[trailblazer11]

I've noticed something keeps coming up in some comments and conversations. And that is concerns over not having a party-wide platform on some issues. There is a perception that voting right or left help one choose what is more important for them, e.g. corporation (which provide jobs) or social issues. Of course that is not how it has to be. We could easily address concerns about where we stand without being partisan. If we are serious about getting elected, I think there are genuine concerns about having a too open-ended platform. We can show that we can offer stability and much better option than the partisan nature of our current system. While I don't agree with having a platform for every little issues - which tends to result in broken election promises - I believe some major issues critical to the running of a country need to be addressed.

So I would like to propose adding some mention of this in our platform. This can be accomplished by having something like - establishing an independent economic and commerce department to offer expertise and make policies related to economy and taxes. Working alongside or encompassing the monetary policy currently handled by Bank of Canada. It will be free from shifting ideologies with each new government. For example, the department would establish clear and transparent guideline on how minimum wage is determined, and how wage increase is defined based on inflation and clear economic indicator and past history.

Taxes for corporations, businesses, and individual citizens are also clearly defined. No sudden tax increase due to fiscal mismanagement or tax cut to influence votes, with no careful consideration for future consequences. This will promote a stable investment climate and improve workers productivity by minimizing uncertainties and insecurities. This would also minimize labour unrest and wages being unnecessarily frozen for years. This would encourage long term planning without constant political interference. The end result is a proactive rather than reactive approach. The policies should be dynamic not rigid.  For example, EI deductions could be increased or decreased taking into account surplus and factors such as possible downturn cycles or historical statistics (to have enough set aside as rainy days funds). EI and pension funds (public and private) should have restriction placed against those funds being diverted to cover budget deficit or corporation's bankruptcy, nor should large portions be put into risky investment. Such type of funds should be sacred and managed well.

This could be put under our open government platform, since it is about transparency. Policy decisions are transparent and based on measurable benchmarks. I have used economy as an example because that is likely going to be the number one concern for average voters. Economic policies is also not suitable for changing too often with the mood of voters. This is also a field that average voters would not have expertise on.

Of course those independent department should not be above everyone else and have to follow guidelines and get audited by independent body. I believe the best fiscal policy is what I would refer to as “Fiscally conservative with a social conscience”. Representatives and voters should still be able to have input on general intention and direction of what the priorities should be. The key is to create a co-operative democracy that is neither disruptive nor destructive as partisanship tends to be.

[Jay Frank]

Oh Canada, Our Bought and Sold Out Land 1/9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c97Ch4d6ck

[trailblazer11]

Oh Canada, Our Bought and Sold Out Land 1/9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c97Ch4d6ck

Don't waste your time watching the video. That video remind me of that troll who is using our party name in youtube to post ridiculous conspiracy claim and keep on slandering our party. Same guy who flooded Ontario government with faxes back in the 90s trying to shut down freedom of information access.

Claims made in the video are ridiculous. The reason bank reserves are low is because they lend out most of their customer's deposit. So it is wrong to look at how much reserve a bank have and claim that is the only amount available for lending out to the government. And used it to insinuate that there's a big fraud going on.

Compound interest is used to reflect the real value of money with time. $1 won't have the same worth 100 years from now not to mention 2000 years as the video claim. 2,000 years of loan and you expect to pay simple interest rates of $120? That's why interest on your savings account is compounded, not only on loans.

Anyway, back to my original post, I think it is important to have an independent economic agency lead by experts with oversight from auditors and representatives. Lack of specific platform about where we stand on economy and taxes is likely to hold people back from fully supporting us.

[Jay Frank]

Claims made in the video are ridiculous. The reason bank reserves are low is because they lend out most of their customer's deposit. So it is wrong to look at how much reserve a bank have and claim that is the only amount available for lending out to the government. And used it to insinuate that there's a big fraud going on.

There is a big fraud going on both in fractional reserve banking, derivatives and commodities manipulation. 
Read the news once in awhile.
Turn off the TV.

or...

I have some toll bridges in Belize and acreage on the moon for sale...

J

ps  Sheep don't blaze trails.

[Sean Hunt]

There is a big fraud going on both in fractional reserve banking, derivatives and commodities manipulation. 
Read the news once in awhile.
Turn off the TV.

Can you cite more?

[Mikkel Paulson]

Can you cite more?

My guess would be no.