Anybody here listen to The Debaters?
Steve Patterson writes about why he voted NDP:
http://stevepatterson.ca/blog/why-i-just-voted-ndp
= new reply since forum marked as read
but he definitely swallowed the Cons crap about deficits. Deficits, done properly are a necessary part of fiscal policy of a federal government during a downturn/recession. They are not the devil. Good gawd, I really wish people without economic or business training would stop commenting on this. It's annoying. Comparing it to student loans? 
And shame on Stephen Harper for going on about this too. As an economist, he knows deficits are useful during downturns but acts like they are theworsthingeveromg. Nothing new here - Stephen Harper is a fucking liar. He says one thing but knows another.
M'kay. Moving on.
I *DO* agree that Trudeau's stance on bill C-51, the TPP are an indicator of his mentality. And I am beyond disgusted with him being unwilling to work with the NDP. This could've been a cakewalk if he would've put his ego aside, worked hand-in-hand with Mulcair and we could've had 2 successive left-leaning prime ministers for many years to come. It was a selfish move on Trudeau's part, although I cannot say I'm surprised after reading his book - I started skimming the parts where he talks about how great he is. It's nauseating.
That said, Trudeau has run a good campaign and I agree with what he has SAID about economics, but I have no faith that he will follow through. Which is why I've already cast my vote for the NDP. And yes I had to wait for about 1/2 hour. 2 ballot boxes for the federal election for advanced voting (and everyone lined up at the same one?). There were 5 for the provincial advanced polls. Shame on you Elections Canada!
K. I'm done. 
So I have a question for you: My understanding of the NDP platform is that there is no need to run a deficit because the money can actually be found. Raise corporate taxes slightly, close tax loopholes, reprioritize budget items. By doing this, funds will become available for the social and other programmes they're promising. They're saying a deficit isn't necessary.
Now I agree it sends a certain message when they say they absolutely will NOT run a deficit, but I think they needed to get ahead of that potential liability. Ie, if they'd started out saying they would run deficits, they would have immediately been attacked as the tax-and-spend socialists that "everyone" fears.
So, my question: Do you really think they "swallowed the Cons crap," or do you think maybe they actually do believe they can balance the budget by changing the way money is collected and spent? Is this scenario even possible?
And if they can't do what they say, then given the NDP values and history, chances are they'll end up running a deficit. Win-win, as far as I'm concerned.
I just wish they wouldn't attack the Liberals to strongly on that issue. It'll seem hypocritical if they cannot balance the budget down the road and they will lose credibility IMO.
No, I don't think simply by raising the corporate tax rate they can balance the budget. See, yes, investments in education and infrastructure etc will pay dividends in the future - and that's the problem..."in the future". There will have to be money upfront first before we see any benefit. I don't think a corporate tax rate increase and a re-arrangement of the budget will cover the investments plus the social programs and the affordable day care. MHO of course, I don't have any hard numbers in front of me or anything.
And they wouldn't have to come out saying they'd run deficits - they could say something like "we understand Canadians work hard for their money and we won't be spending it recklessly, we want to avoid deficits if possible but sometimes investments in our future will require a down payment up front and if Stephen Harper's recession hasn't ended by the time we implement our plan, then we cannot rule out the possibility of a slight deficit."
At any rate, those who are leery of the NDP because of the fear of deficits still won't believe their sudden about-face, so denying there will be one seems disingenuous to them. I really don't think there was a reason for them to go so far over the other way. It's my one big beef with the NDP's campaign, in case you couldn't tell. 
When I said, "swallowed the Cons crap" I mean the author of the article, not the NDP as a party. 
Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)
Yesterday on City tv news, they were talking to a political science professor about the accuracy and value of polls, and towards the end he said that Canadians have a way of being driven by the polls towards the end of campaigns in part because they want to feel apart of voting for the 'winning team'. ugghh.
