2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Halifax Tar]

bitcoin being the way out of inflation was not exactly his best moment. He’s also kept his mouth shut about that since then amongst a bunch of not so great ideas that plenty here supported. The budget will balance itself was part of a bigger discussion and when O’Toole said pretty much the same thing no one seemed too worried.

When did O'Toole say that ? I would honestly be interested in reading that. FWIW im not an O'Toole fan. He was dud. I believe I have said that a few times on these means.

I honestly don't know enough about crypto currency to comment on that.

Depends on what his economic policy will look like. Sept 2023, I will be interested to see what comes out of the policy convention.

Agreed.

Reduction in Gvt and services is coming. Won’t matter who is in power but it will matter how they go about doing it. PP was on the team that brought us DRAP, Phoenix, SSC etc and I hold no hope that under him it would be much better.

Neither party will campaign on that though. But expect it.

There is no way in hells half acre that the LPC is reducing Government and Services. They live and die off of social spending and the PS.

The CPC will be the bad guy here.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The proof is his "common cents" plan, highlighted (again) by the two fundamentally contradictory concepts in my sarcastic post. You/ he can't have it both ways. Cutting the carbon tax would be an inflationary move -no different than printing more cheques- and would likely only yield a very short run break at the pumps before increased demand and willingness to pay sees the prices go back up.

I'm some glad you aren't in charge of this... You aren't, are you ?

The bolded is a long run ideological position. It doesn't address the short run issues impacting the country, nor change the economic concepts underpinning them.

Again, further taxation is the answer, right ? It will fix what ails ya!

 

[Remius]

When did O'Toole say that ? I would honestly be interested in reading that. FWIW im not an O'Toole fan. He was dud. I believe I have said that a few times on these means.

ANDERSON: O’Toole thinks the budget will balance itself

Gather round, children, it’s time for a history lesson. For more than a decade now, Ontario has been going out of its way to gut its own economy. Having already

www.westernstandard.news

There are also a few other articles that can be found here and there. O’Toole basically was saying the same thing.

Agreed.



There is no way in hells half acre that the LPC is reducing Government and Services. They live and die off of social spending and the PS.

The CPC will be the bad guy here.

It will reach a point when it will happen. The LPC a were responsible way back when when they made cuts in 90s. They won’t have much choice. Conditions are starting to be in place that will give them no choice. Last budget saw a 3% reduction across the board.

Now…if they are in a minority situation with the NDP a propping them that exercise might be a bit more difficult. And unless a minority CPC has someone to prop them up I doubt that they can get it done either.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I'm some glad you aren't in charge of this... You aren't, are you ?

Counter what I said. Google Rishi Sunak's thoughts on the matter.

Again, further taxation is the answer, right ? It will fix what ails ya!

Again, where did I argue for further taxation?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Counter what I said. Google Rishi Sunak's thoughts on the matter.

Again, where did I argue for further taxation?

My interpretation of your position is that you support the carbon tax, am I incorrect ? If I am I apologize in advance.

 

[Halifax Tar]

ANDERSON: O’Toole thinks the budget will balance itself

Gather round, children, it’s time for a history lesson. For more than a decade now, Ontario has been going out of its way to gut its own economy. Having already

www.westernstandard.news

There are also a few other articles that can be found here and there. O’Toole basically was saying the same thing.

Thank you, yikes. Good thing he got turfed. I hope PP puts something better forward.

It will reach a point when it will happen. The LPC a were responsible way back when when they made cuts in 90s. They won’t have much choice. Conditions are starting to be in place that will give them no choice. Last budget saw a 3% reduction across the board.

The LPC of today vs Chretien's era are very different beasts me thinks.

Now…if they are in a minority situation with the NDP a propping them that exercise might be a bit more difficult. And unless a minority CPC has someone to prop them up I doubt that they can get it done either.

A CPC minority will just mean another quick follow on election. I really don't expect a gov of that make up to last long.

 

[IKnowNothing]

My interpretation of your position is that you support the carbon tax, am I incorrect ? If I am I apologize in advance.

You are incorrect.
My position is that removing the carbon tax (or any tax) has the same impact on both the government ledger and inflationary pressures as increased spending in of that same amount. It's putting money into people's pockets* at the expense of government revenues, giving people more money to bid up goods, and the government less money to do government things (like pay off the deficit.)
* Yes yes, technically it's leaving the people's own money in their pockets rather than taking it, but the deviation from the status quo is the same. Bigger deficit, more inflation.

Given the above, railing against inflationary spending while calling for tax cuts (that will fuel inflation) to help people deal with inflation is ignorant at best, ideologically driven manipulation at worst.

 

[RangerRay]

I'm not sure those voters you mention can be convinced. Again, entrenched polarization.

Have you ever argued with a toddler ?

But as I said:



And we deserve it to.

So the CPC shouldn’t find votes that aren’t already entrenched with them? That doesn’t sound like a viable election strategy at all. I mean, if everyone is set in their camps, why have elections? Oh, wait…governments do change if voters are given reasons to give someone else the keys.

Polls show there are a lot of people who want change, but don’t like the choice of Tweedle Dum vs. Tweedle Dee. Polls also show the plurality of voters belong to the Exhausted Middle. They are the insanely normal people who look at the choices and rhetoric and say “No thanks. I want nothing to do with these clowns”. This is where elections are won and lost.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You are incorrect.
My position is that removing the carbon tax (or any tax) has the same impact on both the government ledger and inflationary pressures as increased spending in of that same amount. It's putting money into people's pockets* at the expense of government revenues, giving people more money to bid up goods, and the government less money to do government things (like pay off the deficit.)
* Yes yes, technically it's leaving the people's own money in their pockets rather than taking it, but the deviation from the status quo is the same. Bigger deficit, more inflation.

Given the above, railing against inflationary spending while calling for tax cuts (that will fuel inflation) to help people deal with inflation is ignorant at best, ideologically driven manipulation at worst.

So you don't support the carbon tax but you also don't support stopping it ?

Because that will leave the people with money to spend on their own needs and desires and that will increase inflation.

So the solution is to up taxes for the Gov to use... where, for how long ? Or is this like income tax ? Its only for the war, promise! Cross my heart and hope to die

 

[Halifax Tar]

So the CPC shouldn’t find votes that aren’t already entrenched with them?

When did I say that ? I would argue they are.

That doesn’t sound like a viable election strategy at all. I mean, if everyone is set in their camps, why have elections? Oh, wait…governments do change if voters are given reasons to give someone else the keys.

Are our elections actually representative of the political leanings of the people ?

Polls show there are a lot of people who want change, but don’t like the choice of Tweedle Dum vs. Tweedle Dee. Polls also show the plurality of voters belong to the Exhausted Middle. They are the insanely normal people who look at the choices and rhetoric and say “No thanks. I want nothing to do with these clowns”. This is where elections are won and lost.

Again I am not sure you can make PP Tweedle Dum or Dee at this point. He hasn't had the chance to be the Buffon you seem to think he is.

Should him (PP) and the CPC form a Gov and fail I will support an echo your railing. Until that point, I know I want change and PP is the best option I can see.

 

[IKnowNothing]

So you don't support the carbon tax but you also don't support stopping it ?

Because that will leave the people with money to spend on their own wants and desires and that will increase inflation.

In the short run- yeah that's pretty much it. Not without the change being part of a well thought out policy suite calculated to mitigate the various impacts.

I know this is tongue and cheek, but it's the reality of the situation. Reality often steamrolls political beliefs. What part of raising interest rates to reduce spending while simultaneously cutting taxes to increase spending makes one lick of sense?

 

[Halifax Tar]

In the short run- yeah that's pretty much it. Not without the change being part of a well thought out policy suite calculated to mitigate the various impacts.

I know this is tongue and cheek, but it's the reality of the situation. Reality often steamrolls political beliefs. What part of raising interest rates to reduce spending while simultaneously cutting taxes to increase spending makes one lick of sense?

For how long ? And where does the newly raised taxes go ?

I have no interest in propping up a system that cant live within its own means, especially when it demands that I do.

I have a special hate for income taxes.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

ANDERSON: O’Toole thinks the budget will balance itself

Gather round, children, it’s time for a history lesson. For more than a decade now, Ontario has been going out of its way to gut its own economy. Having already

www.westernstandard.news

There are also a few other articles that can be found here and there. O’Toole basically was saying the same thing.

It will reach a point when it will happen. The LPC a were responsible way back when when they made cuts in 90s. They won’t have much choice. Conditions are starting to be in place that will give them no choice. Last budget saw a 3% reduction across the board.

Now…if they are in a minority situation with the NDP a propping them that exercise might be a bit more difficult. And unless a minority CPC has someone to prop them up I doubt that they can get it done either.

Actually Chreatin was pretty brutal with cuts, even our SAR cutter was tied to the wall for lack of fuel unless dispatched by RCC. The LPC were always better lairs. They would gut a program by taking away funding, but not actually shutting stuff down, so if a political issue popped up, they just push money into to make the issue go away, but took that money from another program.
I despised him for his corruption. But he has forgotten more about fiscal responsibility that JT will ever know. Paul Martin also ran a tight fiscal ship.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Poor Paul Martin never got the credit for basically saving the Country from an economic disaster that would have put us the same situation as Argentina and Zimbabwe .
There was a very interesting episode of W-5 regarding what happened in the 80's to New Zealand. That came very close to happening to us.

 

[Lumber]

And yes we should reduce taxes and public services/government. Put peoples money back in their pockets; as for the O&G profit margins, that's capitalism. Make a product people want and they will pay you for it.

Make a product people want and they will pay you for it if they can afford it.

The main raison d'être for most government spending programs is to transfer wealth from those who have it but don't need it to those who need it but don't have it.

People are stupid with money.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Make a product people want and they will pay you for it if they can afford it.

The main raison d'être for most government spending programs is to transfer wealth from those who have it but don't need it to those who need it but don't have it.

People are stupid with money.

People have a hard time affording it when Govs arbitrarily decide more their pay doesn't go in their pocket.

Who are you to decide how much someone needs ?

 

[Lumber]

People have a hard time affording it when Govs arbitrarily decide more their pay doesn't go in their pocket.

How is it arbitrary? As far as I've seen, every tax increase has had a stated reason based on a some need.

Who are you to decide how much someone needs ?

I don't. That's what we have a bureaucracy for. There are many thing that people need that individuals simply cannot afford or produce on their own. We pay taxes to pool our money so that I can get day care (which I can't afford on my own, but do need), while someone else gets a credit toward training a new skill (which I don't need, but can help support).

And while I stand by my statement that most people are stupid with money and wouldn't do what's needed if they had "more of their own money in their pockets", I also think there are many cases where people are in a rough spot through no fault of their own, or at least due to a series of unfortunate circumstances that they could have navigated better.

I personally may be in a situation where I have everything I need, I don't need any assistance to pay for the things I need, and even have extra on the side. Conversely, someone else could be in a situation where they need more support than they can currently afford. That person may be able to stay afloat and get back on their feet thanks to numerous government programs, paid for by my tax dollars, and I'm happy to live in a society where I can indirectly help my fellow Canadians to thrive.

I don't want to live in a libertarian society where taxes are next to zero, there are no social services, and I drive around all happy and fat while my fellow Canadians (some through their own actions, some not) live destitute.

 

[RangerRay]

Again I am not sure you can make PP Tweedle Dum or Dee at this point. He hasn't had the chance to be the Buffon you seem to think he is.

PP does that for himself without being in power. For each cogent statement he makes on affordability issues, he makes a hyperbolic statement laced with half truths that makes undecided voters question his competence.

Case in point: yesterday’s by-elections. Bearing in mind by-elections usually have low turnout, they are also usually a boon to opposition parties because voters tired of governing parties can safely register their displeasure by voting for the opposition without overturning the government. Instead, what we saw was the Liberals INCREASED their vote share in a safe Liberal but winnable seat for the CPC in Winnipeg and a safe CPC seat in Ontario (not as bad as the poll, but still not good). With a Liberal government mired in scandal and incompetence, voters in these ridings thought PP was not worth their vote.

Back in the Chrétien days, I wondered why with all the terrible stuff that government was doing, why weren’t voters giving Preston Manning or Stockwell Day a chance? The answer was because as terrible the Chrétien government was, gettable voters weren’t convinced they were any better because of bozo eruptions by themselves or party members.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Wrt the public service, I don't think cutting the actual number of people will do anything, if we leave existing processes in place.

There is a huge amount of triple accounting, multiple layers of overlapping oversight etc which is massively inefficient, but also required by various legislations, policies etc. Going through a lot of that and being ruthless is cutting it would free up a lot of people's time to focus on what work is needed, and also make some people/sections/departments largely redundant, or do things like grab a bunch of folks in DND, PSPC and ISED and jam them into a single department reporting to a single person responsible to the MND for military procurement. You could largely eliminate DPS, and then would solve a lot of arguements in the IPT structure where there are 3 or 4 different decision makers. And other simple things like increasing spending authority delegations at the lower levels to match inflation would be great, as $25k doesn't buy as much as it did in the 80s.

Dropping down the number of people doesn't really do anything to make government 'better', just means things take longer because you have less people cranking the sausage maker so takes longer (which costs real money). And it's not like the policy layers are just from the current LPC government; they've been building for 170ish years.

I hate working within the government most days, but the reality is, as long as there are 14 decision points to get a project approved, someone has to jump through them all. We waste a mind boggling of taxpayer money to ensure we spend it at 'best value' but probably sspend more in real terms on the process then if we just let a lot of the checks and balances drop, but then actually enforced real consequences when people abuse spending authority.

 

[suffolkowner]

For how long ? And where does the newly raised taxes go ?

I have no interest in propping up a system that cant live within its own means, especially when it demands that I do.

I have a special hate for income taxes.

Increased carbon taxes should have coincided with income tax decreases. Of course that didnt happen the same should have applied with the GST unfortunately Harper chose to go a different way. I am not particularly concerned with inflation at this moment as I do not think that much is being driven by these internal factors. Adding 1M+ immigrants notwithstanding. The government/BoC will raise interest rates in the time honoured tradition of putting people out of work.