Con deficits, no surprise.
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
As one who doesn't identify with the right or the left I can only ask what the hell you are talking about?
Conservative governments all around the world have run deficits before. At issue is not "if" deficits are acceptable but rather "when" and "why".
Conservative governments all around the world have run deficits before. At issue is not "if" deficits are acceptable but rather "when" and "why".
Well, it seems the cons are going to run a massive deficit, what a shock.:roll:
So, what do all the cons think about this when they hated Bob Rae and Keny economics?
What a joke cons are. :lol:
Yes, I'm back for another try.
The prorogation of parliament is a big factor in this massive deficit budget. When the last budget was introduced it was business as usual and the economy was supposed to be going well with no deficit and no economic troubles.
For an economist Harper sure is a lousy one at that. He should also have known that the sooner you inject money into the economy ( Especially infrastructure ) the quicker it will impact the people who will need it. Time is really of essence in this case and he totally misses the boat.
I am sorry but he really deserves the pink slip for this..
He cannot be blamed for the economic mess worldwide, but he can be blamed for not willing to either tell the truth or ability to see it coming as that is supposed to be his speciality.
I will come on to agree with you.
A 64 billion dollar deficit is completely outrageous, absolutely outside the Pale, and didn't these morons learn anything from watching Bush screw the American economy?
That said, the Cons introduced a completely sensible budget update in December........and were rewarded by all three opposition parties doing a fine imitation of the shock-treatment induced funky chicken on the floor of the House........complete with foaming at the mouth.
It was spend like a lunatic, or lose power.
Mind you, the actual budget was only secondary to Harper's trying to yank the greedy lips of the opposition off the public teat as a cause of Opposition delirium, but that is now all in the past.
I am pissed at the Conservatives.....for backing down against the Coalition.
Their cowardice in this matter is wrong wrong wrong......it is the wrong thing to do for the Canadian economy, and it was politically stupid.
I have ceased sending the CPC money.
I will, however, continue to vote for the stable of arseholes, simply because the Liberals, the NDP, and the BQ are so, so much WORSE!!!!!
A 64 billion dollar deficit is completely outrageous, absolutely outside the Pale, and didn't these morons learn anything from watching Bush screw the American economy?
That said, the Cons introduced a completely sensible budget update in December........and were rewarded by all three opposition parties doing a fine imitation of the shock-treatment induced funky chicken on the floor of the House........complete with foaming at the mouth.
It was spend like a lunatic, or lose power.
Mind you, the actual budget was only secondary to Harper's trying to yank the greedy lips of the opposition off the public teat as a cause of Opposition delirium, but that is now all in the past.
I am pissed at the Conservatives.....for backing down against the Coalition.
Their cowardice in this matter is wrong wrong wrong......it is the wrong thing to do for the Canadian economy, and it was politically stupid.
I have ceased sending the CPC money.
I will, however, continue to vote for the stable of arseholes, simply because the Liberals, the NDP, and the BQ are so, so much WORSE!!!!!
Well isn't that part of the issue.. Harper is an Economist and most Economist said these problems were not going to happen a year to a year and a half ago..
Also in the case of infrastructure programs they must be started way ahead of time to do any good. Otherwise you have them going when the Economy is picking back up and then you lose valuable workers to bigger projects..
Hence Harper missed the mark by a mile..
Just ask us with ONE bridge that went down in Vancouver area and is causing total kaos of extra 2 hrs traffic travel times.
Sure, ask that of the cons who attacked Rae when he spent billions on infrastructure in poor economic times just like the cons in Ottawa are about to do.
Cons drip with hypocrisy.
Deficits are only okay when cons run them because only then they are "necessary".:roll:
Yep, and the cons tried to call the opposition move a coup d’étatwhen all they wanted was some sort of action on the economy.
The cons were either incompetent or were trying to hide the fact they were presiding over an economic crisis just the same way Bush was.
roflmao People are funny. They say that gov't should spend spend spend to keep the economy going and then snivel about deficit.
Look, deficit/surplus means basically dick. If you have a mortgage of 250K and you are paying 5% interest on what you haven't paid off it makes no friggin difference if you can budget so that you spend less than you planned or more than you planned for any particular year. If you pay as much as you can bear off of the mortgage, you are paying less interest on it and you have more room to play with your budget and what is in your wallet.
This gov't has been reducing the debt, which means it is spending less money. This means more money it can use to benefit Canada instead of creditors using it. What you people should be snivelling about is not whether this gov't shows deficit or surplus but WHAT IT DOES WITH THE MONEY.
Um, WB< Avro.
Look, deficit/surplus means basically dick. If you have a mortgage of 250K and you are paying 5% interest on what you haven't paid off it makes no friggin difference if you can budget so that you spend less than you planned or more than you planned for any particular year. If you pay as much as you can bear off of the mortgage, you are paying less interest on it and you have more room to play with your budget and what is in your wallet.
This gov't has been reducing the debt, which means it is spending less money. This means more money it can use to benefit Canada instead of creditors using it. What you people should be snivelling about is not whether this gov't shows deficit or surplus but WHAT IT DOES WITH THE MONEY.
Um, WB< Avro.
roflmao People are funny. They say that gov't should spend spend spend to keep the economy going and then snivel about deficit.
Look, deficit/surplus means basically dick. If you have a mortgage of 250K and you are paying 5% interest on what you haven't paid off it makes no friggin difference if you can budget so that you spend less than you planned or more than you planned for any particular year. If you pay as much as you can bear off of the mortgage, you are paying less interest on it and you have more room to play with your budget and what is in your wallet.
This gov't has been reducing the debt, which means it is spending less money. This means more money it can use to benefit Canada instead of creditors using it. What you people should be snivelling about is not whether this gov't shows deficit or surplus but WHAT IT DOES WITH THE MONEY.
Um, WB< Avro.
You just contradicted yourself, deficits mean nothing yet they are bad.....your're smarter than that.:roll:
So, I failed to explain in what context I meant deficit/surplus means dick. Sue me. I don't think it's too hard to figure out.
I think there is two separate issues. Infrastructure is a far greater problem than most people realize. The estimates I hear is that 75% of our infrastructure in Canada is over 50 years old. We need to upgrade and we should have started years ago. Unfortunately both the federal and provincial governments have not been willing to hand out grants for redoing existing infrastructure (at least to the same extent as expanding or creating new). To give you a idea of how slow things move in the world of infrastructure, two years ago we started the ball rolling on a plan to regionalize the water system in one particular area of our municipality. It requires mothballing a small water treatment plant that serves 500 people and running a pipeline 10 mile to a second water treatment plant. The project is targeted for completion in 2012....that's a five year process for a 10 mile pipeline (which is by no means a large undertaking).
Simply put, Harper would have had to begun the process 2-4 years ago to be seeing benefits now (in terms of the economic downturn). From a purely economics standpoint, ramping up investment in infrastructure is not the solution....but we need to do it anyway so we may as well start now.
Avro, with a Conservative, you sometimes have to read between the lines. Deficits are bad when incurred by a non conservative (such as Bob Rae, or Trudeau). Deficits are good when incurred by a Conservative (such as Mulroney, Mike Harris or Fidel).
Similarly, a surplus is bad when incurred by Liberals such as Chrétien/Martin. Then it is over taxation (Liberals are taxing the people too much, that is why they have a surplus). However, surplus is good when incurred by a Conservative politician (I am speaking hypothetically only, I don’t know of any Conservative politician, in USA or Canada who has managed to have a surplus in recent memory).
I guess it's true. People in Ontario really do know nothing about Alberta.
Of course one could easily argue that Klein and Stelmach are not conservative but you did use a capital C
Con deficits, no surprise.
Quite right, Avro, Conservatives have spread the canard that they are good at managing the economy. And they have been pretty successful at convincing the people that they are good at it.
The facts speak differently. Conservatives almost invariably manage to put the economy in the tank. In Canada, Mulroney incurred astronomical deficits, it took Chrétien/Martin to straighten out the economy. But after 13 yeas of Liberal rule, Canadians forgot about Mulroney (people have short memory), again bought into Conservative propaganda that they are good at managing the economy and voted in Fidel. It looks like Fidel is going to outdo Mulroney when it comes to deficit and debt.
Across the border, while Canada was running a healthy surplus, Bush was racking up huge deficits. Bush is the only President in recent memory to have two huge economic downturns during his watch, one in 2001-2002 and one now.
His father was no better. Before him, Reagan started the august conservative tradition of building up huge deficits and huge debt. He went on a spending spree using borrowed money (something like a family going on a spending binge with a credit card). Reagan prosperity was totally illusory (as was Bush prosperity during the short period 2003-2007), it was all achieved on borrowed money.
So history, facts tells us that conservatives are lousy at managing the economy, their economic mantra is borrow and spend. They really don’t know anything else except to borrow huge amounts of money.
So con deficit is no surprise. What would have been surprising, indeed, even shocking is if Fidel had continued the Liberal tradition of balanced budget and sound economic management.
Pretty soon we may be looking back wistfully at Mulroney days, with ‘only’ 40 billion $ deficit and half a trillion dollars debt. Fidel will easily outdo Mulroney by a big margin.
Quite right, Avro, Conservatives have spread the canard that they are good at managing the economy. And they have been pretty successful at convincing the people that they are good at it.
The facts speak differently. Conservatives almost invariably manage to put the economy in the tank. In Canada, Mulroney incurred astronomical deficits, it took Chrétien/Martin to straighten out the economy. But after 13 yeas of Liberal rule, Canadians forgot about Mulroney (people have short memory), again bought into Conservative propaganda that they are good at managing the economy and voted in Fidel. It looks like Fidel is going to outdo Mulroney when it comes to deficit and debt.
Across the border, while Canada was running a healthy surplus, Bush was racking up huge deficits. Bush is the only President in recent memory to have two huge economic downturns during his watch, one in 2001-2002 and one now.
His father was no better. Before him, Reagan started the august conservative tradition of building up huge deficits and huge debt. He went on a spending spree using borrowed money (something like a family going on a spending binge with a credit card). Reagan prosperity was totally illusory (as was Bush prosperity during the short period 2003-2007), it was all achieved on borrowed money.
So history, facts tells us that conservatives are lousy at managing the economy, their economic mantra is borrow and spend. They really don’t know anything else except to borrow huge amounts of money.
So con deficit is no surprise. What would have been surprising, indeed, even shocking is if Fidel had continued the Liberal tradition of balanced budget and sound economic management.
Pretty soon we may be looking back wistfully at Mulroney days, with ‘only’ 40 billion $ deficit and half a trillion dollars debt. Fidel will easily outdo Mulroney by a big margin.
People who arbitrarily accuse large groups of unknown people of intellectual cowardice are intellectual cowards.
Trex