Is it the function of government to tend to matters concerning the population's health, education, manage the country's public affairs, etc.? Or is it the function of the government to run the economy?
Con deficits, no surprise.
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
There's a first time for everything
Sorry to disapploint you. I'll try to make sure it's the last:lol: but no guarantees. if we agree, we agree. Not much we can do about that now is there:-(
Hey, wait a minute. I thought we'd agreed on making more income taxes deductible through charitable contributions, no? If so, then this is at least the second time. Keep count, man.
I would answer both. But qualitative intervention does not necessarily equate with quantitative intervention. In this respect I tend to go with the NDP in principle. I think (though I could be wrong, and sometimes wonder just how much unions hve got a grip on them) that they mean well, and are prepared to do whatever it takes to help the poor. But I don't think they're necessarily wise in their decisions.
As for the Conservatives, I generally appreciate their tax cuts, but I'm not always convinced that they mean well. Sometimes I suspect that they couldn't care less about the poor and essentially subscribe to social Darwinism. Generally speaking, it seems to me that the Green Party has found a good balance. Like the NDP, it cares about the poor (or so they claim), but like the Conservatives, believe in efficient management of the economy, aiming at well-thought-out qualitative as opposed to quantitative projects. But I soon found with their support for bailing out the auto sector that while their hearts are in the right place (maybe), they likewise can be too rash in their response to crisis.
So lately I have started to lean more towards the Libertarian Party. I understand the fear among many that if we went towards an extreme roll-back in government intervention i the economy that the poor might suffer. But if all big government does is give out corporate welfare, then the poor arent' benefitting much anyway, so might as well just give the money back to us and let us give to charity as we see fit. besides, tax cuts would free up more money to give to charity. Of course some might quesiton the generosity of the Canadian people. But I would say that those who question this generosity probably do so because they don't give to charity themselves. I give alot of my time and resources to charity, as do many I know. Tax cuts would just lead me to give more, and I'd likely give more to programmes that truly help the needy rather than ill-thought-out spending sprees. In this way, the poor would likely benefit more than they do now.
This is essentially why I've shifted more towards the Libertarians recently.
Gov't run economies repel me as much as businesses running gov't. (China, USSR, etc)
I am not sure about federal Dippers, but provincial Dippers here are pretty much pro-union and anti-business. As far as Layton goes, I think he is simply anti-anyotherkind of government and likes to have cameras pointed at him as being against this or that plan of the other guys. I have absolutely no respect for the guy. That isn't saying much, though, as I have little respect for Harpy, Iggy, Rae or most other pols I have seen in federal politics in my lifetime.
I agree. But, the same could be said of the Glibs from time to time.
They also have a few pretty radical ideas now & then about non-critical things.
Not sure what the Libertarian party has for plans. Doesn't much matter anyway, until we can adopt or make up a decent electoral system. Something other than the idiotic FPTP one. We'll continue to have either Glib or Con gov't otherwise.
Um, I am all for gov't allowing people to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect other people. I don't want to see big businesses run rampant with their free will, though. That'd be kinda like what's happened in the prairies with banks and agribiz squeezing out the little guys.
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 answers are very simple, a gov't. who wants to remain the gov't. does what the people want. What would the people say if when they look for a service be it health, police, ambulance, fire department, welfare if they were told "Sorry there's no money". If you want to find out what the average persons philosophy on debt just check the number of people across the country who are carrying continuous debt on their credit cards. I don't believe in borrowing for things you don't need but that's not everyone's mentality. They have a right to believe what they want and Harper knows it- he's not so stupid as a lot of people think, granted he's not very bright either.
Gov't run economies repel me as much as businesses running gov't. (China, USSR, etc)
I am not sure about federal Dippers, but provincial Dippers here are pretty much pro-union and anti-business. As far as Layton goes, I think he is simply anti-anyotherkind of government and likes to have cameras pointed at him as being against this or that plan of the other guys. I have absolutely no respect for the guy. That isn't saying much, though, as I have little respect for Harpy, Iggy, Rae or most other pols I have seen in federal politics in my lifetime.
Agreed for the most part.
I agree. But, the same could be said of the Glibs from time to time. They also have a few pretty radical ideas now & then about non-critical things.
Agreed.
Not sure what the Libertarian party has for plans. Doesn't much matter anyway, until we can adopt or make up a decent electoral system. Something other than the idiotic FPTP one. We'll continue to have either Glib or Con gov't otherwise.
As long as people keep voting 'strategically', we'll never abandon the FPTP system, because those who benefit from it will keep power. As soon as we abondon strategic voting, chaos will ensue, and at that point, all parties will feel a need for restructuring. If they don't, we'd likely just start to see the growth of independent candidates.
As for the Libertarian party, I've visited its website and I can say that they need to clarify exactly how they would intend to go towards a Libertarian system. Their motives would matter too. At the moment, they haven't got a clear plan of action. I'm guessing they've been lazy just because they figure they won't form a government any time soon anyway. But if they ever did start to get votes, maybe they'd start to cahnge their attitude too. For me, though, intent is important too. If they present their plan with an 'I-don't-care-about-the-effin'-poor' attitude, even if I agre with all their policies, I'd be fearful of voting for them anyway, even if only because I'd be turned off by their attitude. That's a main reason I don't vote Conservative, that and their militarism.
But if they have the same policy but with a 'we-want-to-do-this-because-we-believe-this-will-help-the-less-fortunate' attitude, then I'm more likley to vote for them.
A good example of how attitude can influence my vote, let's look at about a decade ago. I was debating between voting Reform and NDP (yuppers, go figure). And why was that? Because the NDP seemed to show that they cared about the poor. i didn't agree with much of their policy platform, but I beleived that they at least meant well.
As for the Reform Party, I liked much of their policy platform (except the militarism and nationalism part of it), but found that they seemed to care more about tax cuts not because of a genuine belief that it would benefit the poor, but simply because it would put more money in their own pockets. IN this respect, even when I do agree with the policy, the attitude conveyed does influence my vote too. I'd ended up voting NDP with hesitation that election. All elections since, I've been putting blank ballots not on purpose but just because when I got to the polling booth, I was just not satisfied with any of them. I could vote for a candidate and certainly don't expect perfection, but the quality of candidates needs to improve dramatically.
Um, I am all for gov't allowing people to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect other people. I don't want to see big businesses run rampant with their free will, though. That'd be kinda like what's happened in the prairies with banks and agribiz squeezing out the little guys.
This is one reason I tend to respect the NDP. Unfortunately though, it seems that it has been bought out by unions and still ends up providing corporate welfare like the rest of them. What gives?
I am not sure about federal Dippers, but provincial Dippers here are pretty much pro-union and anti-business. As far as Layton goes, I think he is simply anti-anyotherkind of government and likes to have cameras pointed at him as being against this or that plan of the other guys. I have absolutely no respect for the guy. That isn't saying much, though, as I have little respect for Harpy, Iggy, Rae or most other pols I have seen in federal politics in my lifetime.
Agreed for the most part.
I agree. But, the same could be said of the Glibs from time to time. They also have a few pretty radical ideas now & then about non-critical things.
Agreed.
Not sure what the Libertarian party has for plans. Doesn't much matter anyway, until we can adopt or make up a decent electoral system. Something other than the idiotic FPTP one. We'll continue to have either Glib or Con gov't otherwise.
As long as people keep voting 'strategically', we'll never abandon the FPTP system, because those who benefit from it will keep power. As soon as we abondon strategic voting, chaos will ensue, and at that point, all parties will feel a need for restructuring. If they don't, we'd likely just start to see the growth of independent candidates.
As for the Libertarian party, I've visited its website and I can say that they need to clarify exactly how they would intend to go towards a Libertarian system. Their motives would matter too. At the moment, they haven't got a clear plan of action. I'm guessing they've been lazy just because they figure they won't form a government any time soon anyway. But if they ever did start to get votes, maybe they'd start to cahnge their attitude too. For me, though, intent is important too. If they present their plan with an 'I-don't-care-about-the-effin'-poor' attitude, even if I agre with all their policies, I'd be fearful of voting for them anyway, even if only because I'd be turned off by their attitude. That's a main reason I don't vote Conservative, that and their militarism.
But if they have the same policy but with a 'we-want-to-do-this-because-we-believe-this-will-help-the-less-fortunate' attitude, then I'm more likley to vote for them.
A good example of how attitude can influence my vote, let's look at about a decade ago. I was debating between voting Reform and NDP (yuppers, go figure). And why was that? Because the NDP seemed to show that they cared about the poor. i didn't agree with much of their policy platform, but I beleived that they at least meant well.
As for the Reform Party, I liked much of their policy platform (except the militarism and nationalism part of it), but found that they seemed to care more about tax cuts not because of a genuine belief that it would benefit the poor, but simply because it would put more money in their own pockets. IN this respect, even when I do agree with the policy, the attitude conveyed does influence my vote too. I'd ended up voting NDP with hesitation that election. All elections since, I've been putting blank ballots not on purpose but just because when I got to the polling booth, I was just not satisfied with any of them. I could vote for a candidate and certainly don't expect perfection, but the quality of candidates needs to improve dramatically.
Um, I am all for gov't allowing people to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect other people. I don't want to see big businesses run rampant with their free will, though. That'd be kinda like what's happened in the prairies with banks and agribiz squeezing out the little guys.
This is one reason I tend to respect the NDP. Unfortunately though, it seems that it has been bought out by unions and still ends up providing corporate welfare like the rest of them. What gives?
Yes many of our infrastructure need a lot of work. And you miss the point that its not only Federal and Provincial governments that must involved but all three levels as follows.. Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments must all support these programs and why all off them have been begging the Federal government to start the process as none can do it without the help of the other..
Infrastructure should be an ongoing thing and something I recall Chretien pumping millions into when he was in power. The idea was that if there was a slowdown in the economy, the people would have programs to turn to in times of need..
Now I could not care less if it was Chretien, Mulroney or a freaking brick that thinks and pushes the idea forward.. Party policy is irrelevant in these processes IMO.. The idea is to have Forward thinking.. Imagine that ....
Yet even that is not so straightforward. Do we build more highways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, or rail transit. Bickering over that alone can stall the process, depending on whether you're rich or poor, an environmentalist or a car-worshipper, etc.
One possible solution would in fact be through charities. Here's why:
People would give to charities that they agree with, so then the charities could offer to build whatever they are mandated to build, be it rail, highway, bicycle paths or sidewalks. At that point, it would be up to local governments to approve the projects or not. In this way, we woudl have more direct input in how that money is spent than we do now. It woudl also speed up the process because there would be no bickering as to how the money is to be spent. Our charitable contributions would have dictated that already in a flash. The only discussion then would be to approve or not. In most cases, local governmetns woudl approve because if they don't the money would just shift to a local community that deos approve. But again, that would be their choice. This would ensure a faster decision making process because the only point of debate left would be approval or not, not what to spend the money on.
The question is not whether or not the government should run a deficit during a recession. There are very few economists alive who think the government should balance the budget during a recession. It would be horrible policy to do so. Not only will a deficit be run during perhaps the greatest time of economic stress since The Great Depression, we must do so. Only if you think RB Bennett was a great Prime Minister and Herbert Hoover was a great President would you argue otherwise.
No, that's not the question. The question is whether or not the deficit will be spent wisely and what the fiscal position of the country will be once Canada comes out of the recession.
Canadians must not be adverse to debt always. To be so is bad economics.
There are two reasons why a government - or any entity or individual - should go into debt. The first is to smooth out cyclical fluctuations. A government is no different than a person in that it should draw down savings or go into debt when times are bad. People's net savings decline when they lose their job. Often, people become net debtors when they are unemployed as they must continue eating and paying the rent or mortgage as savings deplete. What would those who argue the government should never go into debt advise the person who has lost their job or savings? To live on the street or not eat rather than go into debt? That makes little sense. Similarly, the government should use debt to smooth out the cyclical variations of the economy.
The other reason why any entity should go into debt - including the government - is to add to its net worth. Most people go into debt to buy a house or a car. Corporations go into debt to fund capital expansion. Similarly, governments should go into debt to fund necessary capital improvements to the economy. But - and this is important - like an individual who should buy only the house she can afford, or like a corporation should only borrow to fund expansion that generates a sufficient return, governments should only invest in the economy which would add to the wealth of the country. The government should not build a bridge to nowhere nor pave a road it paved two years ago.
The government should not run a deficit during a recession, The government should run surpluses - or at least balance the budget - during times of economic expansion. Running deficits during an economic expansion is bad policy as this creates structural deficits. This is what Trudeau did in Ottawa. This is what Reagan and Bush 43 did in the US. This is what Peterson and Rae did in Ontario.
The Conservative government should be judged on how well the deficit counter-acts the economy and whether or not they create structural deficits such that Canada continuously runs deficits during times of economic expansion.
The government must increase spending and slash spending now. However, the government must then slash spending and raise taxes when the economy recovers.
This is how competent fiscal policy is run.
There are other issues. If the economy is going into a recession now, then the government should implement policies that will start immediately. Putting in programs that won't start for two years is not only pointless, it is counter-productive as such policies are pro-cyclical, not counter-cyclical, as they will start to take effect once the economy has begun improving.The cause of the recession also matters. If the recession is being driven by asset deflation as opposed to an inventory correction, as it is now, policies should be different than they otherwise would be in a "normal" recession caused by an inventory correction to counter the sources of stress in the economy.
So the fact that the Harper government is going to put Canada into a deficit should be welcomed. What matters, however, is the efficacy of the deficit spending and the structural fiscal balances once the recession ends.
No, that's not the question. The question is whether or not the deficit will be spent wisely and what the fiscal position of the country will be once Canada comes out of the recession.
Canadians must not be adverse to debt always. To be so is bad economics.
There are two reasons why a government - or any entity or individual - should go into debt. The first is to smooth out cyclical fluctuations. A government is no different than a person in that it should draw down savings or go into debt when times are bad. People's net savings decline when they lose their job. Often, people become net debtors when they are unemployed as they must continue eating and paying the rent or mortgage as savings deplete. What would those who argue the government should never go into debt advise the person who has lost their job or savings? To live on the street or not eat rather than go into debt? That makes little sense. Similarly, the government should use debt to smooth out the cyclical variations of the economy.
The other reason why any entity should go into debt - including the government - is to add to its net worth. Most people go into debt to buy a house or a car. Corporations go into debt to fund capital expansion. Similarly, governments should go into debt to fund necessary capital improvements to the economy. But - and this is important - like an individual who should buy only the house she can afford, or like a corporation should only borrow to fund expansion that generates a sufficient return, governments should only invest in the economy which would add to the wealth of the country. The government should not build a bridge to nowhere nor pave a road it paved two years ago.
The government should not run a deficit during a recession, The government should run surpluses - or at least balance the budget - during times of economic expansion. Running deficits during an economic expansion is bad policy as this creates structural deficits. This is what Trudeau did in Ottawa. This is what Reagan and Bush 43 did in the US. This is what Peterson and Rae did in Ontario.
The Conservative government should be judged on how well the deficit counter-acts the economy and whether or not they create structural deficits such that Canada continuously runs deficits during times of economic expansion.
The government must increase spending and slash spending now. However, the government must then slash spending and raise taxes when the economy recovers.
This is how competent fiscal policy is run.
There are other issues. If the economy is going into a recession now, then the government should implement policies that will start immediately. Putting in programs that won't start for two years is not only pointless, it is counter-productive as such policies are pro-cyclical, not counter-cyclical, as they will start to take effect once the economy has begun improving.The cause of the recession also matters. If the recession is being driven by asset deflation as opposed to an inventory correction, as it is now, policies should be different than they otherwise would be in a "normal" recession caused by an inventory correction to counter the sources of stress in the economy.
So the fact that the Harper government is going to put Canada into a deficit should be welcomed. What matters, however, is the efficacy of the deficit spending and the structural fiscal balances once the recession ends.
Toro, so is that how you justify the Mulroney deficit? The poor guy had a severe recession on his hand, of course he had to run a deficit of 40 billion $. That is a justification I had not heard before.
So let me get this straight. First the government puts the economy into deep recession, like Bush did. That gives the government a carte blanche to borrow and spend as it sees fit, like a drunken sailor. Presumably the deeper the recession, the more excuse the government has to borrow and spend.
That may be the Conservative philosophy, I don’t agree with it. My point is that government must not mismanage the economy to such an extent that it puts the country into deep recession (like Bush did). It is much better not to cause the problem in the first place, rather than to cause the problem and then try to fix it with massive amounts of borrow and spend.
The second point is that when the times are good, government must make some provision for hard times. It must run a surplus in good times, so that when it has to stimulate the economy in bad times, it can get away with no deficit or with slight deficit.
Liberals understood this perfectly. That is why when 9/11, dot com meltdown hit the world unexpectedly, Liberals continued running a surplus, while Bush jumped at the chance, took your advice and ran up a huge deficit.
It is much better to be prudent in good times so that bad times don’t hit so hard, rather than to live from paycheck to paycheck (as Fidel did, he got rid of all the Liberal surplus as soon as he came to power) and then borrow massive amounts when times are tough.
Anyway, if you liked Mulroney (after all, he ran the deficit only because the economy was in the tank), you will positively adore, love Harper, his deficits will make Mulroney’s look like child’s play.
So let me get this straight. First the government puts the economy into deep recession, like Bush did. That gives the government a carte blanche to borrow and spend as it sees fit, like a drunken sailor. Presumably the deeper the recession, the more excuse the government has to borrow and spend.
That may be the Conservative philosophy, I don’t agree with it. My point is that government must not mismanage the economy to such an extent that it puts the country into deep recession (like Bush did). It is much better not to cause the problem in the first place, rather than to cause the problem and then try to fix it with massive amounts of borrow and spend.
The second point is that when the times are good, government must make some provision for hard times. It must run a surplus in good times, so that when it has to stimulate the economy in bad times, it can get away with no deficit or with slight deficit.
Liberals understood this perfectly. That is why when 9/11, dot com meltdown hit the world unexpectedly, Liberals continued running a surplus, while Bush jumped at the chance, took your advice and ran up a huge deficit.
It is much better to be prudent in good times so that bad times don’t hit so hard, rather than to live from paycheck to paycheck (as Fidel did, he got rid of all the Liberal surplus as soon as he came to power) and then borrow massive amounts when times are tough.
Anyway, if you liked Mulroney (after all, he ran the deficit only because the economy was in the tank), you will positively adore, love Harper, his deficits will make Mulroney’s look like child’s play.
Once again you see the glass half empty and that is typical of Canadians.
A start of having "some proper funding" is better then having no funding at all for any projects and certainly will delay any possible ramp up of any infrastructure possible. Imagine if Harper had been working on this 6 months ago and the funding world be in place TODAY.. Jobs lost in Nov / Dec could now be replaced by these programs instead of 6 to 8 months down the line when the economy is now expected to pick back up..
Irrelevant of the project, governments would have agreed on some infrastructure work no matter how negative you want to be..
First, the government fiscal balances improved under Mulroney.
Mulroney was left with a mess left by Trudeau, and it was Trudeau who created the mess in the first place.
The criticism of Mulroney was that he did not do enough to fix the deficit. However, the Zeitgeist of the times was that the deficit was not a problem. The Liberals and NDP screamed blue murder any time Mulroney wanted to cut spending, and the public was not generally for it. Had Mulroney wanted to do what the right-wing of the PCs wanted to do, then the Tories probably would have lost the 1988 election.
No, you have not got it straight. The government did not "put" the economy into a recession.
The recession in both Canada and the US was a mild one in 2001. This one is not going to be mild. So comparing the two is irrelevant. I hope I'm wrong on this but already in the US, the severity is similar to 1980-81, and may turn out to be the worst recession since the Great Depression.
Paul Krugman, left-wing economist and Nobel Prize winner in economics, on the deficits that will be run to counter the worst contraction in maybe 70 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01krugman.html
Krugman On The Financial Crisis And Public Spending : NPR
Seriously Colpy? I mean seriously?
100 M surplus AFTER selling $10 B in unspecified assets, and pre-booking the sales on these assets is responsible? Selling assets in the worst sellers market in 80 years, and then using those sales of capital assets to offset operational shortfalls? In business, that is the formula for bankruptcy.
The economic update was horses$*%, and full of lies. They were already running a structural deficit in November, but decided to play games and try to hide it.
That said, I am more interested in the make-up of the deficit. How much is the deficit BEFORE infrastructure and stimulus spending. That will tell whether the Conservatives are running a "balanced" budget or not. I believe that there is a huge structural deficit already, but it will be hidden in the mess of money throwing that the Conservatives will do next week.
I don't have a problem with running a modest deficit (certain $30 B a year is not modest) if it is for "intelligent" infrastructure spending. I am opposed to "stimulus spending" as our problem is that our largest trading partner is in the toilet - and until they get out, anything we do will be a kin to bailing out a boat with a thimble.
I recieved this email last night and according to 1003 Canadians surveyed deficits are OK
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]Nanos - Policy Options Poll on the Economic Path Forward
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Canadians expect a severe economic downturn lasting into 2010 rather than a mild recession ending by the summer of this year. A majority of Canadians also support federal and provincial governments going into deficit to stimulate the economy, with infrastructure spending and personal tax cuts being the preferred course of action to jump start the economy. There is very little support in the country for industry bailout programs.
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]These are the principal findings of a Nanos Research poll conducted exclusively for Policy Options in a random telephone survey between January 3 and January 7, 2009. The margin of error, in the sample of 1,003 Canadians, is plus or minus 3.1 percent, 19 times out of 20.
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The poll clearly reflects a deepening pessimism in the country about the prospects for economic recovery in the near term, as well as a consensus that governments should prime-pump the economy, even though there is no great enthusiasm for a return to deficit spending.
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]To read the full analysis and the stats visit the Nanos Research website or visit the Nik on the Numbers blog to share your opinions.[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]Feel free to forward this note to your friends.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Cheers,
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]Nik Nanos, CMRP President & CEO, NANOS RESEARCH[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]Research Associate Professor, The State University of New York (Buffalo)[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]email: nnanos@nanosresearch.com [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]web: www.nanosresearch.com [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]Tel: (613) 234-4666 ext. 237[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]Nanos - Policy Options Poll on the Economic Path Forward
[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Canadians expect a severe economic downturn lasting into 2010 rather than a mild recession ending by the summer of this year. A majority of Canadians also support federal and provincial governments going into deficit to stimulate the economy, with infrastructure spending and personal tax cuts being the preferred course of action to jump start the economy. There is very little support in the country for industry bailout programs.
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]These are the principal findings of a Nanos Research poll conducted exclusively for Policy Options in a random telephone survey between January 3 and January 7, 2009. The margin of error, in the sample of 1,003 Canadians, is plus or minus 3.1 percent, 19 times out of 20.
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The poll clearly reflects a deepening pessimism in the country about the prospects for economic recovery in the near term, as well as a consensus that governments should prime-pump the economy, even though there is no great enthusiasm for a return to deficit spending.
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]To read the full analysis and the stats visit the Nanos Research website or visit the Nik on the Numbers blog to share your opinions.[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]Feel free to forward this note to your friends.
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Cheers,
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]Nik Nanos, CMRP President & CEO, NANOS RESEARCH[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]Research Associate Professor, The State University of New York (Buffalo)[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]email: nnanos@nanosresearch.com [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]web: www.nanosresearch.com [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Verdana,Helvetica,sans-serif]Tel: (613) 234-4666 ext. 237[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]
First, the government fiscal balances improved under Mulroney.
Mulroney was left with a mess left by Trudeau, and it was Trudeau who created the mess in the first place.
The criticism of Mulroney was that he did not do enough to fix the deficit. However, the Zeitgeist of the times was that the deficit was not a problem. The Liberals and NDP screamed blue murder any time Mulroney wanted to cut spending, and the public was not generally for it. Had Mulroney wanted to do what the right-wing of the PCs wanted to do, then the Tories probably would have lost the 1988 election.
No, you have not got it straight. The government did not "put" the economy into a recession.
The recession in both Canada and the US was a mild one in 2001. This one is not going to be mild. So comparing the two is irrelevant. I hope I'm wrong on this but already in the US, the severity is similar to 1980-81, and may turn out to be the worst recession since the Great Depression.
:lol:
You can pull out all the numbers and history you want Toro but it still dosen't change the fact that in the last 30 years cons have been running bigger debts than Libs ever did and also dosen't take into account how Libs run surpluses and have fixed problems left by neo-cons.
In a cons world when libs run deficits it's bad but when cons do it it's good.
What a joke cons are, biggest hypocrits alive.:roll:
Better yet. What are you talking about? The current conservative deficit plan doesn't address any of the why and they've been forced into the "when".
It's a reactive policy with no real plan except to spend on their pet projects and special interest groups - big oil in particular
"Harper introduced a perfectly responsible budget update in December, whereupon all the little lefties in opposition fell into a fit, threatening his gov't."
THAT'S the way I saw it, Colpy. I think in the end common sense will prevail, but I'm not sure Harper can do much to alleviate the economic mess any more than the blowhards from the other parties.
THAT'S the way I saw it, Colpy. I think in the end common sense will prevail, but I'm not sure Harper can do much to alleviate the economic mess any more than the blowhards from the other parties.
Avro, in USA they conducted a study to se how the economy performed under Republican and Democratic presidents, they went back several decades. They found that economy performed better under Democrats by most indicators (unemployment, stock market, balance of payments, budget deficit etc.). Republicans came out ahead only in the case of inflation and that too slightly.
I am not aware of a similar study in Canada, but I assume it will come to pretty much the same conclusion. In recent history, Conservatives have shown themselves to be bungling clowns when it comes to managing the economy.
And until now we have had a conservative in power in USA and in Canada. Is it any wonder that the economy of both countries is tanking (sorry, has already tanked)? It is the classic conservative philosophy of borrow and spend that gets them into trouble every time.
In my opinion, the conservative dogma of borrow and spend is fully as bad as the left wing dogma of tax and spend. When it comes to the economy, it is the centre, the middle which has sensible position (tax when necessary, borrow when you must, cut spending when you have to and above all try to balance the budget).
This works much better that the dogma of the left (tax and spend) or dogma of the right (never increase taxes, give tax cuts to the rich, cut services to the poor and borrow, borrow, borrow).