My goodness you'd think after all these years conservative politicians would find something new to try and sell people. But they've been singing the same refrain since the early eighties, no matter how many times it's been proven to have a detrimental effect on society. Then again maybe they understand human nature and selfishness better than liberals give them credit for.
More then twenty years since it was first introduced the good old trickle down effect still remains the popular economic theory among politicians of the right. Cut taxes and watch the economy grow as those with more spend it and encourage job growth.
Cut taxes and regulations for corporations and watch them create more jobs to hire more people to spend more money to keep making the economy grow, which will create more jobs. At the same time use government's revenues, which somehow still exist in spite of tax cuts, to pay down the nasty budget deficit.
Paying down the deficit, the theory goes will reduce the amount it costs the government to do business, and decrease the need for revenues. Why heck that results in another round of glorious tax cuts because the government won't need your hard earned dollars to pay off its debt.
It all sounds great doesn't it, and in the past has proven popular with the economic pundits; bankers and business men, who have, of course, no vested interest in this type of budget. They in turn can be counted on to make statements to the press about "new economic realities", "global competition", and other dire sounding proclamations predicting doom and gloom if we don't "take our medicine now"
When that stick is combined with the carrot of tax cuts it usually ends up being a pretty fair vote getter, especially when the editorial boards of newspapers can usually be guaranteed to go along for the ride. It's become so good that even parties closer to the centre of things politically have been forced to adopt these "sensible" economic practices or worry about not being competitive where it counts, at the polls.
So it shouldn't really come as any surprise when the Conservative Party of Canada released it's fiscal update outlining that exact program. For those of you not familiar with how Canadian politics work, a fiscal update is sort of like a budget, but it's not. It's doesn't say anything of substance – like how anything is going to be paid for, how much anything will be cut by, what will replace the tax revenues, or any other trying thing that could resemble detailed plans.
Article comments
1 - RedTard
"The Conservatives will play to everyone's baser instinct of more money in their pockets"
And liberals will play to the baser instinct of envy. It is very natural for hardworking productive people to somehow think they've 'earned' what they have. They must learn to be content shackled as a beast of burden for the allmighty government.
Money is nothing but a symbol that you've done something, some valuable service of good for your fellow man. I'm not sure how that's evil. Some people do lots of good, most people some good, and a good slice do nothing at all for anyone.
The balancing act of government is to keep the producers going by allowing them to retain enough of their luxuries while simultaneously forcing them to support the unproductive types enough to keep them from rioting and causing general havoc.
In the traditional way of looking at things it's not fair that some must be punished for working hard and providing goods and services while others are rewarded for being stupid and doing nothing for anyone, but that's life. Would you rather have the poor bastards rioting and invading your gated communities? Don't call it welfare, call it protection money. Sure, it's a huge racket, but it's a hard cruel world out there and it always has been.
2 - Triniman
It's Liberal leadership convention this weekend. Of these four candidates, I'm picking Ignatieff to win...
1. Michael Ignatieff
2. Bob Rae
3. Stephane Dion
4. Gerrard Kennedy
The first ballot will be cast on Friday, but there's speculation that it could go to three or four ballots and have a winner declared on Saturday.
1968 Liberal leadership convention:
Fourth ballot
Trudeau 1203 50.9%
Winters 954 40.3%
Turner 195 8.2%
Spoiled ballots 13 0.5%
Total votes cast 2365
Trudeau won with 50.9% on the fourth ballot. I suspect Gerrard Kennedy will find himself with the ability to play kingmaker if he finishes a respectable third on the first ballot, ahead of Steph Dion. However, I think it would be a huge mistake for Kennedy to try to get his delegates to throw their support behind Bob Rae. If he asks his delegates to vote their conscience, I believe more of them will support Michael Ignatieff since Bob Rae has so much baggage and Ignatieff is more likely to appeal to Conservative voters than Rae. In order to get a majority, the Liberals must woo voters who supported Stephen Harper. Harper and Ignatieff are both right of centre kind of guys. Ignatieff would also appeal more to Alberta voters than Bob Rae. Canada just isn't left of centre at the moment and hasn't been for a long, long time.
If Rae wins, I will predict that will see a repeat of the John Turner fiasco in which the Liberals had their knives in his back with Turner seen as being a loser. Rae will not be able to beat Harper and the Liberals will quickly realize their mistake and will form a dump-Rae movement.
I'm going to predict that Ignatieff will win and that this will happen when enough delegates realize that he is the most electable candidate. Gerrard Kennedy is a fairly fresh face on the national political scene and would make for a future leadership candidate, if he plays his cards right, over the next election or two, and after he becomes fluent in French. He barely speaks it now.
3 - david
you have a good case