Leaders Debate

Milo

Anyone else have no life? If so, thoughts?

About the debate itself, rather than the platforms . . .

compuease

Green Party wins this one... Man, what lack of imagination..

Horvath? Man I just can't vote NDP... Disaster last time..

Hudak? Can't trust that sleazeball...

Only leaves Wynne, man that's just more McGuinty...

Yep.. Green Party,... so who is their leader anyways..?

Hobbes

In order of performance overall:

Horvath
Hudak
Green Party :)
Wynne

Wynne really cannot hold her own in a debate. She dodged questions all night about the gas plants.

Also want to meet the person from Sudbury who according to Horvath pays over $1200 / month on her hydro bill. WTF?

Milo

Yeah . . . and she wants to talk about Hudak's math? LOL

You really thought Horvath did better than Timmy? Her lack of eye contact when addressing the camera was off-putting.

I thought, based on how stiff he has appeared in past debates, Hudak really impressed. He stayed focused on his points, and did not let the direction of his answers draw him into any traps. Horvath laid herself wide open for Hudak to tie her to Wynne's government . . . "they should share half the blame" was a good line.

Hellmuth's Mole

Pretty sad when the most interest is piqued when a proposed leader offers to resign in advance if his jobs plan doesn't work. A plan that is mathematically flawed and universally panned as junk. "But hey... I'll step down when it doesn't work. IF, dammit I meant to say if!"

EDIT: Kind of harkens back to the days of the Reform Party promising recalls if they don't deliver on Senate reform. Yeah I know the Cons aren't Reform (pffft). And not like the senate is really a problem any more (double pfffft).

Milo

So answer this . . . because Wynne couldn't/wouldn't. How you going to balance the budget without cutting jobs/spending OR raising taxes? Seems mathematically flawed, too, doesn't it?

trigs

who is the least worst out of the bunch of horrible people? politics makes me want to shoot myself sometimes.

my vote is always NDP pretty much because there's no other party that has even a remote chance to win that leans left enough for me. despite what some believe, the green party doesn't lean as left as many think in all regards (specifically in the economic sphere).

also, i don't agree with strategic voting, so i'll "throw my vote away" again this year.

if hudak wins majority my gf and i are probably out of a job since he's laying off thousands of teachers on the bottom end and both of us are relatively new teachers. that would suck just a little as i wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage anymore. i guess whatever happens, happens.

Milo

Would it not make more sense for him to let go of the old farts who are making the most money, and are likely to be marking time until retirement? To say nothing of getting rid of some "deadwood" or Unionistas . . .

Relax, and vote PC.

pkrfce9

NDP?

FU TRIGS!

tapatalk puts this here to annoy YOU

trigs

Milo;375935 wroteWould it not make more sense for him to let go of the old farts who are making the most money, and are likely to be marking time until retirement? To say nothing of getting rid of some "deadwood" or Unionistas . . .

Relax, and vote PC.

Actually that's what I think should happen. There are a lot of teachers at max salary and full pension that refuse to retire. They are keeping jobs from many new teachers. That's not what Hudak is doing though. He is letting go thousands of new teachers.

I'm relaxed as long as Conservatives aren't in power.

trigs

pkrfce9;375938 wroteNDP?

FU TRIGS!

tapatalk puts this here to annoy YOU

There are a lot of PC's on here I guess. I'm not rich enough to join your club, sorry ;-)

Hobbes

trigs;375939 wroteActually that's what I think should happen. There are a lot of teachers at max salary and full pension that refuse to retire. They are keeping jobs from many new teachers. That's not what Hudak is doing though. He is letting go thousands of new teachers.

I'm relaxed as long as Conservatives aren't in power.

Please show me where this is stated outside of union propaganda.

Much of what he wants to do was recommended by the Liberal governments Drummond report.

Lower-priority and less efficient programs and services must be targeted for reduction; the
result will be fewer employees working in these areas. More generally, the focus must be on
retaining good employees while letting go of those who are not performing well. All employee
appraisal and bonus schemes must be aligned to these objectives; for example, the
government should continue to offer performance bonuses to those who exceed
job requirements.

Do not hang onto public assets or public service delivery when better
options exist. Consider privatizing assets and moving to the private delivery of services
wherever feasible. We suggest pursuing this course only where the public can get better
value for money spent without compromising access to services, not for ideological reasons.

Milo

trigs;375940 wroteThere are a lot of PC's on here I guess. I'm not rich enough to join your club, sorry ;-)

And you never will be, voting NDP. :D

trigs

Milo;375942 wroteAnd you never will be, voting NDP. :D

I'm fine with that. No one needs a lot of money. Most don't deserve it.

kwsteve

Hudak says he will balance the budget in 2 years. After that, he vows to cut income tax by 10%.

Hudak vows 10% income tax cut after balancing budget | News | Ontario Votes | To

So let me get this straight: he will slash services to balance the budget then immediately go into deficit again by cutting income tax? If that doesn't illustrate how ridiculous Hudak's plan is then I don't know what will. Afterwards I'm sure the solution Hudak will offer will be to slash services once more. Where does it end? It ends when there are no public services left and no one pays any taxes at all. It's like a vice tightening down a little at a time squeezing all working people. Basically, Hudak's plan, and that of all Conservatives, is a death spiral for government and public services (except police. They always expand and get more powers because we know that crime goes up as more people fall into poverty and despair).

Conservatives always only look at one side of the ledger. Any economist worth his salt would look at both. Why don't Conservatives ever talk about increasing government revenue? You can do it without raising personal income taxes. But no, it's always cut services, privatize or sell off government assets, starve the government. It's ridiculous. If you're ok with that then please don't complain about hospital wait times or the shit roads or constantly rupturing water mains, etc.

How do you balance the books without slashing services? Easy. Grow the economy. More people working means more tax revenue coming in from both individuals and businesses. If you make massive cuts now with the economy at 1-2% growth there is a real risk of slipping back into recession. You need to have 3-4% growth to withstand such huge cuts like 100K people out of work. I read estimates of $2.5 Billion in unemployment and severance payouts for that many people fired. Not to mention the lost tax revenue, and less consumer spending that will affect peripheral businesses. It's a double whammy.

Infrastructure spending puts people to work (in good paying jobs) and repairs our crumbling roads, sewers and bridges. It's an investment that pays off in spades. Yes, it requires the province to take on debt like any other business. Taking on debt is not as bad as Conservatives would have you believe. Look at the USA. $17 Trillion in debt. Not a chance in hell of that ever being paid back. Does that mean the USA will cease to exist, or someone will confiscate all their property? Of course not. It will always be business as usual.

Hudak made a big deal about electricity prices, saying how the company in Texas wanted to expand in Ontario but the rates were too high. He said that in Texas electricity rates are much lower. That's true. But what he failed to mention was that Texas produces the most wind power of any state. WINDExchange: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity You think they did that without subsidies? And Hudak wants to get rid of green energy subsidies in Ontario. How the fuck does that make any sense? In time the price of renewable energy will drop, but you have to think long term. Something Conservatives are incapable of doing. Bottom line is pay a little now, or a lot more later. A prime example is how Harris/Hudak cancelled and filled in the Eglinton subway. The Eglinton subway line that Toronto never got It would be built by now, but no. Now it will cost much, much more. And all of Ontario will be paying for it. Now Hudak wants to repeat the mistake with renewable energy. Stupid.

Sure, it seems like hydro rates are high here, mostly because it was super cheap for so long until the Harris debacle of splitting Ontario Hydro. But the fact remains that compared to world prices we are quite cheap. Kilowatt Hours Electricity Costs Around the World | The Energy Collective Germany pays 3x more for electricity (not to mention high wages and strong unions) and yet companies are not leaving the country in droves. Quite the opposite. So, don't let Hudak try to fool you into thinking that is a factor in Ontario's lost jobs.

Also, austerity has been proven to not work at producing jobs or economic growth. The whole premise that Conservative fiscal ideology is based upon is a proven falsehood. High debt doesn't beget slow growth. Slow growth begets high debt.

Reinhart And Rogoff's Pro-Austerity Research Now Even More Thoroughly Debunked By Studies

There is a reason why Conservatives always look to cut education.

Hellmuth's Mole

Milo;375885 wroteSo answer this . . . because Wynne couldn't/wouldn't. How you going to balance the budget without cutting jobs/spending OR raising taxes? Seems mathematically flawed, too, doesn't it?

I as well as many economists that wouldn't work for Hudak's junk math brigade, would argue against the idea of balancing a budget in times of a recovering economy.

Also please forgive me if I'm not really too impressed by your faux concern as I'm quite sure you did your part to throw out the last federal party that routinely balanced the budget based on a reported $4.5 million scandal of Quebec ass kissing and kickbacks that happen pretty routinely if not as transparently. Oh, sorry, I should include the fact that the Gomery commission to investigate it cost the country another $14 million. So we threw another 3 times the money of the scandal at the investigation. All so we could throw out those fiscally responsible bums. Brilliant.

Milo

So, with respect to Gomery, we should just allow politicians to squander tax dollars for their own gain? There should be no consequences for such craven behaviour?

IF you fuck up at work, don't you expect to hear about it? why should the pols be any different?

And yes, I did vote to get rid of the Liberals. Last time I looked the CPC did a pretty decent job of steering us through the global recession, and we are currently on track to be in balance with respect to the Federal budget next year, so what's your point?

I notice that you did not answer the question, though . . . must be a Liberal thing.

Milo

Wynne

I guess we know how Kathy's going to balance the books now, eh? No wonder she didn't want to answer the question during the debate.

$3 billion in increased spending this year in order to secure election (that sure sounds familiar, doesn't it?), followed by the most draconian wage freezes in TWO DECADES, going back to the dreaded Mike Harris.

Boy, Dalton sure taught this fraud well, didn't he?

Bwahahahahahahahaha . . .

kwsteve

Oh, those draconian wage freezes! LOL Here's your "draconian wage freeze:"

“As part of meeting our targets, we have provided no additional funding for compensation within the budget,” she said in an e-mail. “Any modest wage increases that are negotiated must be absorbed by employers within available funding and within our fiscal plan.”

I don't know about you but seems reasonable to me.

So you're against wage FREEZE, but MASSIVE CUTS by Hudak are fine and dandy?
After all Con's howling about how public sector wages are too high I'm very surprised you'd be against this. Of course it's only because it is Liberals doing it. Shows that your decisions are based purely on ideology, not on policy.

"The Liberal budget is less draconian yet takes the province in the same direction. "

So it does the same thing as Hudak would do except in a "less draconian" way. I don't know what you would find unacceptable about that.

By the way, didn't Hudak vote against a wage freeze for MPPs? Yes, yes he did. I guess he needs the money.

Tories, NDP block Liberal move to freeze MPPs pay | Toronto Star

Milo

Never said I was against a wage freeze. I am ALL FOR IT. I just found the irony delicious.

Bloomberg is fairly independent, not having a horse in the race, as it were. The OPPA squawking about Hudak's plans for a wage freeze, and now they get to see what Wynne has in store. Here's the money shot, so to speak . . .

After boosting program spending by C$3 billion ($2.8 billion) this year, the Liberal Party leader plans to hold the line the next three years in a bid to eliminate the deficit. Given population growth, a 2017 Liberal government would drop spending by the most per person since former Premier Mike Harris won election on deficit elimination in 1995.

So, it seems you can vote for Mike Hudak, or you can vote for Kathleen Harris. Even if Hudak doesn't Wynne, it will be so much fun to listen to squealing of the pigs at the Public Sector trough when she drops the hammer. It's going to be a fun week . . .