Politics - Conservatives (Split Topic)

[The Unknown Poster]

Rather than start a new thread I thought I'd comment on this here. Harper diss'ed Putin and it was great. One of the lead stories in CNN for awhile even. He said "I guess I'll shake your hand but you have to get out of Ukraine".

I for one like that the Harper government has raised the profile of Canada internationally. I look at Russia and why they have done in Ukraine and I wonder how long before they do the same in the Canadian arctic. And what will our response be and what will be the response of the world.

[Mark H.]

Rather than start a new thread I thought I'd comment on this here. Harper diss'ed Putin and it was great. One of the lead stories in CNN for awhile even. He said "I guess I'll shake your hand but you have to get out of Ukraine".

 

To which Putin responded "we're not in Ukraine."

[The Unknown Poster]

Rather than start a new thread I thought I'd comment on this here. Harper diss'ed Putin and it was great. One of the lead stories in CNN for awhile even. He said "I guess I'll shake your hand but you have to get out of Ukraine".

To which Putin responded "we're not in Ukraine."

Yes. Which is irrelevant since its a lie.

[Mark H.]

 

 

Rather than start a new thread I thought I'd comment on this here. Harper diss'ed Putin and it was great. One of the lead stories in CNN for awhile even. He said "I guess I'll shake your hand but you have to get out of Ukraine".

To which Putin responded "we're not in Ukraine."

Yes. Which is irrelevant since its a lie.

 

 

Lies are a lot of things, but they're never irrelevant.  

[The Unknown Poster]

hough I agree it was no irrelevant to the topic. Putin is a POS. On one hand you never want war especially eith crazy folks with nukes. On the other hand it's awfully sad for the people of Ukraine who were hung out to dry by the rest of the world. When Russia annexes the Canadian North I hope the response from world won't just be to scold Putin. Then again it will probably Happen when the liberals are in power so Trudeau will meet Putin in the north and hug him as he annexes our land.

[iso_55]

The We Are Peacekeepers Only is total bullshit. Why don't we have our armed forces go hug trees or something?  When there is wrong in the world we have to stand up & be counted. Like ISIS or Putin. We have to do what's right. And right is to stand up to them. 

[The Unknown Poster]

The We Are Peacekeepers Only is total bullshit. Why don't we have our armed forces go hug trees or something? When there is wrong in the world we have to stand up & be counted. Like ISIS or Putin. We have to do what's right. And right is to stand up to them.

I agree to an extent. I don't think we should be as militarily active as the U.S. because for one thing it's very expensive and also because he don't have to. But relying on the U.S. means we have certain responsibilities and obligations to support them reasonably.

A nations sovereignty is only as strong as its ability to defend itself. Harper is smart. He knows we have to be visible in the arctic for when the time comes to exert our soverighnty over it. He's supporting NATO and our allies in the Middle East. He's standing up to Russia and he supports Israel. These are all things a peace loving nation should do.

Trudeau's mindblowing comments about teaching refugees to survive winter in the mountains is proof enough he's not up to the job.

[iso_55]

I'm a Harper supporter but he also knows who has his back... The United States. If Russia was to invade our sovereign waters or land troops in Nunavut, the United States would consider it an invasion of not just Canada but North America. Hence, Harper can be the little mouse that roared. 

[sweep the leg]

I give Harper credit for doing what he says, I just think a lot of what they've done aren't good ideas. The GST reduction was a bad idea that went against the advice of most economists.

 

The child benefit and income splitting are gifts which I'll accept as someone who benefits from both ideas, but neither one is a good idea. The child benefit should have a max on the income of people it's paid too. I certainly don't need it, but I'm going to get it.

 

I get the idea behind income splitting is treating income as a family total, rather than individually, but I don't agree, nor do most economists. If two people make $100k/yr, they should pay the same tax rate. IMO one guy shouldn't get a tax break b/c he's married to somebody who's making less.

 

I'd raise the personal exemption amount as a tax reduction, rather than the other ideas they're coming out with. IMO poor people who get more money in their pocket are going to spend it b/c they have too. I'm middle class and will take my tax breaks and pay down my mortgage, which doesn't help anybody but me.

 

I'm also a Federal public servant. The cuts they've hit us with, plus their heavy handed attempts to slash our benefits, make me hope he loses the next election.

[The Unknown Poster]

I give Harper credit for doing what he says, I just think a lot of what they've done aren't good ideas. The GST reduction was a bad idea that went against the advice of most economists.

The child benefit and income splitting are gifts which I'll accept as someone who benefits from both ideas, but neither one is a good idea. The child benefit should have a max on the income of people it's paid too. I certainly don't need it, but I'm going to get it.

I get the idea behind income splitting is treating income as a family total, rather than individually, but I don't agree, nor do most economists. If two people make $100k/yr, they should pay the same tax rate. IMO one guy shouldn't get a tax break b/c he's married to somebody who's making less.

I'd raise the personal exemption amount as a tax reduction, rather than the other ideas they're coming out with. IMO poor people who get more money in their pocket are going to spend it b/c they have too. I'm middle class and will take my tax breaks and pay down my mortgage, which doesn't help anybody but me.

I'm also a Federal public servant. The cuts they've hit us with, plus their heavy handed attempts to slash our benefits, make me hope he loses the next election.

The thing about using "most economists" is that that is Harper's area of expertise. He's an economist. Part of it os political strategy for sure. Lower taxes is easy to run on. And they've forced the liberals to essentially admit they'd raise taxes. But I don't think Harper got back into politics at the contentious time he did just to kowtow to voters. He hasn't unleashed any crazy right wing agenda either. I think he believes this is good policy.

Hard to argue with too. Like you I also feel the tax cuts are less than inspired. I'd prefer lower income tax and higher sales tax. But I can't argue with him keeping his promises. And his tax cuts do benefit people that need it.

[The Unknown Poster]

I'm a Harper supporter but he also knows who has his back... The United States. If Russia was to invade our sovereign waters or land troops in Nunavut, the United States would consider it an invasion of not just Canada but North America. Hence, Harper can be the little mouse that roared.

He's pretty smart. I just wonder. If Russia actively invaded like they did in Ukraine would Harper order the military to defend. I think he would. It would be very interesting. Didn't the Canadian military fire warning shots at Russian ships in the Maritimes a few years ago?

[Mark H.]

hough I agree it was no irrelevant to the topic. Putin is a POS. On one hand you never want war especially eith crazy folks with nukes. On the other hand it's awfully sad for the people of Ukraine who were hung out to dry by the rest of the world. When Russia annexes the Canadian North I hope the response from world won't just be to scold Putin. Then again it will probably Happen when the liberals are in power so Trudeau will meet Putin in the north and hug him as he annexes our land.

 

Completely relevant to the topic.  Putin was basically saying 'I'll do what I want.'

[iso_55]

 

I'm a Harper supporter but he also knows who has his back... The United States. If Russia was to invade our sovereign waters or land troops in Nunavut, the United States would consider it an invasion of not just Canada but North America. Hence, Harper can be the little mouse that roared.

He's pretty smart. I just wonder. If Russia actively invaded like they did in Ukraine would Harper order the military to defend. I think he would. It would be very interesting. Didn't the Canadian military fire warning shots at Russian ships in the Maritimes a few years ago?

 

Don't recall that but doesn't mean that didn't happen.

[The Unknown Poster]

hough I agree it was no irrelevant to the topic. Putin is a POS. On one hand you never want war especially eith crazy folks with nukes. On the other hand it's awfully sad for the people of Ukraine who were hung out to dry by the rest of the world. When Russia annexes the Canadian North I hope the response from world won't just be to scold Putin. Then again it will probably Happen when the liberals are in power so Trudeau will meet Putin in the north and hug him as he annexes our land.

Completely relevant to the topic. Putin was basically saying 'I'll do what I want.'

lol okay. It wasn't relevant to my point. But you can "win" if

You want.

[Mark H.]

 

 

hough I agree it was no irrelevant to the topic. Putin is a POS. On one hand you never want war especially eith crazy folks with nukes. On the other hand it's awfully sad for the people of Ukraine who were hung out to dry by the rest of the world. When Russia annexes the Canadian North I hope the response from world won't just be to scold Putin. Then again it will probably Happen when the liberals are in power so Trudeau will meet Putin in the north and hug him as he annexes our land.

Completely relevant to the topic. Putin was basically saying 'I'll do what I want.'

lol okay. It wasn't relevant to my point. But you can "win" if

You want.

 

 

*shrug* I thought Putin's response was interesting, so I added it.  If someone calls a post irrelevant, I'm going to explain why I made it.

[The Unknown Poster]

I didn't say you were irrelevant. His response to Harper was irrelevant because it was a lie.

But I understand you point now.

[17to85]

but it's not irrelevant because it shows the mentality of Putin and Russia on the matter. It might be a bold faced lie but it's not irrelevant

[sweep the leg]

Putin has backed himself into a corner in Ukraine with no easy way out. Their economy is crashing b/c of the sanctions slapped on them due to the invasion, but if he pulls out now he'll look weak. He's spent the better part of the last year telling Russians that Fascists are running roughshod over their "brothers" in Ukraine and compared the protests to the Nazis invading Poland. How do you back out after convincing his supporters he's saving the World?

[The Unknown Poster]

but it's not irrelevant because it shows the mentality of Putin and Russia on the matter. It might be a bold faced lie but it's not irrelevant

It was irrelevant to my point which was about how Harper was treating the situation, not about how Putin or Russia was behaving.  Its certanly relevant to the over-all issue of Russia invading Ukraine and the world letting him. 

 

 

Putin has backed himself into a corner in Ukraine with no easy way out. Their economy is crashing b/c of the sanctions slapped on them due to the invasion, but if he pulls out now he'll look weak. He's spent the better part of the last year telling Russians that Fascists are running roughshod over their "brothers" in Ukraine and compared the protests to the Nazis invading Poland. How do you back out after convincing his supporters he's saving the World?

I certainly dont know enough about the situation but the little I've read it sounds like Russia's economy is doing very poorly and yet the propaganda machine there makes Putin look like a hero.  He's a cold war relic trying to re-build Russia in the image of the USSR.  He needs to get into the modern world.  I wonder how far the economy of Russia could sink before the people would react.

 

heard Putin threaten to have Ukraine banking loans called in (or something to that effect) if the sanctions continue.  He said he'd bankrupt Ukraine.  Well its just money on a ledger somewhere, so why doesnt the Western World replace those loans?  Get ukraine out of any sort of debt or obligation with Russia.

 

Its sad that this sort of BS still happens in a modern world.  In the bigger picture you've got a United Nations that has Russia and China as permanent members of the Security Council and countries like Iran have served on human rights commissions.  What a joke.  Imagine if an alien civilization came to Earth...they'd shake their heads.

 

Bush should have booted the UN out of New York when they waffled on Iraq and formed a NATO style united nations.  But I digress...

[tacklewasher]

 

I agree to an extent. I don't think we should be as militarily active as the U.S. because for one thing it's very expensive and also because he don't have to. But relying on the U.S. means we have certain responsibilities and obligations to support them reasonably.

 

Reading a bit on this lately and it seems Australia is doing millitary mostly right. Seems a good model to follow. Not the biggest but they keep things modern.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

Reading a bit on this lately and it seems Australia is doing millitary mostly right. Seems a good model to follow. Not the biggest but they keep things modern.

Agreed.  The problem in Canada is an opposition fiercly opposed to military spending and a public used to the "peaceful" nature of Canadian military which is, ofcourse, not really true.  Canadians usally get outraged when the military experiences embarrassment (like being deployed to the desert in the green camo).

 

On an unrelated note, perhaps someone smarter than me can explain this:  Story online right now about the Conservatives remaining promises, including doubling the TFSA limit.  I think we all agree the TFSA is great.  But the story has a quote from some professor stating that the Cons' plan to double the limit creates a problem for government twenty years down the road. 

 

Im confused on that.  if I take $10,000 right now and put it in an RSP, I get a tax break now.  So one could say the government loses out on the taxes now.  When I retire and I withdraw from the RSP, I pay taxes.  Its essentially delaying when I pay tax on that money.

 

With a TFSA, I pay tax right now on the $10,000 but the interest that money generates is tax free.  When I withdraw it in twenty years, I get back the original $10,000 which I already paid tax on and I get the interest tax free.  But thats money generated by the investment, correct?  if I have it at my bank, thats money the bank is paying me.  How does this negatively impact the government?  They get the tax on the $10,000.  If I dont have  TFSA, they still get the tax on the $10,000.  Im not taking tax money away from the government.

 

Are they saying that interest generated from investment is so significant a taxation revenue stream for the government that the interest on $10,000 TFSA is going to be a problem for the government twenty years from now?

 

I dont know....

[Fraser]

Reading a bit on this lately and it seems Australia is doing millitary mostly right. Seems a good model to follow. Not the biggest but they keep things modern.

Agreed. The problem in Canada is an opposition fiercly opposed to military spending and a public used to the "peaceful" nature of Canadian military which is, ofcourse, not really true. Canadians usally get outraged when the military experiences embarrassment (like being deployed to the desert in the green camo).

On an unrelated note, perhaps someone smarter than me can explain this: Story online right now about the Conservatives remaining promises, including doubling the TFSA limit. I think we all agree the TFSA is great. But the story has a quote from some professor stating that the Cons' plan to double the limit creates a problem for government twenty years down the road.

Im confused on that. if I take $10,000 right now and put it in an RSP, I get a tax break now. So one could say the government loses out on the taxes now. When I retire and I withdraw from the RSP, I pay taxes. Its essentially delaying when I pay tax on that money.

With a TFSA, I pay tax right now on the $10,000 but the interest that money generates is tax free. When I withdraw it in twenty years, I get back the original $10,000 which I already paid tax on and I get the interest tax free. But thats money generated by the investment, correct? if I have it at my bank, thats money the bank is paying me. How does this negatively impact the government? They get the tax on the $10,000. If I dont have TFSA, they still get the tax on the $10,000. Im not taking tax money away from the government.

Are they saying that interest generated from investment is so significant a taxation revenue stream for the government that the interest on $10,000 TFSA is going to be a problem for the government twenty years from now?

I dont know....

smart people aren't getting interest in their TFSA, they are getting Dividends and Capital Gains.

Lets say the limit doubles to 12 next year and I have 42K in my TFSA.

If I get 5% per year in capital gains (for simplicity's sake) for 20 years I'll end up with $111,438.50 or a gain of 69,438.50

Non TFSA the government makes me claim half of that and if my marginal tax rate is 46% I pay close to $16,000 in takes when I sell.

Now lets say the govt keeps the TFSA limit at 12K per year for the next 20 and I max things out

PV 42 PMT 12 N20 I 5 FV = $508,229.95, I've put in 42 + (20*12) = 282K and have a capital gain of 226 grand. 50% claimed = 113K and the govt misses out on 52K @46%

Thats unadjusted for increases to inflation as well.

Thats a gain of

[The Unknown Poster]

Thanks for the insight.  Im not very knowledgable. 

 

So if i go to my bank (SCU) and open a TFSA (I have one through work which is company stock), do they set the interest rate of return, are there multiple options for investment?  I want to make a huge return with no risk.  lol

[Fraser]

SCU can open an account that will either do Interest (GIC's) Mutual funds or individual equities or bonds.

To be perfectly honest, unless the company you work for is a total dog, or you are already heavily concentrated in company stock for another reason, probably best to add money to that account as there are likely little to no transaction fees

[The Unknown Poster]

SCU can open an account that will either do Interest (GIC's) Mutual funds or individual equities or bonds.

To be perfectly honest, unless the company you work for is a total dog, or you are already heavily concentrated in company stock for another reason, probably best to add money to that account as there are likely little to no transaction fees

Company matches contributions by 25% also.