Con deficits, no surprise.

[L Gilbert]

Another couple examples:
apparently the BC NDP had a surplus when the Liberals took over. That is great, but in the meantime, businesses had left BC, people left BC, the gov't debt had doubled, etc.
And the Liberals on the other hand have a surplus, also.
BC’s surplus leaves universities agog : Macleans OnCampus

So tell me, is surplus always good?

 

[Avro]

Why?

Why not?

It's simple, explain what is according to you.

 

[L Gilbert]

If a gov't spends more than what it brings in, but does it for the benefit of the country, what is wrong with it?
Our soaring deficit: Unavoidable, but necessary - Dec. 12, 2008

If the gov't has huge surplus but the country slides downhill, what good is the surplus?

Really? Then I suppose when Mulroney was running huge deficits it was benefiting the country (much as the huge deficit incurred by Bush benefited USA tremendously). Same way, I assume that Mike Harris running 6 billion $ deficit was benefiting Ontario immensely, but of course, the 10 billion $ plus surplus that Liberals were running was ruining Canada.

Well, you suppose wrong.

And if 6 billion $ deficit by Harris, 40 billion $ deficit by Mulroney was beneficial to Canada, imagine how much more beneficial the astronomical deficit incurred by Fidel will be. Why we may positively have a paradise in Canada.

Spoken like a true Conservative.

Fidel who?
Who's a true Conservative? Me? aaaaaaaaaaaahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahaha
Wrong tag, Pilgrim. I am middle-of-the-road Minarchist. I don't think ANY particular government in Canada has done all that good. Nor do I think any were all bad, including this one so far.

 

[Risus]

You effin lib and ndp idiots are nuts. If the Conservatives did nothing, you would bitch. If they do something constructive, you bitch. I think you all should take a leaky boat to China....

 

[L Gilbert]

Why not?

It's simple, explain what is according to you.

I did.

 

[Avro]

I did.

No you didn't.

 

[Machjo]

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!!!!!

What do you think of the Libertarian Party? I've looked at their website, and still think they have alot of work to do in terms of explaining more clearly the step-by-step process through which they intend to achieve their goals. So I'm not sure I'd want a Libertarian Party in power, but I wouldn't mind the Libertarian Party holding the balance of power in a minority government. It would be a chance for the party to gain experience. Or better yet, let's start a grassroots movement to vote for independent candidates.

 

[L Gilbert]

No you didn't.

Guess you missed it. Too bad.

 

[L Gilbert]

What do you think of the Libertarian Party? I've looked at their website, and still think they have alot of work to do in terms of explaining more clearly the step-by-step process through which they intend to achieve their goals. So I'm not sure I'd want a Libertarian Party in power, but I wouldn't mind the Libertarian Party holding the balance of power in a minority government. It would be a chance for the party to gain experience. Or better yet, let's start a grassroots movement to vote for independent candidates.

I prefer to leave grassroots in the ground under my lawn.
I prefer Minarchy to Libertarianism.

 

[Machjo]

BTW:
Budget surplus
The amount by which government revenues exceed government spending.

Budget deficit
The amount by which government spending exceeds government revenues.

If a gov't spends more than what it brings in, but does it for the benefit of the country, what is wrong with it?
Our soaring deficit: Unavoidable, but necessary - Dec. 12, 2008

If the gov't has huge surplus but the country slides downhill, what good is the surplus?

Personally, I would have started off lowering the Bank of Canada rate to 0%. And if we still suffered from deflation after that, then I'd consider printing just enough money to counter the deflation. I would not be in favour of the government borrowing money nor would I be in favour of the government inflating the economy out of recession.

If, for whatever reason, the government must, absolutely must increase spending to get us out of recession, then it also ought to have the courage to increase taxes to do it, not debt or inflation. If Canada is truly in such dire straits, believe me, the people would be more than willing to do accept a tax increase. The fact that we're not prepared to do that tells me that as bad as the economic prognosis is, it's not that bad.

 

[Machjo]

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.

This is one reason I prefer a politician who promises spending cuts rather than tax cuts. If he reduces taxes but continues to spend, it's just a matter of time before we suffer in one way or another. If he reduces spending, even if tax reductions don't follow immidiately, it's only a matter of time before taxes follow. I do agree that tax reductions should follow on the heals of spending reductions and not the other way around.

 

[Machjo]

Whayt you guys need to do is make up your fricking minds.

Harper introduced a perfectly responsible budget update in December, whereupon all the little lefties in opposition fell into a fit, threatening his gov't.

Sooooo, supposedly caving to the will of the people:roll:, as represented by the majority who voted Lib, NDP, or BQ, he is now co-operating and driving the bloody country to the poorhouse by shoveling cash off of the ship of state as quickly as possible.

Which is what you wanted.....isn't it?

If not, why didn't you vote Conservative?????

Well, let's distinguish politics from ideology. Politically, the co-alition, though not a majority (even the Libs and NDP together still forms a minority right now), does at lest have a third party promissing no confidence vote, which essentially equates to a majority at least as far as confidence votes are concerned, though granted this does not mean the Bloc would necessarily vote with the co-alition in any specific legislation.

Politically, then, the co-alition with the support of the Bloc does form a majority, and from the standpoint of democracy does thus have more legitimacy than the Conservative Party. On that point, Harper is wrong to label the co-alition undemocratic.

Now from an ideological standpoint, I'm leaning Conservative at the moment owing to its more hesitant stance on large spending. But of course as a minority it has no choice. Fair enough, even if I think it's a wrong move. Wrong, but still in line with parliamentary democracy. From that standpoint, I see no conflict with criticizing this spending spree while at the same time criticizing the Conservative Party for having labeled the co-alition undemocratic. Unfortunately, it would seem this spending spree is in fact the will of the people. This being the case, I think to accuse teh co-alition of being undemocratic is barking up the wrong tree. What we really need to do rather is to educate the public.

 

[Machjo]

So are all of you (the ones bashing Harper, Bush, Republicans & Conservatives
both past and present) with your complaints stating that Canada should NOT post
a deficit no matter what is going on with the world economy which includes all of
our largest trading partners in the here and now, and for the immediate future?8O

I would personally oppose a deficit, yes.

 

[Machjo]

It is entirely the Conservatives’ fault. When Fidel came to power, his first action was to get rid of all the surplus, by giving tax cuts to the rich (in that he was following his idol, Bush, only he didn’t’ go as far as Bush, he didn’t incur any deficit). At the stroke of a pen, he wiped away all the surplus and started living from paycheck to paycheck (I think he ran into deficit for two months in 2008, but was back again in slight surplus).

Well, we all know what happens to a family who lives from paycheck to paycheck. Any unforeseen emergency and they are wiped out. Same thing is happening to Canada today, pretty soon we may be pining for the good old days of Mulroney, with ‘only’ 40 billion $ deficit.

Though I recognize that government can never know exactly what its revenue will be in any given year, I believe that it should always aim for the worst case scenario, which thus ensures only two possibilities:

1. It breaks even, or

2. It has a surplus.

If it falls into deficit, then it's because it overestimated its revenue. I can live with such mistakes, as long as the government learn from it and adjust to make sure it doesn't happen again. If times are particularly unpredictable, then aim even more conservatively to make sure it at least breaks even, and there are only two ways of doing that:

1. increase taxes, or

2. reduce spening.

Of course a combination of both is a third option.

 

[Machjo]

Oh, I absolutely agree.

I am disgusted with Harper et al.

They should have stood their ground, especially as the opposition's main problem was being cut off public funds.....if the Libs had been given gov't with a coalition that de facto included the BQ, with Dion as PM??????

The coaltion would have worn blame for the economic mess.

as well, the coalition would have been blamed for tumbling the gov't simply because of Party greed for public money.

And Harper would have had the unofficial inclusion of the BQ as part of the gov't as a weapon come the next election............AND whatever disgusting bribes the Lib/NDP paid them for support...........

Can you say Conservative majority?

But Harper lost his nerve.

Unfortunately, we are a better nation with the confused, gutless CPC in power than we would be with a Lib/NDP coalition....

God Forbid Jack EVER get anywhere close to real power...OMG!

Now this is something I agree with. Instead of proroging Parliament and then giving in to the co-alition, Harper would have been wise to take the fall and let the Co-alition take over Parliament. the economic result would have been the same as now (large deficit), but at least come next election Harper coud have stood up to regain his seat at least, if not power, to repay the debt. The co-alition would gain brownie points for now, but would be creamed come next election once the damage becomes evident.

But by looking at the short term, Harper is now going to take the blame for himself. And I have no pity for him. If I were him, I wouldn't want power right now. I'd even step down as PM willingly and let the spending spree begin, while criticizing it as a member of the opposition. But he wants to stay PM? Fine, he'll take the fall as PM too. If he were a member of the opposition, he could take the rebound later.

 

[Machjo]

Oh, I absolutely agree.

I am disgusted with Harper et al.

They should have stood their ground, especially as the opposition's main problem was being cut off public funds.....if the Libs had been given gov't with a coalition that de facto included the BQ, with Dion as PM??????

The coaltion would have worn blame for the economic mess.

as well, the coalition would have been blamed for tumbling the gov't simply because of Party greed for public money.

And Harper would have had the unofficial inclusion of the BQ as part of the gov't as a weapon come the next election............AND whatever disgusting bribes the Lib/NDP paid them for support...........

Can you say Conservative majority?

But Harper lost his nerve.

Unfortunately, we are a better nation with the confused, gutless CPC in power than we would be with a Lib/NDP coalition....

God Forbid Jack EVER get anywhere close to real power...OMG!

Oh, I should point out though than inasmuch as I would not want to see a Liberal or NDP majority, I'd be hesitant to see a Conservative majority too; then we'd likely start seeing military deficits as we all started marching off to war. But definitely I wouldn't mind seeing a Libertarian and Green Party presence, or better yet, just alot more independent MPs.

 

[Machjo]

Apparently not as Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Party Kweebeckwaw, Democrats, Repulican and literally thousands upon thousands of municipal governments have run deficits at varying times. It's not a right left issue no matter how hard some ideologues want to make it one.



To begin with, it is not a Conservative opinion. It is my opinion. Secondly, I made no mention of the "morality" of deficits. I spoke of the public mood. Running up huge deficits during the 70's and 80's was not "good" for Canada. It was, however, supported by the majority of Canadians regardless of whether Trudeau, Clark, Turner or Mulroney was in office.


I understand your need to confuse the issue with misquotes though. It focuses attention away from your stated lack of historical understanding of the west and by extension, embarrassing Ontarians.

I ully agree with this. There is a misconception of so-called conservative parties being more fiscally conservative than the left. History has proven though, especially in Europe, that even relatively socialist parties can sometimes be more fiscally conservative than so-called conservative parties. So you're 100% correct. This is not in any way a left-right issue.

 

[L Gilbert]

You know, I've heard Iggy say that he'd increase gov't spending to offset economic mess, too. So it isn't just Harpy that would spend.
The difference I see is that Iggy would likely increase taxes so the gov't could spend. Harpy seems to want to give people amd business a little more freedom from taxes to be able to spend on things that the economy normally runs on.
I would prefer to see business and people keep the economy going rather than some nanny gov't attempting to keep it going smoothly. And I would like to see the gov't continue to pay down the national debt, among other things.

 

[Cannuck]

So you're 100% correct.

There's a first time for everything

 

[Machjo]

You know, I've heard Iggy say that he'd increase gov't spending to offset economic mess, too. So it isn't just Harpy that would spend.
The difference I see is that Iggy would likely increase taxes so the gov't could spend. Harpy seems to want to give people amd business a little more freedom from taxes to be able to spend on things that the economy normally runs on.
I would prefer to see business and people keep the economy going rather than some nanny gov't attempting to keep it going smoothly. And I would like to see the gov't continue to pay down the national debt, among other things.

Personally, my first choice would be cut taxes and spending. My second choice would be increase taxes and spending. My third choice would be cut taxes and increase spending. So from that standpoint, if what you're saying is correct, then I'd lean more towrds Iggy than Harper. Because with Harpernomics, we'll have to pay sooner or later, so I'd rather pay now than later.