The NDP have kicked off their election platform with tax increases to support industry and training funding to support industry growth.

How is this different from the liberals?

Fiscal responsibility does not mean to increase tax load.

Commissioner Moe Sahota?

Had the NDP government of the day listened to industry there was a chance the beetle epidemic could have been nipped in the bud if they had allowed logging or a controlled burn in the park.

Well, the fiscal plans are not dissimilar. They are close enough that they will not be much of a factor in the election, I suppose. However, the real difference is in who you can trust.

The Liberals lied repeatedly to voters, starting in the first election they won in 2001 (not going to sell BC Rail) and ending with the last election with their promise of no HST. Let’s also not forget the unethical use of tax money to support the Liberal side in the HST campaign and the stupid stick men, plus other like costs to the taxpayer to increase Liberal fortunes (Bollywood awards, for instance).

Dix, at least, is being up front about the costs of the NDP platform and how it will be funded. He’s also making it clear that things will improve gradually as the province can afford it. Those are a stark contrast with the Liberals.

While fiscal responsibility does not necessarily mean increased tax loads, they may be necessary to a degree if long term fiscally responsible policies are to be adhered to. For instance, there is a future deficit built into the Liberal’s approach in excess of the total provincial debt. In other words, the Liberal approach which has been followed for the last 12 years has not only doubled the direct provincial debt it has increased the (hidden) indebtedness of Crown and wholly owned Corporations, and set up a system which will continue to drain the provinces finances to at least double the provincial debt again, if not significantly more, by committing the provincial corporations to make purchases it doesn’t need at inflated prices, BC Hydro in particular. Somehow that long term burden has to be paid, doesn’t it?

I forget, is it the NDP that tax and spend, or is it the liberals that tax and spend, or maybe it is the conservatives that tax and spend.

I will vote for the next leader that accepts $1 per year to be in office.

They all have personal wealth and significant income. Else, they would not be able to support the participation in politics. Ergo, they don’t need tax payer funds to live.

The reality is when the Libs changed the forest act they allowed companys a free hand because they know best. Well thats sure not the case, Clark seems to think LNG is the song to sing as they scewed up forestry.Time for them to go their old newslike Harper give them another 4 years andwe will really be in the soup with their sell baby sell crap.

“B.C. logs for B.C. Jobs, ( reduce raw log exports).”

Restricting raw log exports won’t force customers of raw logs to buy another more processed B.C. wood product if the customers have no need for it…nobody can cajole them into it, they will just look somewhere else.

ammonra, you state the real difference is in who you can trust, and you also state that Dix, at least is being upfront.

Dix admitted to his false memo and he admitted to riding the skytrain without purchasing a ticket. While it’s nice that he admitted to those things, it important to remember that he only did it because he got caught!

It makes me wonder how many more things has he done, that he hasn’t admitted to because he hasn’t been caught!

This speaks to his character. We can’t say that Liberals lied unless we are willing to point the same finger at some in the NDP.

So, who do we trust?

Loki: “I forget, is it the NDP that tax and spend, or is it the liberals that tax and spend, or maybe it is the conservatives that tax and spend.”

No, you’ve nailed it. Governments collect taxes and then spend those monies on things we like, such as roads, policing, health care, education, and so on. You come up with a something different that won’t reduce these services, we’re all ears.

Loki: “I will vote for the next leader that accepts $1 per year to be in office.

They all have personal wealth and significant income. Else, they would not be able to support the participation in politics. Ergo, they don’t need tax payer funds to live.”

Sorry, wrong on this. Politicians and police officers should be paid highly so that they are less susceptible to graft and corruption. This is unfortunate, but true.

And a person feels greasy after even thinking of ndp party president Moe Sahota.

For those with a short memory here is a short synopsis of this pillar of the ndp party.
=================================================

BC law society license suspended 18 months for professional misconduct, lost it again the same year it was reinstated due to new allegations of corruption, abuse of office, and conflict of interest

Appointing friend who underwrote mortgage to Sahota to BC hydro board

Lobbied for limousine license for friend and cousin.

==================================================
Those that are throwing stones at the liberals are clearly living in glass houses.

“However, the real difference is in who you can trust.”

I don’t trust Moe Sihota and I don’t trust Adrian Dix. I also don’t trust fudged budgets.

Who do I trust? I trust some of them more, some of them less or not at all. The two I mentioned belong to the last category. Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves.

I don’t trust politicians funded by corporations (foreign or domestic) and unions.

At least the BC conservatives and now the ndp are claiming to refuse corporate and union donations… that makes them better than the BC liberals for the average middle class working citizen….

Eagleone,
The NDP accept union donations. Dix has promised to ban union and corporate donations if he’s elected, but the NDP are presently taking union donations…

Most of the union members I know are local, working people.

I have no idea who these corporations are, or where they’re from. China comes to mind.

None of them ‘tax and spend’. They BORROW, then spend, then tax. The system is ‘creditary’. With which there’s nothing wrong, except those who create the credit (the banks) claim they OWN it ~ which they do NOT. The illusion is that the banks are lending their depositors’ money when they make loans. But what the banks are really doing is creating new credit ‘out of nothing’, as the saying goes. The money their customers have on deposit CAN’T be lent, because those funds are the banks’ LIABILITIES, and no one can lend a ‘liability’.

Say what? The banks create profit with the stroke of a pen. You deposit $1,000 in a bank. In reality, you are the lender and the bank is the borrower.

But, they don’t make you feel like that, do they? In reality, they take your $1,000 and lend out another $9,000. It’s called Fractional Reserve Banking. They can lend out money they don’t have. And, charge you interest. And, that’s not all, it is always more than they paid the person who lent them the money.

They create debt out of thin air and charge us interest for it. It’s an illusion all right.

But, the banks are our rock. Pay attention to the billion $ profits they are announcing each quarter. How are you doing? Really, you are not celebrating in the profits? Why not? Billions for the Bankers, debts for the people.

When are people going to wake up?

It’s ‘creditary’, BYOB. All money is, or is based on, credit. What the banks do is generalise the credit of those who borrow from them. They convert the borrower’s creditary instrument, a Promissory Note, which is his contractual ‘promise to pay’, at or over some time IN THE FUTURE ~ something which would not be generally acceptable as ‘money’ in the community as a whole ~ into the bank’s creditary instrument, a cheque or its equivalent, which is a ‘promise to pay’ NOW. And is acceptable.

In doing so the bank is assuming a liability to any third parties the borrower wishes to pay from the deposit they have created for him ‘out of nothing’. Which is ‘out of nothing’ only in the sense that the process is contractual, and the terms of the loan contract didn’t exist before banker and borrower created them.

There really is no problem with ‘fractional reserve’ banking. Indeed, banking really couldn’t be anything but ‘fractional reserve’, for the minute the banker made a loan under a ‘full reserve’ banking system, you’d no longer have a ‘full reserve’ ~ the same sum of money can’t be in two places at one time.

The real problem with banking is that the present system puts the banker in the position of being both the terms maker and the deal breaker. This allows his claim to the ‘ownership’ of the credit he creates to be enforced through foreclosure on the collateral security in a situation where the policy of the banking system in inducing a general contraction of credit issue makes it impossible for existing loans to be fully amortised.

So far a bank profits are concerned, while they are indeed mind boggling in regards to the dollar figures they’re reported in, as with EVERY other business they are actually FALLING when taken as a percentage of ‘Sales’. This is why there is the continual push for corporate (including bank and credit union) consolidation and concentration.

Watched Dix on Global, our own version of George Bush jr, the only time he looked comfortable was when it was over. I accept politicians in the course of their job fudge, they all do, but to lie about something as petty as a $2 skytrain ticket shows your true character.If that’s the best the NDP has in their bunch then no thanks.