Jump to content


Photo

Really? Trust this guy??


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#71 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:50 PM

But Harper wants to spend money on things we don't need, as well... such as jails when crime rates are decreasing across the board, etc.

I don't necessarily agree with Layton raising prices 10 cents a liter... Just like the article in today's Windsor Star saying that "stop our recovery in it's tracks" or that "overnight" people will stop investing in Canada. They are all scare tactics, IMO.

#72 It'sMe

It'sMe

    Habit Forming

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 717 posts

Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:57 PM

But Harper wants to spend money on things we don't need, as well... such as jails when crime rates are decreasing across the board, etc.

I don't necessarily agree with Layton raising prices 10 cents a liter... Just like the article in today's Windsor Star saying that "stop our recovery in it's tracks" or that "overnight" people will stop investing in Canada. They are all scare tactics, IMO.


really? we don't need jails? Kingston Pen. for example is a maximum security prison where the most hardened prisoners go to...it opened in 1835. one of THE oldest prisons still in use in the world. you don't think it's time for new ones? i sure do.

and yes, Layton would stop recovery dead in its tracks. funny how since this "orange crush" began, even the left media are endorsing the conservatives...that has to tell you something.

Edited by It'sMe, 28 April 2011 - 09:59 PM.


#73 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:03 PM

I think we can improve/rebuild the current ones (if necessary, simply being old doesn't mean it needs to be replaced), we don't need NEW ones.

I am not sure who I am voting for, but I can tell ya, it would be Layton any day over Harper. I'm just not sure it will be Layton at this point in time. Still working on making up my mind..

We shall see how this all plays out in the end. I do think it will be minority Conservative, what remains to be seen is where the rest of the votes fall.

Edited by ~Jill~, 28 April 2011 - 10:03 PM.


#74 Tired Mom

Tired Mom

    Joined September 2006

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:29 PM

But Harper wants to spend money on things we don't need, as well... such as jails when crime rates are decreasing across the board, etc.

I don't necessarily agree with Layton raising prices 10 cents a liter... Just like the article in today's Windsor Star saying that "stop our recovery in it's tracks" or that "overnight" people will stop investing in Canada. They are all scare tactics, IMO.


Yes he may pay for new prisons, but again they won't be torn down every year needing the funding all over again the next year. That is another example the difference between the two spending paterns. You spend the capital to rebuild once, and not have to worry about doing it again for another 50-150 years.

For every example you can give on Harper's spending we can produce an NDP program that they wish to implement that would be a consistent money pit for years and years to come. He has to replenish things. Things break down, grow outdated, become obsolete, etc and they get replaced. It isn't even remotely in the same league as unlimited plans to splurge money!

Gas was just the best example of what the "carbon tax plan" would effect. Its a cash grab at our citizens expense, like all the other proposed increases needed for his budget.

If you call what you read scare tactics, we wear a different eye lenses. Leave all emotion, pipe dreams, and whatnot aside for a minute to think about the numers. Really think about how much of your paychecks you can afford to lose to pay for these plans that are being tabled. Can you work for less money, and still keep at the bare minimum enjoyment factor in life? This will take money your family could use for loan payments, mortgage, the kids education, personal retirement savings, the list continues.

Rather than work to better ones life and that of their family, you would have to spend more time than you already do working to the benefit of sustaining the government. Right now enough taxes come off paychecks, and there is yet more tax on 99% of purchases, and even physical/entertainment activities are taxed as well. That is THREE hits we are currently taking off of income people work for. Can the average joe handle less money long term? I know I couldn't.

#75 It'sMe

It'sMe

    Habit Forming

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 717 posts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 03:19 AM


But Harper wants to spend money on things we don't need, as well... such as jails when crime rates are decreasing across the board, etc.

I don't necessarily agree with Layton raising prices 10 cents a liter... Just like the article in today's Windsor Star saying that "stop our recovery in it's tracks" or that "overnight" people will stop investing in Canada. They are all scare tactics, IMO.


Yes he may pay for new prisons, but again they won't be torn down every year needing the funding all over again the next year. That is another example the difference between the two spending paterns. You spend the capital to rebuild once, and not have to worry about doing it again for another 50-150 years.

For every example you can give on Harper's spending we can produce an NDP program that they wish to implement that would be a consistent money pit for years and years to come. He has to replenish things. Things break down, grow outdated, become obsolete, etc and they get replaced. It isn't even remotely in the same league as unlimited plans to splurge money!

Gas was just the best example of what the "carbon tax plan" would effect. Its a cash grab at our citizens expense, like all the other proposed increases needed for his budget.

If you call what you read scare tactics, we wear a different eye lenses. Leave all emotion, pipe dreams, and whatnot aside for a minute to think about the numers. Really think about how much of your paychecks you can afford to lose to pay for these plans that are being tabled. Can you work for less money, and still keep at the bare minimum enjoyment factor in life? This will take money your family could use for loan payments, mortgage, the kids education, personal retirement savings, the list continues.

Rather than work to better ones life and that of their family, you would have to spend more time than you already do working to the benefit of sustaining the government. Right now enough taxes come off paychecks, and there is yet more tax on 99% of purchases, and even physical/entertainment activities are taxed as well. That is THREE hits we are currently taking off of income people work for. Can the average joe handle less money long term? I know I couldn't.


this, on every level.

the "average" Canadian family pays 41% of their income at all levels in taxes...and lord knows that figure must be at least slightly higher in Ontario. those that pay a higher proportion of taxes aren't the ones reaping the benefits of all the social programs they're paying for either...it's the ones who pay little or NO income tax.

doubling CPP contributions on your paycheques...can you afford that too?

#76 Jill

Jill

    Plotting a takeover

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,944 posts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:34 AM

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. Obviously I don't want to give too much of my paycheck, though a lot of that is the fault of neither group that we discuss in this particular debate.. I vote based on a lot more factors than just the "fiscal" aspect. Though I may be with you on being more fiscally conservative, there is so much more to the situation than just that.

#77 Drea

Drea

    New Kid on the Block

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 77 posts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 12:01 PM

I guess I wouldn't know what to do with a bigger camera, either, cause I missed the joke until someone explained it. I like Harper, especially when he acts as human as me.


Thinking a little closer to my home personal budget - the past 4 years my hubby hasn't had a raise. We pay the same taxes every week (his sister runs the books and takes off a set amount every pay that hasn't changed much in the past four years).We don't put anything into RRSP's. Yet every year, our income tax return is bigger and bigger. This year it was huge. So they are saving my family $ on taxes. More tax breaks. All I'm saying is that for the day to day running of this family budget, the Conservatives are doing a pretty good job. I like that in a gov't.

Edited by Drea, 29 April 2011 - 12:02 PM.


#78 sherri

sherri

    Hopelessly devoted

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,413 posts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 09:29 PM

But Harper wants to spend money on things we don't need, as well... such as jails when crime rates are decreasing across the board, etc.

I don't necessarily agree with Layton raising prices 10 cents a liter... Just like the article in today's Windsor Star saying that "stop our recovery in it's tracks" or that "overnight" people will stop investing in Canada. They are all scare tactics, IMO.



i dont think it would be overnight but it would happen
he plans to raise corporate taxes to get most of his money when that happens you can bet businesses will stop investing and will start leaving canada
that will stop recovery in its tracks

#79 Tired Mom

Tired Mom

    Joined September 2006

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 09:54 PM

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree. Obviously I don't want to give too much of my paycheck, though a lot of that is the fault of neither group that we discuss in this particular debate.. I vote based on a lot more factors than just the "fiscal" aspect. Though I may be with you on being more fiscally conservative, there is so much more to the situation than just that.


Have no fear, I gave up the idea that you could be converted last election lol. I don't expect you to love him or like him but I do hope you actually read what people post and not just immediately dismiss it because of you hatered of him.

I think emotion is used by certain parties more than platforms, and there is evidence that it can be disasterous. Accusations are being lodged against Harper on emotional issues that he has not even brought up. Why is that?

I stay on the subject when it is brought up for two reasons. One, he has my support. Two, there may be some undecideds reading this and I don't want them swallowing the reasons why other people won't support him and take those views as fact. Those views get dissected, explanations are made and things are debunked, and it becomes an even playing field.

I promise you its not to annoy you, I just have that effect on people LOL.