blueandgoldguy

I guess not everybody is as calm and reasonable as you...

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.

I knew I wouldn't get much of a response form you because your opinions are partisan and you can't back them up with any facts. You don't like deficit spending but you are voting for a guy who has ran 7 straight deficits? That's very logical. In fact the only year he posted a decent surplus he inherited it from Paul Martin I answered the question. Justin Trudeau has a better financial plan for the country then Harper. Harper hasn't even delineated a plan, just more of the same "strong financial management"  he supposedly has been already doing. He's ran close to 150 billion in deficits in the past 7 years. Even your blue calculator can't pretend that that is just 2 points of the GST. He's a bad financial manager and you can't prove otherwise.

I apparently know a lot more about this:
 
http://www.mnp.ca/en/media-centre/blog/2013/6/19/stock-options-an-incentive-tool-for-private-corporations-in-canada
 
Does that say "attract and retain key employees?" or does it say give them to every employee as part of a basic compensation package?
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveparrish/2013/02/20/stock-options-top-5-reasons-not-to-use-them-as-an-employee-incentive/
 
Does that say key employees and executives? Or doesn't it say give them to everyone?
 
http://mikevolker.com/shares-vs-stock-options/
 
hmmm key employees again, also references they are widely used in executive compensation
 
http://www.cba.org/CBA/PracticeLink/05-11-BC/stock_options.aspx
 
oh ****, key employees again. It sure sounds like they hand these out to everyone, Maybe every employee is a key employee? what does key even mean anyways?
 
Oh but you have anecdotal evidence form working in tech that everyone get stock options. Is tech representative of most industries?
 
https://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/industry/ICE/Documents/6059-Tech-Compensation-Survey-FY14-v7-WEB.pdf
 
No it isn't, more companies  in tech are self funded, hence the options offerings.
 
Is tech a large part of the Canadian economy? http://www.psdglobal.com/canada-market-entry/
 
Well it doesn't get its own heading so probably ******* not right?
 
Stock options are generally reserved for executive in most industries and are only prevalent in tech. The average Canadian isn't paid in stock options, which was my whole argument. The more I think about it, one of those articles say that executives receive the majority of their income in stock options. Now I'm just trying to think critically here, but would a secretary at a tech company be mostly paid in stock options. Probably not, I can't see low level employees committing to half their income or more vaporizing  in a bad year at the company. So I'm sure its just a small supplement to their regular income. So we've got stock options, that make up the majority of the income of executives, and are a small supplementary source of income for regular employees in one industry that makes up a very small portion of GDP (so small it isn't even its own heading). Sounds to me like taxing stock options in a heavier fashion would close a loop hole for very rich people with a very small and immaterial amount of collateral damage. But I guess that opinion just came from the NDP exploiting my ignorance.
 
I'd say that even though I'm much younger than you, its you that needs to get some life experience since you clearly have nothing but sheltered backwards opinions based on anecdotal evidence. You can't cant compose a coherent argument supported with facts to save your life. It's time for you to get off the internet and go out and feed the ducks or shake your fist at clouds like most people in your age demo.

Ok I'll take a stab at it. What is Justin Trudeau doing that's better than Harper. The recommendation to run a deficit budget in a recession with the money being spent on infrastructure is a good idea.
 
A lot of people like to rag on Justin for saying that budgets balance themselves. I think a better question is, does Harper have an idea of what balances budgets? and if he does, why hasn't he balanced a budget in the last 5 years? Notice I didn't say the last 7 years (even though he's ran deficits for 7 years) because I understand that running deficits in a recession is an important use of fiscal policy, Notice I didn't say monetary policy because I understand the difference in fiscal and monetary policy.
 
Now I'm too lazy to look up a paper to source this but I remember  reading in an economics textbook (of one of the two graduate level finance programs that I've participated in) that the very nature of a deficit does little to stimulate an economy in a recession, only increasing it does. That means you have to go from a surplus or a balanced budget into a deficit, or from a deficit to a larger deficit to stimulate the economy. I'll look this up if someone really ******* about it but its true, maintaining a deficit doesn't stimulate the economy, only increasing it does. I can't remember why we have a deficit right now, we weren't in a recession for the last 5 years (we likely are now in my opinion but only time will tell) and Harper is supposedly a good financial steward so I'm not really sure.... but I'll take a stab at it later.
 
So first, we need to be scared of Trudeau and Mulclaire because they are going to run a deficit, but the guy we have right now is running a deficit. Oh that's right, he's just about to stop running them. 2 problems with that though:
 
1) Saying that Harper is going to stop running a deficit soon is like saying that the girlfriend that cheated on you for 5 years is years is going to stop if you sign her up for another 4 years. (again notice I said 5 and not 7 because deficits are a tool to stimulate the economy in a recession so 2 of them are understandable)
2) why the **** would you run a deficit when you are experiencing economic growth and then stop as you enter a recession. Sometimes people make good decision made on the available information they had and it  goes against them. This isn't that, its just bad economic policy. Really bad economic policy. Ass backward economic policy.
 
So why do I like deficits spent on infrastructure in a recession.
 
1) moving into a deficit (or larger deficit) stimulates the economy in recession.
2) If you are saddling future generations with debt, a least you building an asset that will be useful for them. They are kind of getting what they paid for.
3) Infrastructure spending is one of the only ways a government can create jobs. People can blab on about how lowering business taxes creates jobs etc but that's pretty unproven and even if it does its pretty slow to act. Spending on infrastructure creates instant jobs because someone has to build it and they kind of have to be in Canada cause you can't really build a bridge/freeway in India and China and then move it here.
4) Good infrastructure is an important item necessary for future economic growth
 
Key points 
 
1 - I don't like deficits. I think they should only be used in recessions.
2 - Justin Trudeau can't build a time machine and undo the last 5 years of unbalanced budgets, if he does get elected he has to work with what he has and that would requiring running an even bigger deficit if we are about to enter a recession.
3 -  Would he balance the budget after? I don't know, he did say that budgets balance themselves, its a stupid comment. But is Harper more likely to given his dismal (Ya running  5 straight years of deficits in a period of economic growth is dismal) economic record? I wouldn't bet on that.
 
So what is one of the reasons we are running another  deficit at the moment? One thing  that appears to be contributing to it is the  tax break for 1 income (or 2 income with 1 of the 2 being much larger) upper middle class families (notice I said upper middle class, I don't want to say wealthy and have to make 17 to 85 correct me)
 
Why I don't like this: (spoiler alert, its not because I'm in a lower income 2 income household that is jealous of  people getting more than me)
 
1) I don't like running deficits outside of a recession (this should be pretty clear by now but I wrote it down anyways) and when this was started we weren't in one.
2) If were gonna go into debt it should be for items that help future generations. (you might try to argue that this helps future generations cause the parents that save that money on taxes are going to put it into their kids college fund, but I'd say that's a stretch and I'd be right)
3) It reeks of vote buying and that's got to be the worst ******* reason to run a deficit that I can think of
 
Why I don't expect much of a response from you.
 
1) you seem kinda biased
2) you don't seem very objective (that's kind of the same thing as 1 just in a different way)
3) you seem very set in your ways
 
What I expect as a response from you
 
1 "NDP/Unions are the devil, they like steal and cheat"
2 Something you don't like about Trudeau's platform completely unrelated to what I've said
3 Some kind of excuse for why we've had 5 years of deficits during a period of economic growth (Something I'm not going to buy) or on the flip side telling me the liberals or NDP would have ran even bigger deficits, which is kind of hard to prove given the liberals past success in balancing the budget
 
Final thoughts
 
I lied about looking up the thing about how maintaining an existing level of deficit won't stimulate an economy in a recession. If someone doesn't know that they shouldn't be arguing  economics with me.
 
The tone of this post is pretty condescending. My intention was was to show you how your posts come off (tone wise of course, I feel this post's content has a lot more coherent arguments and a lot less rhetoric, mud slinging and wild accusations than most things you post)

Geez man, it seems sometimes, not always, that anytime a person posts something that runs counter to what you believe, you respond with these type statements. The hypocrisy is dripping here.
I think some of of us take more of an eclectic approach to politics and sensitive issues by not branding our ideologies as left, center or right. We take it issue by issue using the best facts available to form our perspectives. We sometimes don't get it right but always try to take an evidence-informed approach, identifying any bias's we may have a long the way. We can't brand ourselves with only one political strip but we can always aspire to be a sound critical thinker hopefully adding value to the discussion.   

I wish one of the parties (LIberals) had the stones to bring the GST back up to 7%. Such a stupid move by Harper to cut it. I'd like to see those two extra points added back to the GST and used exclusively for infrastructure. I would want oversight on those funds though, so nobody could pull a Selinger (PST hike) and spend it on whatever he wants.
 
Liberals are promising to pour a pile of money into infrastructure (causing above noted deficits), which is desperately needed. The problem is the Conservatives have cut off so much revenue it's gotten harder to pay for it. IMO they have to borrow to do this b/c it's desperately needed. Balancing the operating budget and borrowing for infrastructure is the way to go imo.

You think a list of 100 things that Harper brought in is something?
 
I'll link you to a list…in one category, that is scary.   
 
Posted on August 23, 2015 | James O'Grady | Written on May 20, 2013 - See more at: http://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/8548/canadian-war-science-long-unexaggerated-devastating-chronological-indictment#sthash.ZAI5blSN.dpuf
The Canadian War on Science: A long, unexaggerated, devastating chronological indictment 
 
Hundreds of examples of the current Conservative Canadian government’s long campaign to undermine evidence-based scientific, environmental and technical decision-making. 
 
​Scan this list…it is very long and kind of unsettling.

10 Reasons to Vote for Anyone but Harper
1. Bill C51. In my mind this is the biggest reason to not vote for Harper, or anyone who supports this bill. Experts representing indigenous people, human rights and civil liberties groups, Muslim Canadians, environmental organizations, the legal community, the country's privacy watchdog, immigrants and refugees, the labour movement, former judges and politicians and others have spoken out against C51. There have been country-wide protests, petitions and pending lawsuits. This bill stands to strip our rights and freedoms away while blindly handing control over to our government and other sectors who are not required to report to ANYONE! In fact under certain parts of this bill I could be legally detained just for writing this article.
2. The economy and job growth. If you watched the Maclean's debate you would have heard Harper say he has the best economic and job growth record of any other country, ignoring the fact we are the only G7 country in a recession and that he actually has the worst economic record of any prime minister since the Second World War and has the worst job creation record of any prime minister since then.
3. Veteran affairs. Harper claims that his government is spending an additional $5 billion on veteran's since taking office. When the fact is he has closed numerous Veteran Affairs' offices, cut staff positions for veteran affairs and spent $700,000 fighting AGAINST veterans in court.
4. Income splitting and Universal Child Care Benefit. Now this has been used quite regularly by Harper when he wants to use an example of good things he has done for Canadian families. The truth is income splitting only benefits 15 per cent of already well off Canadians and does nothing for average and low income families who really need to help. Also cutting the child tax CREDIT and replacing it with a lower TAXABLE Child care benefit will cost families more money in the long run. Most people feel the lump sum cheque was nothing more then an attempt to buy votes and I tend to agree.
5. Seven consecutive deficits. Before Harper took leadership there were nine consecutive years of budgetary surpluses. During that time Ottawa was able to accumulate a surplus of over $79 billion. In contrast Harper's first eight years as prime minister produced seven consecutive deficits that have added up to $127 billion.
6. Muzzling of government scientists. Harper's control issues rear their ugly head when it comes to our scientists. Even after making important discoveries they must endure a painfully long process to just be able to talk about their discoveries and more often than not they are held up by red tape. Meanwhile some of them choose to travel to other countries to share findings and are met with applause and media attention. This is both a dangerous and completely unnecessary game that Harper continues to play.
7. Charity attacks. Harper's government spent a whopping $13.4 million fighting charities through the CRA. Just a few weeks ago Canadian charities received support from the U.N.. "These audits have resulted in mounting fear of losing charitable status, and therefore necessary funding sources, across the entire charitable sector. Human rights in Canada are under assault, and the U.N. Human Rights Committee noted that today," said Canada Without Poverty president Harriett MacLachlan.
8. First Nations. Harper shows little regard for issues facing our First Nations. "It isn't really high on our radar, to be honest," is what he said when asked about the possibility of a public inquiry into missing aboriginal women. Harper and his aboriginal affairs minister both declined the invitation to speak at the summer gathering of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) last month. Not surprising considering his track record of overall avoiding any kind of conversation surrounding first nation concerns.
9. Stripping of federal protection of our lakes and rivers. Thanks to Harper's new Navigation Protection Act, 99 per cent of our lakes and rivers now have no federal protection according to Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow. Documents reveal that the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association were the ones who initially pushed for these changes and Harper, of course, obliged.

10. Above the law. Harper saw no problem destroying long gun registry records -- in the middle of an active access request -- then amended the law that would have made those actions illegal. His attack ads against the Liberals featuring ISIS appear to break the laws he set with Bill C51. He has so far ignored laws that require his government to come up with a plan for threatened or endangered species. He breaks protocol by showing soldiers faces in promotional videos for himself. And I have personally lost count of how many of Harper's allies and officials have landed themselves in court (Mike Duffy for example).
This is a rather short list of the shortfalls of Harper and the disgrace he brings to our country and I urge everyone to fully research candidates and get out and VOTE. I think the newest campaign launched by our veterans says it best when they say ABC: Anyone but Conservative.

A Conservative majority would never post a deficit.

Can you find specific examples of things that were glossed over? I would say on aggregate its easier to find a controversial thing said by conservative party memeber as their social values don't mirror most Canadians. Last election ctv ran a story about how many times mulclair has remortgaged his home to suggest bad financial management. Not exactly ndp friendly.

Yes you extol the virtues of the conservative party, the most central of all the parties. And the mainstream media is left leaning, but not just left of you, left of center, cause you're in the center. But they aren't so left leaning that they are exactly like the NDP, they are slightly right of the left, which oddly enough, isn't actually the center, cause that's where you are.

or you're right leaning and anything to the center appears left to you.

Which people?  I'm not one for a ranting coach on the sidelines (see Doug Berry in several instances).  Someone who shows a little animation at certain times is fine (Huff).  Maybe that is what some people here are advocating for.  But if you want to construe forum members' wishes for someone to do more then just stand there with the same look on their face the entire game as wanting an out-of-control ranter go right ahead.  That's your misinterpretation.

As the Conservative's Minister of Propaganda, it's TUP's job to know these things.

It's good to have the spot light on the Duffy trial, and those who knew about what was going on. Poor Stephen. How betrayed he must feel when it seems everybody around him knew what was going on...and nobody kept him advised. For a guy who likes to control the message and keep his party in check, this must be embarrassing. And the big bad media..wanting to know the truth. Shame on them.
Maybe we've misjudged the man?
Nah, he is who he is.

I agree with what you suggest on how a boards should be run  but I will put a few caveats in there.
 
When firing a coach with term left on his contract, the GM (Walters) would have to go to the CEO (Miller) who may need board approval because of the cost of the payout of firing the coach.
 
And while the board should not meddle in day-to-day operations of the club, The Blue Bomber board has shown in the past that they will meddle.  When Bauer left after the Mike Kelly season, it was the board who brought Mack in as GM and vice president of football operations.  At that point in time (2010) they put Mack in charge of football ops and put Jim Bell in as president.   Then in 2012, Bell was demoted to Vice President and COO and Buchko brought in as President in CEO, hailed as having the background to promote and sell the advertising and sponsorships needed heading into the new stadium.
 
Buchko, new to the job kept Mack as GM.  Then when Buchko went to the board to have Mac fired a year and a half into his tenure as CEO, the board decided Buchko had to go as well.   
 
So for the 2 years when Bell was president, they really segregated the duties of Bell and Mack to running the business side of the club and football ops, and I don't believe Mack really even reported to Bell.  
 
Then the board brings in Buchko as CEO (won't even talk about that being announced so close to the long term deal CJOB got on the clubs radio rights) and lets him inherit Mack as GM.  Not that I was a fan of Buchko, but he was given a bad deal. He inherited a GM that the BoD originally hired in his first year on the job, decided to keep him for that first year, then when he wanted to fire Mack a year and a half later, the BoD decided Buchko had to go as well. So Buchko never even got the chance to hire his own GM.
 
I'm not saying Buchko should have stayed, it seems to me he was in over his head, but he was another mistake made by the board.
 
So I agree that the BoD shouldn't meddle, but part of the problems with this club in the past 5 years is that they have meddled way too much.  Things are probably back on the course to where they should be with Wade in as CEO, but the board is a big reason this club is where it is today.  And when I've seen people rage against the board, it has mostly been for these reasons.

They're pretty ugly right now. Should the Bombers lose on Sunday, we will see anger on a scale we have not seen since the Kelly era.

stamps are basically  the bombers from the late 70s to the mid 90s

Wrong.  Hamilton fired Marcel after the 2011 season, fired Cortez after the 2012 season and hired Austin who has taken them to back-to-back Grey Cups and are favorites to return to the Grey Cup.  
 
Edmonton made several changes in recent years to their coaching staff and GM the past half-decade and they now have a coach in Chris Jones and GM in Ed Hervey who have made them a winner and Grey Cup contender the past few seasons.
 
If the Bombers continue to struggle the rest of the season, O'shea will be fired and deservedly so.  It's shouldn't be that hard to make the playoffs when 6 of 9 teams make it and one of those teams is an expansion team.  With regards to Walters, he will be given his three years and if the Bombers fail to make the playoffs next year he will be fired and deservedly so.  I don't think there is a GM in the history of the CFL that has survived 3 consecutive seasons with no playoffs. This would not in any way effect the past talent accumulation of the team, in other words NOT back to square one.  If the talent is there, then it will be kept on the team.  IF it is lacking, as it was under Joe Mack, then there will a purge, but that should not be construed as a setback for the franchise as keeping on an incompetent GM is simply delaying the inevitable
 
Waiting year after year, hoping a struggling GM and coach will somehow get it right if given enough time flies in the face of logic.  Ignore the past at your own peril.

Exactly.  17 to 85 seems to have this erroneous reasoning that by keeping a Berry or Mack with the organization for a sufficient period of time it will bear fruit in the form of long-term success.  In reality, patience will not be rewarded by tolerating mediocrity year after year - it will just result in more mediocrity.  Every team in the league won't tolerate losing for very long (proven if you take the time to review each team's history) - they will fire the personnel responsible for the team's underachievement and move on to new coaching/management.
 
The Bombers have been mediocre for so long because they have hired inexperienced/inept coaches and management the past decade plus.  It has nothing to do with not showing adequate patience for the inept coaching/personnel.

Wrong.  Hamilton fired Marcel after the 2011 season, fired Cortez after the 2012 season and hired Austin who has taken them to back-to-back Grey Cups and are favorites to return to the Grey Cup.  
 
Edmonton made several changes in recent years to their coaching staff and GM the past half-decade and they now have a coach in Chris Jones and GM in Ed Hervey who have made them a winner and Grey Cup contender the past few seasons.
 
If the Bombers continue to struggle the rest of the season, O'shea will be fired and deservedly so.  It's shouldn't be that hard to make the playoffs when 6 of 9 teams make it and one of those teams is an expansion team.  With regards to Walters, he will be given his three years and if the Bombers fail to make the playoffs next year he will be fired and deservedly so.  I don't think there is a GM in the history of the CFL that has survived 3 consecutive seasons with no playoffs. This would not in any way effect the past talent accumulation of the team, in other words NOT back to square one.  If the talent is there, then it will be kept on the team.  IF it is lacking, as it was under Joe Mack, then there will a purge, but that should not be construed as a setback for the franchise as keeping on an incompetent GM is simply delaying the inevitable
 
Waiting year after year, hoping a struggling GM and coach will somehow get it right if given enough time flies in the face of logic.  Ignore the past at your own peril.

So how does Toronto hire Barker after firing several coaches in a year or less - fired Etcheverry after 12 games in 2002, fired Rich Stubler after 10 games in 2008, fired Bart Andrus after one season in 2009.  Oh wait, I know!  It's because the Bomber BOD, in their infinite wisdom, decided Joe Mack was the best person for the job.  They also snagged a good one in Milanovich.
 
See all the firings the Edmonton Eskimos made over the past 8 years at GM, and at various coaching positions within the organization.  That did not prevent them from hiring one of the best DC and hottest coaching prospect in the league in 2014 did it?
 
See Hamilton firing Bellefool in 2012, then firing Cortez the following season.  Did that prevent them from hiring Austin?
 
Bombers have all the choices in the world to hiring quality talent, just as the above mentioned teams did which are no less coaching graveyards then Winnipeg. The difference probably lies in the people doing the hiring.

Agreed. Go after an experienced coach and pay right. Then let him bring in his team of coaches. We keep firing guys every 2 years because we keep hiring **** people as coach.

So how did Hamilton get Austin? Look at the Ticats hiring and firing record over the past 10-15 years and it's no better than the Bombers'. Money talks. Identify the right guy and move heaven and earth to get him here.