Conservative Campaign Promises - How can you NOT vote for this guy?!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kassz007, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. A summary of some of Harper's initiatives announced during the campaign for if he gets re-elected:

    "Eliminate the federal deficit one year earlier than planned by squeezing $4-billion in additional savings from Ottawa"

    "A more assertive role for Canada’s military and perimeter defences, including arming Coast Guard vessels and stationing a rapid-reaction air-force wing for international emergencies in Bagotville, Que."

    "The Conservatives are pledging to run a surplus of at least $2.8-billion in the 2014-15 fiscal year."

    “It's going to feel, I hope, like a smaller government,” Conservative candidate and finance minister Jim Flaherty said of a new Ottawa if the Tories win again."

    "One thing the Conservatives are pledging to spare from cuts is a 6-per-cent annual increase to health-care transfers to the provinces"

    "Conservatives also pledge a “one-for-one” rule that would commit them to eliminating an existing government regulation every time they propose a new one. "

    "a new national park in the eastern GTA’s Rouge Valley. "

    "if he wins a majority he would scrap a per-vote taxpayer subsidy, one that his rivals have come to depend on heavily. "
  2. "Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth, analysis reveals as election pledges fly"

    "...The issue boils down to this: At a time when Ottawa and many provinces are awash in deficit, should governments invest scarce resources in making life more affordable for families by enhancing social programs or in giving corporations additional tax cuts?"
  3. On CBC's Power and Politics last night they were discussing a recent report that stated that corporate tax cuts do indeed create jobs. A Liberal economist (CAW economist) promptly shut the report down and said that for every report that shows corporate tax cuts create jobs, there is one that states corporate tax cuts do not create jobs.

    So if there are conflicting reports, I think we must use common sense to judge for ourselves. Does it make sense that if a company has more money it will hire more people and at better wages? Would you say private corporations are more efficient resources allocators than government? Why or why not?

    Would you rather see a company become more profitable, and therefore be able to pay out dividends to investors, hire workers, and expand? Or instead give more of these profits to the government to spend as they see fit?
  4. With regards to the deficit comment:

    1. The current Conservative plan will have the federal government out of deficit by 2015 at the latest. And this is without raising taxes and growing government.

    2. "Enhancing social programs" = more socialism = bigger government = more inefficient waste.
  5. Ricter


    Nope, it's driven by sales, actual and projected. If it were driven by cash alone then I'd be hiring like crazy right now. And if I didn't have cash but wanted to hire... wait for it... I'd tap credit.

    They are more efficient for some goods and services but not all. Furthermore, sometimes what's needed is efficacy, not efficiency.
  6. Isn't this the old "Supply/Demand" argument?

    It sounds like corporations will hire/pay more, but there are a couple of problems along the way.

    1) Using the tax break to pay their execs more - a freebie for doing nothing.
    2) Hire? To provide what? Doesn't somebody have to buy more of what they are selling to increase demand on their product? Why would they hire more until business increased? If people don't have the $$, why would they increase buying what that company is selling?

    I guess they could just hire more people without an increase in demand - but not sure why...
  7. The important thing to remember is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Even Alan Greenspan, a Republican, admitted it specifically.

    Economics is all about the efficient allocation of scarce resources. And so, the question is, during a significant budget deficit and when a fair proportion of families are hurting, is there any legitimacy in essentially taking away from them in order to provide corporations with ineffectual tax cuts? My answer is No, and I will vote accordingly.

    As an added bonus, listen in at just before the 50-second mark to hear Republican Greenspan say it in three words:

    <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
  8. Fair point regarding demand, but incorrect regarding credit. Try getting a couple million dollars on credit to expand your business if you are not sufficiently profitable, partly due to the government extorting too much of your money from you.

    What goods and services would you say the government is more efficient at providing than the private sector?
  9. Yes, you make some good points, as does Ricter. In my opinion, the direct effect of corporate tax cuts would apply more appropriately to a business looking to expand or invest in capital.

    The indirect effect I think would be to distribute more money to employees and investors, who will ultimately spend this money in the economy, thereby keep it humming along. And a nicely humming economy (higher demand) will surely create sales for said business, and in the long run, create jobs.

    It basically comes down to the choice between a company you work for a invest in keeping more of their hard earned cash, or the government extorting it from that business and distributing it amongst citizens any way it sees fit.

    You might not like my choice of wording in the paragraph above, and will likely start spouting ideology such as "everybody should get a more equal share of the wealth" (even though they don't deserve the share gifted to them), but it is how I've described above.

    And by the way, your comment about execs benefiting with higher pay has no merit. The flipside is that a politician benefits himself with that exact same money.
  10. Ricter


    That taxes/extortion argument is a non-starter. If they were as bad as your argument requires then I wouldn't have the cash I do now. We are profitable in spite of taxation. The current squeeze on our margins comes from competition, and the (relatively) low price of gas.

    I'm not saying I want more taxes or that I would resist lower taxes, or even that government is spending the money wisely or not. Only that they are largely, in this time and place, a non-issue.

    If I really have to answer your second question then you are a more hard-core libertarian than I care to debate.
    #10     Apr 8, 2011