items, and an 8% increase on GST taxable items, however I am greatly in favor of a 3% reduction on items that are taxable by both as a means to offset the other increases.

Believe me, I will thumb my nose at this merger of taxes till it happens, but once it does its not going to kill us to at least have a reasonable way to make it as neutral as possible.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ontario was once the spine of the country. Look at us now. Divided. More than divided. And the cities are infested with those with their hands out, special interest groups that push the envelope, people of a different persuasion who insist they are entitled, lemmings who become voters for the Left. What a damn shame.

And frankly, I am not impressed that the conseravtives led by Hudak so far. He was not my choice and the recruiting of tough little Sue Ann Levy corroborates where the city has gone. Maybe she is tough and smart. But Mrs. Smitherman is as feisty or more so... and such a... nevermind...

We are being taxed to death. We have incredible resources in this country, but everything costs us much more because of lack of what? Population? Incompetence with the tax money? Loss of industry and foreign investment?


Last edited by Edmund Onward James on Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:16 am; edited 1 time in total
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edmund Onward James wrote:
Ontario was once the spine of the country. Look at us now. Divided. More than divided. And the cities are infested with those with their hands out, special interest groups that push the envelope, people of a different persuasion whop insist they are entitled, lemmings who become voters for the Left. What a damn shame.

And frankly, I am not impressed that the conseravtives led by Hudak so far. He was not my choice and the recruiting of tough little Sue Ann Levy corroborates where the city has gone. Maybe she is tough and smart. But Mrs. Smitherman is as feisty or more so... and such a... nevermind...

We are being taxed to death. We have incredible resources in this country, but everything costs us much more because of lack of what? Population? Incompetence with the tax money? Loss of industry and foreign investment?


Ontario is not as much divided Provincially as it simply lacks an alternative.
John Tory made an attempt to out Liberal the Liberals and lost.

Ontario broke a record from 1923 with the lowest voter turn out in the history of the Province with 52.8%.

The Liberals won as a result of apathy.
Give Ontario something to vote for and they will show up.
Trot two parties who only differ on school funding in front of them and they will stay home and watch Quantum Leap reruns.

I have to agree, as someone who voted for Hudak I am very unimpressed with him as a leader thus far. You have an entire summer were political reporters are dying for something to write about and you have Hudak on a loop "eHealth - HST" "HST - eHeath"

If voters cared about Liberal scandals we would have a Conservative majority with an NDP opposition in Ottawa.

Right now Hudak has allowed himself to be painted by the media as Harris Lite, but the problem is that even though Harris provided the current Liberal with the economy that they screwed up no one focuses on the positives of Iron Mike.

Hudak has failed to define himself and the PC party.
Edmund Onward James





Joined: 04 Jun 2009
Posts: 1317
Reputation: 55
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I knocked on doors and made phone calls for Peter Shurman MPP, Julia Munro MPP, Frank Klees MPP, Lois Brown MP, (Belinda when she was... well she never was), Peter Van Loan MP, Chuck Konkel (who tried in Scarborough)... of course to help the candidates, but also as a writer and weblog commentator to see and hear what people thought and wanted. Sometimes by just observing facial expressions and actions I basically understood their hidden views.

The two issues that are important to me other than the economy, is the street crimes (guns, gangs, youth and old timers, the lax laws); and since 9/11 and before that foreign affairs, military, terrorist Islamists, the spreading of Muslims that are Muslim first. Allah u-akbar!
Cardiac





Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Posts: 130
Reputation: 12.6
Location: Mississauga

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EOJ, those are right on concerns, I'm with you on both.
That said, the groundswell of rage didn't occur. By now we're all aware that the Liebrals won the day. Now I'd like to hear the comments as to why.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hopefully this gets Hudak of the "DST" kick.

Nobody is really upset about it. Maybe once the tax kicks in they will be but not now.

Most conservatives want a harmonized tax, hell, the PCs included that in their platform last election!

Instead he should have listened to Christine Elliott in the first place and promised instead to cut the PST.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


McGuinty calls St. Paul's byelection for Sept. 17

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB