Election 2015

[17to85]

The impressive part is the Liberals rebounding. Perhaps people like the fact that Trudeau isn't BSing about running a deficit while Mulcair saying no deficits has made them take a long hard look at what else he's bullshitting them about. It looks like you might win people start to take a harder look at the stuff you are promising. The NDP relying so much on momentum a long campaign likely hurts them as they might have spent all their momentum already. Not sure how they can get it back to be honest. 

[kelownabomberfan]

 These are not fabrications. These points made about Harper are supported by fact.

 

 

Actually, they are not supported by fact, and they are fabrications.  We just exposed one of your many fabrications not too long ago in fact, in which you posted that Harper has cut $36 billion from health care.  That's just pure unadulterated bullshit.  And that's one of the main reasons I have a huge "bias" towards the NDP, they just lie, cheat and steal, constantly.

 

I could go into an anecdote or two about the horror stories I head this weekend about the Manitoba NDP and the unbelievable mismanagement they are committing right now, according to people who are currently working inside the government, and I could talk about how a lot of NDP stooges are flocking to Alberta as the Alberta NDP ramps up hiring to vastly increase their government bureaucracy to become as bloated as Manitoba, but I know my story is going to somehow end up being re-spun about almond milk for some reason.

 

I don't care if you don't want to vote for Harper, just don't for the horrible money-wasting economy-destroying NDP.  They are a disease.

[kelownabomberfan]

 But I guess that opinion just came from the NDP exploiting my ignorance.

 

This is the only part of your entire post that made much sense.  You claim to know a lot about this area, and yet whenever you talk about it, you sound like a Marine biologist who doesn't understand why fish can breathe under-water.  You can continue to insult me all you want, I don't care, but honestly, there are good reasons why stock options are taxed at 50%, even if you can't understand why that is.  Instead of telling other people to visit the real world, perhaps you could re-visit the tax side of your apparent training, as right now you get an "F".

 

As for constantly bleating about Harper and his deficits, I agree, he shouldn't have been running deficits in the past few years, and I think you would agree that at least part of that reason was the cut in the GST.  I think that the Conservatives have made some bonehead decisions, for sure.  However, look at who else ran in 2011.  One guy lied about the fact that he was dying (Layton should have made full disclosure on that, and it was dishonest but typical NDP to deceive the voters) and the other guy was just visiting.

 

But that's all past history. The big question is, and yet I still am not getting much of an answer, are the other two guys any better?  At least Trudeau was honest, while Mulcair chose to lie, on the question of deficits.  I think that the next few weeks, the NDP are heading back to oblivion where they belong, and Trudeau only gets stronger.  As it should be.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

Ummm you might want to come up with your own stuff but if you can't please apply it correctly.

 

 

 

Ummm it was applied correctly, and ummm it showed how hypocritical you were to go after me just because I have the audacity to not like the NDP very much, when it's obvious the Dippers here are just as close-minded, and even more so, to the point of posting blatant lies to try and shore up their horrible party's position.

[Fraser]

But I guess that opinion just came from the NDP exploiting my ignorance.

This is the only part of your entire post that made much sense. You claim to know a lot about this area, and yet whenever you talk about it, you sound like a Marine biologist who doesn't understand why fish can breathe under-water. You can continue to insult me all you want, I don't care, but honestly, there are good reasons why stock options are taxed at 50%, even if you can't understand why that is. Instead of telling other people to visit the real world, perhaps you could re-visit the tax side of your apparent training, as right now you get an "F".

As for constantly bleating about Harper and his deficits, I agree, he shouldn't have been running deficits in the past few years, and I think you would agree that at least part of that reason was the cut in the GST. I think that the Conservatives have made some bonehead decisions, for sure. However, look at who else ran in 2011. One guy lied about the fact that he was dying (Layton should have made full disclosure on that, and it was dishonest but typical NDP to deceive the voters) and the other guy was just visiting.

But that's all past history. The big question is, and yet I still am not getting much of an answer, are the other two guys any better? At least Trudeau was honest, while Mulcair chose to lie, on the question of deficits. I think that the next few weeks, the NDP are heading back to oblivion where they belong, and Trudeau only gets stronger. As it should be.

Post something that shows stock options are a common form of renumeration for Canadians. You cant. Because they aren't.

Divide what we've saved on gst by his accumulated deficits. Its a drop in the bucket.

[kelownabomberfan]

The group responsible for the lie that Mr. Dee has been parroting on here about "Health Care cuts" is now in trouble with Elections Canada.  Go figure.

 

An advocacy group handed out hundreds of signs at a politically charged health-care rally held in the Windsor area this week, even though it hadn't yet registered as a third party with Elections Canada.

The Windsor Essex Health Coalition was among a handful of groups that participated in an event that was held at the Ciociaro Club on the outskirts of the city this past Wednesday.

More than 1,000 people were present at the event, which also involved Unifor, the Ontario Health Coalition, the Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the Windsor-based Pathway to Potential. Many of those in attendance were retired auto workers and union members.

The groups were talking about health care and what they believe is at stake in this election, though speakers expressed opposition to the way health transfers are slated to change if the Conservatives form the next government.

Unifor National President Jerry Dias told the crowd that the health-care system and its preservation was "the number one issue to be dealt with" this fall.

While the event was supposed to be non-partisan, Dias made several direct appeals on behalf of local New Democratic candidates. The labour leader told CBC News that "it's hard to talk about health care without talking about politics."

Ken Lewenza, the former president of the Canadian Auto Workers, which is now a part of Unifor, also addressed the crowd.

He said that politicians of all stripes were invited to the event, though no Conservative candidates appeared to be present.

Jeff Watson, a Conservative candidate and the incumbent in the riding of Essex, told CBC News in a telephone interview that he did not receive an invite to the event.

Watson also questioned if all the groups involved in the event, which he described as being "broadly aligned with the left," had registered as third parties. He noted that Unifor was registered.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/lawn-signs-first-registration-second-for-health-care-advocacy-group-1.3208074

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

But I guess that opinion just came from the NDP exploiting my ignorance.

This is the only part of your entire post that made much sense. You claim to know a lot about this area, and yet whenever you talk about it, you sound like a Marine biologist who doesn't understand why fish can breathe under-water. You can continue to insult me all you want, I don't care, but honestly, there are good reasons why stock options are taxed at 50%, even if you can't understand why that is. Instead of telling other people to visit the real world, perhaps you could re-visit the tax side of your apparent training, as right now you get an "F".

As for constantly bleating about Harper and his deficits, I agree, he shouldn't have been running deficits in the past few years, and I think you would agree that at least part of that reason was the cut in the GST. I think that the Conservatives have made some bonehead decisions, for sure. However, look at who else ran in 2011. One guy lied about the fact that he was dying (Layton should have made full disclosure on that, and it was dishonest but typical NDP to deceive the voters) and the other guy was just visiting.

But that's all past history. The big question is, and yet I still am not getting much of an answer, are the other two guys any better? At least Trudeau was honest, while Mulcair chose to lie, on the question of deficits. I think that the next few weeks, the NDP are heading back to oblivion where they belong, and Trudeau only gets stronger. As it should be.

Post something that shows stock options are a common form of renumeration for Canadians. You cant. Because they arent.

 

 

good grief, this is like talking to a piece of wood.  Ok then, how about this?  Why are stock options currently taxed at only 50%?  Were the people that decided on this course of action just plain stupid?  Is the NDP and people like you just so much smarter than everyone else?  There must have been some logic to it.  All I see from the NDP and you is bitterness towards others who receive this deduction, and some fixation with almond milk.  If it's so dumb and only this small little band of evil rich people get the deduction, then why didn't the Liberals get rid of it back in Paul Martin's time?  Just curious if you can figure it out, though I'm not holding my breath.

[Fraser]

A bit simplistic.

But if you're saying don't vote for Harper because he ran deficits, why on earth is that a reason to vote for anyone else?

The liberal party has shown the ability to balance the books albeit under different administration.

Justin's plan seems to be an actual plan that addresses an actual problem with a finite reason and end to the deficits.

Harper doesn't even have a plan except to bs the numbers and pretend we are running a surplus right now. More of the same from him isn't good enough.

[kelownabomberfan]

Mike Hansen ‏@MikeHansen613 Aug 27

This is a serious #NDP candidate. I'm not joking. #meetthendp

 

[Fraser]

But I guess that opinion just came from the NDP exploiting my ignorance.

This is the only part of your entire post that made much sense. You claim to know a lot about this area, and yet whenever you talk about it, you sound like a Marine biologist who doesn't understand why fish can breathe under-water. You can continue to insult me all you want, I don't care, but honestly, there are good reasons why stock options are taxed at 50%, even if you can't understand why that is. Instead of telling other people to visit the real world, perhaps you could re-visit the tax side of your apparent training, as right now you get an "F".

As for constantly bleating about Harper and his deficits, I agree, he shouldn't have been running deficits in the past few years, and I think you would agree that at least part of that reason was the cut in the GST. I think that the Conservatives have made some bonehead decisions, for sure. However, look at who else ran in 2011. One guy lied about the fact that he was dying (Layton should have made full disclosure on that, and it was dishonest but typical NDP to deceive the voters) and the other guy was just visiting.

But that's all past history. The big question is, and yet I still am not getting much of an answer, are the other two guys any better? At least Trudeau was honest, while Mulcair chose to lie, on the question of deficits. I think that the next few weeks, the NDP are heading back to oblivion where they belong, and Trudeau only gets stronger. As it should be.

Post something that shows stock options are a common form of renumeration for Canadians. You cant. Because they arent.

good grief, this is like talking to a piece of wood. Ok then, how about this? Why are stock options currently taxed at only 50%? Were the people that decided on this course of action just plain stupid? Is the NDP and people like you just so much smarter than everyone else? There must have been some logic to it. All I see from the NDP and you is bitterness towards others who receive this deduction, and some fixation with almond milk. If it's so dumb and only this small little band of evil rich people get the deduction, then why didn't the Liberals get rid of it back in Paul Martin's time? Just curious if you can figure it out, though I'm not holding my breath.

Technically they are taxed at 100 percent like employment income but you are given a deduction for 50 percent. They don't work exactly like a capital gain. In fact, if you lose money on shares executed in a purchase of stock options you dont get to write off the capital loss. So you can get pretty ****** if you don't exercise and blow the shares out right away.

The reason I don't agree with the 50% deduction as you are not committing the capital upfront like you would in a typical capital gains scenerio. You are exercising and only spending your money after you've already locked in a profit. If they never get exercised there is no 'loss' to you. Just the 'loss of potential profit' so I don't think it should be taxed like an actual risky capital gain.

[Mr Dee]

The group responsible for the lie that Mr. Dee has been parroting on here about "Health Care cuts" is now in trouble with Elections Canada.  Go figure.

I did not link any such group and I do not "parrot" any lies. Those are all your words.

I see that when you don't like what you hear, you try to find something(one) to blame it on. All the better if it's the NDP.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't use my name in any association with your anger. Direct your angst somewhere else.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

I did not link any such group and I do not "parrot" any lies. Those are all your words.

 

 

Then apologize for posting that Harper has cut $36 billion from health care spending in Canada, as it is a total lie, and you posted it.  It's really simple.

 

Posted 26 August 2015 - 01:21 PM

Well, let's see how the Harper balanced the last budget...

- cut 36 billion for health care over 10 years.

 

 

NOT TRUE!

[kelownabomberfan]

The reason I don't agree with the 50% deduction as you are not committing the capital upfront like you would in a typical capital gains scenerio. You are exercising and only spending your money after you've already locked in a profit. If they never get exercised there is no 'loss' to you. Just the 'loss of potential profit' so I don't think it should be taxed like an actual risky capital gain.

 

 

well all right.  That's actually given me something to think about.  Thank you for that.

[Mr Dee]

 

We just exposed one of your many fabrications not too long ago in fact, in which you posted that Harper has cut $36 billion from health care.  That's just pure unadulterated bullshit.  And that's one of the main reasons I have a huge "bias" towards the NDP, they just lie, cheat and steal, constantly.

The funding formula has changed and expired in 2014. The Cons refused to meet with the provinces and territories. They changed the transfer from a needs-based formula to a per capita.

It will change again in 2017.

Quote - "All provinces except Alberta will receive less funding under this new model. These changes reduce the federal share of health funding from 20 per cent to 12 per cent. The Conservatives have indeed cut funding by $36 million nationally, a figure released by the premiers at their July 2012 meeting. The report, the 2012 Report of the Council of the Federation Working Group, was written by provincial and territorial finance ministers." - James Hutt

"Organizations and politicians from across the political spectrum have denounced the cuts. Last month, all 13 of Canada’s premiers, even the Conservatives among them, voiced opposition to Harper’s changes and united in a call for the federal government to increase its share of health funding to 25 per cent."

"Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the independent office responsible for assessing the country’s finances, has twice confirmed the $36 billion cut and issued dire warnings of its impacts."

[Mr Dee]

I did not link any such group and I do not "parrot" any lies. Those are all your words.

Then apologize

As if. I never posted any link to that group.

[kelownabomberfan]

"Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the independent office responsible for assessing the country’s finances, has twice confirmed the $36 billion cut and issued dire warnings of its impacts."

 

 

It's a change to the formula, not a "cut".  It's semantic wordplay designed to sway the uninformed voter, which is standard NDP modus operandi.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

 

I did not link any such group and I do not "parrot" any lies. Those are all your words.

Then apologize

As if. I never posted any link to that group.

 

 

Of course you won't apologize.  The NDP never does.  And this is why you guys lose election after election, your arrogance nails you every single time.

[rebusrankin]

The Liberals did balance the budget under Chretien/Martin, not sure Trudeau will do the same. I'm not sure he'd cut 20 billion from healthcare and social services at they did (1995 budget that was the cut on the Canada Health and Social Transfer). He may take from Federal Civil Servants Pension fund.

 

I do think we'd be better off with the Liberals and Conservatives as the two dominant parties

[sweep the leg]

The Liberals did balance the budget under Chretien/Martin, not sure Trudeau will do the same. I'm not sure he'd cut 20 billion from healthcare and social services at they did (1995 budget that was the cut on the Canada Health and Social Transfer). He may take from Federal Civil Servants Pension fund.

 

I do think we'd be better off with the Liberals and Conservatives as the two dominant parties

What do you base that opinion on?

[kelownabomberfan]

I think if Trudeau just said the following, he'd have people coming to him enmasse:

 

"Look the federal government needs $15 billion more per year in revenue.  We had that when the GST was 7%.  I can't say I will balance the budget (and whoever does promise you that is lying) but I will say that going back to 7% GST would be a huge win for everyone.  Let's go back to where we were, and enough of this nonsense".

 

Boom.  Done.

[rebusrankin]

 

The Liberals did balance the budget under Chretien/Martin, not sure Trudeau will do the same. I'm not sure he'd cut 20 billion from healthcare and social services at they did (1995 budget that was the cut on the Canada Health and Social Transfer). He may take from Federal Civil Servants Pension fund.

 

I do think we'd be better off with the Liberals and Conservatives as the two dominant parties

What do you base that opinion on?

 

 

 

The Liberals did balance the budget under Chretien/Martin, not sure Trudeau will do the same. I'm not sure he'd cut 20 billion from healthcare and social services at they did (1995 budget that was the cut on the Canada Health and Social Transfer). He may take from Federal Civil Servants Pension fund.

 

I do think we'd be better off with the Liberals and Conservatives as the two dominant parties

What do you base that opinion on?

 

I should have explained better. When they balanced their budgets, the Liberals took money that was surplus from the federal civil servants pension fund. It helped them balance their budget. Now I think its unlikely, JT does this but I could see it. It fits his class warfare message.

[The Unknown Poster]

If I recall the first minority the Cons won they had been leading by more but once they approached majority people got a little caution and backed away.

Could be the same thing with NDP

[kelownabomberfan]

I wish this guy would run...

[kelownabomberfan]

and here we have yet another example of the bias of the CBC...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/document-raises-questions-about-harper-retirement-policies-1.3198157

 

Just a total smear/hack job by the nutty leftists at the CBC.  Kind of like saying that Harper has cut $36 billion from Health budgets, when in fact health budgets have been raised.

 

in response:

 

FACT CHECK: CBC "should be ashamed" of biased retirement pensions story --

Here at The Rebel and before that at Sun News, Ezra Levant and I have been accused of being biased.

Okay, guilty as charged, but unlike most media outlets -- like, say, the CBC -- I am up front with my bias. I tell you where I am coming from. You can take what I say or ignore it knowing that I am coming to you from a specific point of view.

Then you have the others. The folks that claim to be impartial and unbiased and then produce work that brings that notion into question.

This past weekend, CBC put out a story by their Access to Information specialist Dean Beeby that is either a really lazy piece of journalism or an agenda driven piece aimed at pushing an issue.

My opinion is that this story on pensions falls in the latter category.

Now this isn’t just another rant on media and media bias. I’ve talked plenty about that, I even wrote a book called CBC Exposed that laid bare so much of what is wrong with the state broadcaster.

But I’m not just going to bash the other media outlets here.

I keep saying elections matter and we need to talk policy, so let’s do that as well, as I show you how bad this story, ostensibly about pensions, really is.

Let’s start with the headline and subheadline:

“Document raises questions about Harper retirement policies: Finance Canada review of Canada's retirement system says Canada scores poorly among OECD countries”

Did the document raise questions? No, Dean Beeby did. The document was there to answer questions.

Did the review say Canada scores poorly? No, it didn’t.

Dean Beeby said that based on one aspect, what the review calls "one pillar" of retirement saving in Canada: Public pensions.

Now after the loaded headline, which I will admit, the journalist does not always get a say in, Beeby opens his piece in this way:

“Canada scores poorly among developed countries in providing public pensions to seniors, according to an internal analysis of retirement income by the federal government.”

He keeps going back to this one feature time and again, the public pension feature.

It’s part of what makes me think this story tells you more about Dean Beeby and his worldview than it does about the report on retirement income.

Because when you read the actual Access to Information documents in full, it shows that retirement income in Canada is doing much better than reported, and that Canadian seniors are less likely to live in poverty than seniors in most OECD countries including ones that spend more on public pensions.

Beeby and CBC don’t tell you that Canadian seniors are less likely to live in poverty. It wouldn’t fit their agenda.

Here’s what they do tell you. After setting up that pensions are an election issue, comes this quote from the review conducted by Finance Canada for the Privy Council Office:

"In 2010, Canada spent 5.0 per cent of GDP on public pensions (OAS/GIS and C/QPP), which is low compared with the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) of average of 9.4 per cent," it noted.

"The OECD projects that public expenditure on pensions in Canada will only increase to 6.3 per cent of GDP by 2050 – much lower than the 11.6 per cent of GDP projected for OECD countries on average."

As he continues on in the article, Beeby cherry picks lines that show Canada spending less than the OECD average on public pensions and social programs and then turns to Ontario Liberal MP and Kathleen Wynne cabinet minister Mitzie Hunter, unloads on Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, and claims they are burying their heads in the sand. Then he turns to Susan Eng of CARP, another advocate for expanded public pensions.

This story was agenda driven from the start and this proves it. But what gives added proof is what was not included in the story.

Like I said, if you listen to Dean Beeby and CBC, you would think Granny is left on her own, or at best put out on the ice floe by an uncaring federal government.

What is the reality? Far different.

Page 6 of the PDF shows that the number of seniors living below the Low Income Cut Off, the LICO, commonly called the poverty line, has been shrinking since 1976.

The report shows that when you take all three pillars of the retirement system in this country – meaning OAS and GIS (that is the public pillar), the second pillar being CPP, and the third pillar being private savings in RRSPs and such -- then Canadian seniors have an income replacement above the OECD average:

“With support from all three pillars, the media Canadian senior earns about 91 per cent as much as the median Canadian - well above the OECD average of 84 per cent.”

Is that in the story? No. It wouldn’t push the CBC agenda of more government spending.

Are there seniors in poverty? Yes, there are but seniors in Canada are less likely to live in poverty than the general population. The poverty rate sits at about 9%, the poverty rate for seniors is 7.2% according to a study from the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Oh and by the way, that is well below the OECD average of 12.8%.

You didn’t see that in Dean Beeby’s story did you?

Yet that story was given time on The National, it played on CBC radio and on CBC’s news channel. And yet it a false story built upon selective reading of a report.

It is a story guilty of the sin of omission. It didn’t tell you the whole story, in fact it didn’t come close.

But like most stories on CBC, it did the main job it was intended to do, it helped convince the audience that Stephen Harper is mean and needs to be defeated.

CBC, its news department, its editors and their management should all be ashamed of themselves over this.

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

You know the left are off their rockers when Ezra is the voice of reason. And he is.