Most economists don't even consider long term deficit targets as "written in stone" because they know to many variables exist to allow for definitive conclusions. That these Conservatives think they can put out pamphlets, promising families tax breaks, based on some theoretical reality in the future, really amounts to a scam. I suppose the proposal demands voter sophistication to realize the promise is a pipe dream, but the Conservatives are banking on voters not understanding the full picture. If you read a headline today, a bold pledge on a campaign flyer, will you take the time to review the timeline? It really is the classic seedy sales pitch, wherein the client only realizes true reality once they see the fine print- I guarantee the Conservatives will fail to BURY this fine print in their disingenuous literature.
The Conservatives have again lowered the accountability bar. There is no nothing stopping other parties from making outlandish promises, within unlimited time frames, policies that can operate outside of the known and appeal in patently irresponsible ways. I'm sure the Liberals would offer tax breaks when the budget is balanced too, just like in the past, but the CURRENT situation is that of a massive deficit, that will leave a shortfall for YEARS. Nobody disputes the deficit, nobody thinks it will disappear quickly, the Conservatives are trying to preach fiscal discipline, while simultaneously pointing voters to the pot of gold that is within grasp.
This "policy" demands outright mockery, comedic taunts, it isn't serious, it doesn't deserve coverage, it deserves rebuttal, it deserves a sharp challenge. This is a test of our media to be responsible and simply not parrot the distorted promises made for another another election. This is the 2011 election, not the 2015 campaign, but the Conservative war room clearly has so little respect for the media, the voters, that they think they can pull the wool, get the coverage, have people thinking that a tax cut for their family is at hand, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's day three, and already, this is shaping up to be the most intellectually insulting campaign we have ever seen. Who will counter the descent, is there anyone left to keep reasonable accoutability, or do people just paint whatever picture they choose? Today is a test, enough is enough.
21 comments:
I just read CAITI ONLINE, and there is s list of his promises he did not keep. Anyone with a child who is 16 now is sunk....if he is believable
It's good politics and I don't doubt it is a bit of a coup. Contrast it with Ignatieff's forthcoming promises on low income education: policy that impacts poor and young, neither of whom vote. LPC has to smarten up.
In exchange the Liberals should promise to enact this cut now, as in 2011 ...if elected. Hell double the tax cut! It can easily be paid for by not cutting corp taxes. As a bonus, announce it will also apply to children from same-sex marriages, just to flush-out the anti-gay SoCon agenda.
There Steve, that's how you fight this shit.
That was too easy, I should be in the LPC war-room.
Shiner
That's a play to our left flank, soft NDP support. Nothing wrong with it at all.
>>That these Conservatives think they can put out pamphlets, promising families tax breaks, based on some theoretical reality in the future, really amounts to a scam.<<
They could easily begin the process of paying for it by eliminating subsidies to political parties which is, frankly, the greater scam
Talk about Vulcan chess. Harper is asking for a majority in the next election too.
B hurley
Your ignorance of the cost difference is staggering.
>>Your ignorance of the cost difference is staggering.<<
Are you denying that eliminating taxpayer subsidies to political parties could not be applied to this new policy. I'm not arguing the "staggering" cost difference - I'm stating that subsidies to political parties could indeed be applied to bankroll this program - one of many areas of government cuts that could be used to pay for it in my estimation.
Go do some math, again you're embarrassing yourself.
And you're not answering the question. Do you deny that by eliminating the tax subsidy to political parties could be applied to pay for this plan? Yep the plan will cost $2 billion ... but you know what they say: every $12 million in taxpayer subsidies to federal political parties that could be applied to more deserving programs ... helps.
LOL. What, some asinine question you unilaterally interject into the conversation, that has no relation to the content? Always find it funny when people divert attention from the post, then demand answers on their dodge. Get lost conbot, so weak.
Something to keep in mind: if Harper leads with a policy this insane and BS-laden, imagine what we can expect for the grand finale.
A gold bar for every Canadian if he wins a majority?
Wouldn't be the first time a Conservative has done that. Didn't Ralph Klein give every Albertan $400 not so long ago? I can't remember if it was in conjunction with an election or not though.
New HD poll out, I'll post on it later.
When you've just spent 26 million of your Action Plan Media Scam propaganda budget, you are guaranteed to an elections worth of full tilt spin cycle. There is nothing like a transfer of wealth from the Canadian people to the Big 3 con media outlets (that are the news in Canada) to keep the news tidy for the PMO.
Perhaps they will make that tax a part of an omnibus Bill that will include the Democracy, Transparency and Accountability policies the Reformatories have been promising to enact for 15 years now.
B Hurley: $26 million transfer of wealth to con media outlets.
$1 billion G20 rights violations fiasco.
Get a life.
"This is a test of our media to be responsible and simply not parrot the distorted promises..."
They've failed that test long ago. CBC is touting it as a $1300 tax break for families usually without mentioning the qualifications.
Ignatieff's response today nailed it: the Cons have money for corporate tax cut but not tax cuts for families. Iggy is going to destroy Harper in the debates.
This futurama tax break is targeted for the one-income family that lives in the 1950s. The benefits flow so heavily to those who are already in a good position that it leaves real needy families -- the working poor, single parents, the middle class two-incomers -- with a bucketful of holes.
This tax break is another example of social conservativism at work... How many spouses do you think will be able to say - oh look dear, Stephen has given us a chance to split your income with mine. I think i can quit my parttime job at the chandelier factory and look after little Arthur full time and we can fire the nanny! It's essentially for the future CEOs and Bruce Carlsons of this world...
Post a Comment