Whose Canada is it anyway?


The Liberals have returned serve with two short adverts on the Harper government.



Whose Canada is it anyway?

  1. How many millions of $$$ do we give Libs in votes subsidy and this is best they can do? That's a craptacular commercial, don't believe Libs are going to pay to put it on air. Libs will let minions in msm do their work for them instead.

  2. Good on the Liberals to try…

    I suppose they're going after NDP voters with those ads. Very interesting and revealing.

    Also, the ad on corporate tax cuts is factually incorrect because it says "Harper is giving away your tax dollars to corporations…" which is a complete misrepresentation of a tax cut. But given that's it intended for NDP voters, it doesnt need to be coherent or even plausible.

  3. Bound to happen, and exactly like the Con ads.

    Two can play at that game

  4. Careful, there, jwl. You are inviting a flurry of well-meaning useful idiots to now argue for even greater subsidy of our political parties: "You see? They need better commercials — they need more money or democracy dies!" Or something.

  5. Seems like a fairly lame response. The quantity and quality of these ads leave much to be desired.

  6. It is not a misrepresentation to those who believe that the greater good is perpetually entitled to profit from the labour of others. So the ad just might work, if your suggestion of the intended audience is correct.

  7. Hmmm. Two ads that rely on facts instead of personal attacks based on untruths. That's refreshing.

  8. The fighter jets ad is idiotic. There are good reasons to go after Harper for this purchase; it's too expensive when there's a cheaper alternative or there are numerous problems with them. But to focus on something as esoteric as an untendered contract leaves no compelling message in the minds of voters.

  9. one man's attack ad is another's ' clarification ad ' –

  10. The corporate tax cut ad is an excellent populist ad. It speaks directly to the concerns of everyone who isn't in the top tax brackets; namely, the continuous struggle to keep ahead of rising expenses. It also gives them something concrete to grumble about; why am I not getting a break when big corporations are.

  11. those who believe that the greater good is perpetually entitled to profit from the labour of others.

    Isn't the objective of any capitalist venture to profit from the labour of others.

  12. The divisive nature of the ads ( his Canada or yours ) is troubling, but probably an indication of desperation on the part of the Liberals.

  13. Profit from capitalism does not involve using government legislation to suck the profit from the hard work of one capitalist venture to distribute to those not involved in the venture—-that would be your socialist NDP at work.

  14. Mutual benefit from trade of goods and services. Mutual. Not one-sided.

  15. I agree there are better arguments to be made as to why the purchase should go to a competition, the problem is such arguments can't be boiled down to a 15 second ad. Absent that, the lasting message I think this commercial leaves "$16 billion, 65 fighter jets" is effective enough to have people at least contemplate the purchase, even if after thinking about it some or many might decide they agree with it.

    I give it this much credit, it at least attempts to discuss a policy issue. None of Harper's 6 ads talk about policy – one talks positively about Harper's record, four are personal attacks on Ignatieff, and one is a personal attack on Layton.

  16. Which also shamefully justifies the "populist" advantage of a GST cut. If political parties have to out-compete each other on stupid tax policy just because it's populist, we will have the Liberals decrying an economy-supporting corporate tax cut, and the CPC shaving percentage points off the GST. What's next? Pandering to the voters with a GST exemption on home heating? Oh, wait…

  17. And corporate taxes are bills for services rendered. Mutual. Not one-sided.

  18. But if, as pointed out above, the campaign is aimed at coalescing the anti-Harper elements currently outside the Liberals (yes, that's code for NDP) to wander into the big red tent, the divisive nature of the ads is exactly what they need.

  19. Yes, but in a capitalist venture you also pay those others that you profit from. So both profit, the others and you.

    In a socialist venture (i.e., government programs), only the people who take the money profit.

  20. If by "services rendered" you mean subsidies to undeserving corporations, rest assured I have an answer for that.

  21. Is it desperate to cast an election as a choice? Harper and the CPoC have proven time and again that this is how they want to play the game (ie: Cons or Coalition). I don't see this as desperate at all – if anything, I feel that the style of ad released by each party are quite indicative of their style of governing.

  22. the problem is such arguments can't be boiled down to a 15 second ad.

    They could. Just off the top of my head.

    Stephen Harper wants to spend $16 billion on fighter jets when he could have these other jets for $x billion dollars saving you the taxpayer $x billion dollars.

  23. That's incorrect. Some of the taxes collected are for useful services. Alot of the taxes collected are wasted on feel-goud touchy-feely nonsense. It is theft for the purpose of social engineering by idiotic 'social scientists'.

    So by reducing the tax rate, we're just getting that much closer to fairness.

  24. Trade junkets to other countries to open up markets for Canadian corporations aren't free ya know. That is just one of many government services corporations use. I can't for the life of me fathom why conservatives believe corporations should get services for free simply because they're delivered by the government.

  25. Free? FREE???? They're cutting the corporate tax rate to ZERO???? Why wasn't I told?

    Oh, and even if it WAS free: You may need to learn no doubt are aware that dividends and capital gains are taxed to the debit of shareholders? If we taxed dividends and capital gains like any other income, and did away with corporate income tax, would you be cool with that? Imagine: an entire level of taxation bureaucracy goes poof. Wow…

    And here is a service that someone IS getting for free. Corporations collect and remit GST to the government, at their own accounting expense.

    And you're just trying to get me riled up about the stupidity of those PM-led trade junkets abroad, aren't you…?

  26. The ultimate goal is indeed to cut the corporate tax rate to zero. And this highlights the folly of conservative thought. They want to reduce corporations' government services bill while at the same time they want to reduce my government services. So corporations get more for less while I get less for more.

    And you're just trying to get me riled up about the stupidity of those PM-led trade junkets abroad, aren't you…?

    That was just an example off the top of my head. Other examples include use of the courts, security (police, fire and military), etc. etc.

  27. Sure, so long as the "clarification" is not to try to convince people of something that is not true.

  28. Trying a "ping" to see if that truly unlocks limbo-residing comments.

    UPDATE: It works! But grrr, why do we need this for it to work?

  29. Police & fire: not federal.

    Military, courts: Yup, the federal government has a role. And the SHAREHOLDER owners (of the profitable company) who earn the dividends and the profits PAY TAX to the government. So your problem is…?

  30. Sorry, alfanerd. Yes, it is a misrepresentation of what a tax cut is. But it seems my reply has allowed the usual suspect (see thread above) to ignore that it truly is a misrepresentation.

  31. The corporate tax rate could be zero, and it wouldnt change much. It would just mean that taxes are paid on dividends instead of profits.

    Our tax code is based on the principle of equivalency, which requires that however your corporate structure is set up, you pay the same amount of taxes.

  32. And the SHAREHOLDER owners (of the profitable company) who earn the dividends and the profits PAY TAX to the government.

    Most publicly traded corporations don't pay a dividend.

    So your problem is…?

    Once again, corporations are increasingly getting their government services for less and less money. This wouldn't be a problem if their government services were being reduced as well, but conservatives would sooner run a cheese grater over their private parts than suggest such a course of action. So they get tax cuts and I get service cuts.

  33. Most publicly traded corporations don't pay a dividend.

    Those successful companies that do not pay dividends DO pay salaries and benefits and bonuses (all taxable), and invest their profits back into expanding their business. Expanded business means greater value of the company, so investors benefit from capital gains upon sale of their shares (also taxable).

    Where in all that is the best opportunity to punish success with corporate taxation? Discuss.

  34. Have the Liberals outlined how they'd like to spend the $6 billion the government would 'save' by not reducing the CIT rate? Or is this just a 'corporations are bad' thing?

  35. Gail Shea just lead an expensive trade junket to China to promote – wait for it – seal products.

  36. What's your point now. It seems to be that because corporations have other expenses they should get government services for free or at reduced prices.

  37. Can't say for certain, but their point seems to be that the $6 billion would be used to reduce the deficit.

  38. I am sure the Liberal thinkers have decided to drag Iggy kicking and screaming over to the left in the hope of squeezing the Dipper and Green vote. These 2 ads are aimed directly at those two groups. Military spending and healthy, job-creating corporations are a logical goal for sensible gov`t but may not play well with the short-term thinkers.

    Going all the way left won`t affect the 15% of the Liberal vote that is solid, however the other 10 or so % of Liberals may not see the wisdom of sacrificing our long term military and economic position.

  39. "Profit from capitalism does not involve using government legislation to suck the profit from the hard work of one capitalist venture to distribute to those not involved in the venture—-that would be your socialist NDP at work. "

    Unless that capitalist venture is named BHP Billiton. And those not involved in the venture are Saskatchewan Tory MPs. In which case, it would be today's "Conservative" party at work.

  40. Many Chinese believe in the aphrodisiac powers of seal parts—-Obama keeps the Chinese happy one way—we do it another way.

  41. It's an awful situation, I agree.

    However, the Tories set those ground rules in 2006 with the GST cut, and by those rules they tore apart the carbon tax increase/income tax reduction in 2008 (good policy, awful politics).

    The Tories won't change their strategy as it's a winning one, and the Liberals have discovered twice they will lose by taking the high road. What are they supposed to do?

  42. I guess you need help with my point. So here we go again. Taxes are getting paid ALL OVER THE PLACE when a company succeeds. Employees pay income tax. Investors pay income tax. Flushing corporate tax to nil and treating all personal income the same (whether it be on a T4 or on another chit) will have the same effect on government revenues.

    Companies are collections of shareholders. There is no "free" even if the company passes its untaxed profits to the benefits of the shareholders.

    Is that still too complicated?

  43. OK, i`ll give you that one. If the gov`t had allowed BHP to buy Potash and then hit them with a special tax penalty because they were a non-Canadian company, then that would have been more along the lines of my thinking. However you are right to find fault in the gov`t decision to prevent the purchase for popular reasons—-long term sensible ?——-who knows.

  44. Yes I know. Not too surprising. Good on you to try and Educate our friend Robert about the tax code. I dont expect much to come of it though.

    Being how the tax code is actually quite complex, and it requires a healthy dose of logic to understand, it's way beyond Robert's abilities.

    In his mind, corporations are just some evil thing that he wishes would go away. If you really want to educate him I would first explain what corporations are, and then I would explain to him that when a corporation employs someone, it is voluntary and mutually beneficial, and not oppressive. That will conflict with his marxist ideology so good luck with that one.

    Next you can start talking about capital gains, dividends, and the like…

  45. Thanks, but I think I have already touched on your suggested educational objectives, above. Maybe not well enough, but still…

  46. You erroneously presume though that if corporations pay less tax that employees and investors will receive more income. That's not the case. What is happening is that corporations have more excess cash on hand than they've ever had before thanks to continuous tax cuts over the past decade.

    So we're back to square one; that you believe corporations should keep paying less and less for government services.

  47. Given the pressure right now for the Icelandic government to attempt to overturn the purchase of Icelandic HS Orka by Magma, I think we're already starting to see the answer to the question of was Potash rejection "long term sensible".

  48. I'd also like you point out that you're being narrowly selective about what corporate expenses should be cut. Why just their government services bill and not their energy bill. Every argument made in favour of cuts to the government services bill can be made in relation to a cut in their energy bill.

    ie. Energy costs are just passed on to the consumer or energy costs means less money for employees and investors.

    So when is Shell going to cut the cost of diesel in half for ABC trucking.

  49. I don't really understand the reasoning behind protecting Potash (it's in the ground in Canada and that won't change no matter what country's industry pulls it out) but since I don't understand it, I'm willing to assume there's a reason.

    But can you (or anybody) tell me why Harper has such a hate on our Telecommunications industry? First it was the sale of Nortel over the objections of Rim about the "funny" bidding process required for Canadian companies. Now it is overruling the CRTC and the law about Canadian presence in the companies doing business in Canada. I understand the west isn't all that big in the telecommunications industry, but is that it? Is there nothing else more than "hurts Ontario and Quebec and leaves Alberta unscathed."

  50. The Liberals are worried about the cost of gas, food, and transportation, and Stephen Harper wants to cut taxes. Just so we're clear, the last Liberal platform called for a carbon tax that would have made each of their current concerns MORE EXPENSIVE.

  51. But investors don't pay full income tax, since they only pay tax on half of their investment return. I pay tax on all of the money I earn, with the exception of a $10,000ish basic exemption and any other little tax credits I'm eligible for. But then, the investor gets those same examptions as well, and then pays on half!

    I see you would do away with that tax break, and that's worth considering of a way to reform our tax revenues. But as it is, the corporations are paying less tax and the investors are still getting the full tax break.

  52. My first thought watching the ad: Why are the planes dropping money? Is it some sort of lottery give-away at an airshow?

  53. I doubt if it`s the Ontario—Alberta thing or he would have let GM swing in the wind.
    I know very little about the Tel. industry and I have heard very little debate about the points you bring up.
    On a somewhat related note there is a petetition circulating from the friends of CBC ( 27000 signatures and counting ) . It seems the CBC folk are fearing a Harper majority and the potential axing of the CBC to follow.

  54. Content and the wisdom of even doing them aside, this post-production oriented, motion graphics approach is a smart way to go. Once the template is set they can churn these things out quickly and cheaply, tailoring the message as they need. If they're just testing the waters, and they feel like it's working, expect to see more. However, if they really are thinking mass-media, that's gonna eat up a lot of dinero fast.

  55. I love to see a Conservative crying about divisive ads, when Harper's destructive policies have done more to divide Canadians than any seperatist has ever managed to do.

  56. Well, I'm not totally convinced the GM thing was something for Ontario, or whether it was something for the U.S. Mostly because I don't know what would have happened if we didn't bail them out (obviously GM wouldn't be able to sell the assets in Canada–no buyer, so they might not have been viable, what with having to build or buy new plants in the U.S., or completely overhaul the ones they already had).

    But your CBC point does remind me of the VERY worrying thing the CRTC is looking at wrt misleading news. It's bad enough as it is, but opening the door to allowing misleading newscasts can't be good. It certainly won't improve the problem!

  57. Hmmm……so I mention CBC and Jenn immediately starts talking about " misleading newscasts " I never would have made that connection….srcm.

  58. LOL.

  59. I'm waiting for the hysterical media outrage over these "attack" ads, and look forward to reading and hearing how these type of "attack" ads debase us all. I wonder how long I'll have to wait? Oh yeah, forever.

  60. So the Liberals are anti-military? Big surprise…

  61. So the Libs are runnin attack ads on Corporate tax reductions??
    They have a lot of gall,considering they are on record as supporting them.
    When are the Liberals going to stop lying to the electorate?

    Liberal Press Release, June 19,2008: "We will accelerate and deepen planned corporate tax cuts, reducing the general corporate tax rate by an additional one per cent within four years. That means the federal corporate tax rate in Canada will be only 14 per cent by 2012."

    Michael Ignatieff, May 16, 2010: "We will cut corporate taxes again."

    May16,2010 was not very long ago,was it???
    Anything to gain votes,even if it means bold face lying to the electorate.

Sign in to comment.