Liberals Preparing For A Summer Election

[SirJosephPorter]

I would say that Canada has done pretty well for the last 142 years. Canada has been and still is one of the best places to live. I don't know why you admire the Swiss, hell, they just gave women the vote in 1971.

Juan, you are probably aware, UN ranks all the countries in the world according to the quality of life every year. Canada invariably comes near the top, and sometimes is No. 1. Having lived in USA and Britain for several years each, I can unhesitatingly say that Canada is the better place of the three. I think it is the best country in the world.

 

[L Gilbert]

As for the government giving any money to any industry, I disagree. What it could do though is engage in a tax shift, whereby income taxes are reduced and a resource tax is introduced to sompenste, much like a green shift. This would naturally benefit manufacturers of resource efficient cars and hurt those of resource inefficient ones. We don't need to give them any money. We just need to lower their income taxes.

Harper already did a few things to reduce what people pay in taxes.
I'd also like the gov't to give low-interest loan guarantees, etc. to companies.

 

[L Gilbert]

Juan, you are probably aware, UN ranks all the countries in the world according to the quality of life every year. Canada invariably comes near the top, and sometimes is No. 1. Having lived in USA and Britain for several years each, I can unhesitatingly say that Canada is the better place of the three. I think it is the best country in the world.

So? Wanna stick to the topic of the thread?

 

[#juan]

Consider all of the tangible factors associated with the debt accumulation juan. There will be differences ranging from the economic conditions at the time to what the money was spent on.

In reality, there is not one single (contemporary) Canadian leader that didn't add to the debt. However, look deeper into the timing and all of the variables and you soon see which politicians made good decisions and which ones made poor decisions. Nonetheless, you point to Chretein and the positive impact he made... Ask yourself this, if Chretein was able to make progress during an uptick in the economy, what is Trudeau's excuse as he was in power during many years of prosperity as well?.. No matter how you cut it, he made disasterous decisions.

As an example, you rail at Harper and Flaherty for 50 billion in wasted money. To my knowledge, a big % of that money is going to the auto sector. You (or I) can opine as to the wisdom in this allocation, however, I believe that no one will disagree on the premise that if they close their doors, that tens of thousands of jobs will be directly lost. Combine that with those industries and business' that depend on the auto mfgrs and those numbers may potentially rise to over a hunderd thousand.

... So what do you believe should be done? Are we better-off to lose the industry and have to spend the billions on EI and welfare or keep the doors open and preserve the sector?

I'll tell you right now, if the liberals were in power today, they would be paying-out as much, and probably more, in order to achieve these ends... Factor in the pork-barrelling and the standard scandals which seem to follow the liberal party everywhere and that # morphs into a behemoth.

Oh! I see. When the Conservatives add huge amounts to the debt, it's because of a world wide economic down turn, and when the Liberals pay off debt it is because of a wonderful up turn in the Canadian economy. Flaherty has said there would be a debt increase but we don't know how much and nor does he. At least that is what he says. How much will the debt increase? You tell us Captain.

 

[Machjo]

Harper already did a few things to reduce what people pay in taxes.
I'd also like the gov't to give low-interest loan guarantees, etc. to companies.

I would have agreed with his tax cuts if they were accompanied by spending cuts. Otherwise, tax cuts are irresponsible in the long term. That's why I was referring to tax shift, not tax cuts.

 

[captain morgan]

As for the government giving any money to any industry, I disagree. What it could do though is engage in a tax shift, whereby income taxes are reduced and a resource tax is introduced to sompenste, much like a green shift. This would naturally benefit manufacturers of resource efficient cars and hurt those of resource inefficient ones. We don't need to give them any money. We just need to lower their income taxes.

Dion's green shift would never have worked as it relies on logic that is deeply flawed.

The scenario that you paint only works when the 'resource efficient' technology actually exists and can be comercialized on a reasonable basis... If we're talking cars, then we need battery systems that are specific to the utility AND we'll also need to generate the power in order to charge said batteries.

Not all provinces have the potential for massive hydro projects, wind power needs to be more consistent and the same goes for solar.... Right now, employing your strategy would solely result in driving-up everyone's cost of living and nothing more.

 

[L Gilbert]

I would have agreed with his tax cuts if they were accompanied by spending cuts.

What would you consider downsizing gov't to be? The cons trimmed off quite a bit of liberal fat, size-wise.

Otherwise, tax cuts are irresponsible in the long term. That's why I was referring to tax shift, not tax cuts.

No problem. I agree.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I would have agreed with his tax cuts if they were accompanied by spending cuts. Otherwise, tax cuts are irresponsible in the long term. That's why I was referring to tax shift, not tax cuts.

That is what conservatives do, Machjo. They are ideologically committed to tax cuts (if they favour the rich, all the better). The only sensible way to pay for tax cuts is by spending cuts. But while tax cuts prove to be popular, spending cuts prove to be unpopular. There is usually a political price to pay for spending cuts.

So tax cuts must be done for ideological reason, but we can’t have spending cuts, that may be politically damaging. The only alternative left is to borrow the money and run up huge debt and deficit. The love affair between conservatives and budget deficit is not a coincidence, there is a very good reason for it.

And it goes back all the way to Reagan, who enacted tax cuts and borrowed money to pay for them. Bush did the same thing, he blew away all of Clinton surplus for the tax cuts, many of them favoring the rich. Harper here did the same thing.

That is what I like about Liberals, they do not hesitate to raise taxes if they think it is needed, and are willing to face the consequences. When Clinton came to power, the first thing he did was to raise the taxes (to get rid of the deficit). The tax increase barely squeaked through the House (I think the Speaker had to cast tie breaking vote). The tax increase lost Democrats the Senate and House in 1994, but the tax increase stayed in place, and it contributed substantially in getting rid of the deficit.

McGuinty did the same thing here in Ontario. After the election it turned out that Cons were lying trough their teeth and the deficit was 6 billion $, and not 2 billion $. McGuinty promptly broke his promise and raised taxes. But since he did succeed in getting rid of the deficit, he did not pay any political price, votes rewarded him with another, increased majority (two back to back majorities, a feat unheard of for Liberals). But if he had not been able to get rid of the deficit, Liberals would have been decimated at the election.

Liberals have the courage of their conviction. But conservatives usually take the easy way out, they cut taxes and borrow the money. They accuse left of ‘tax and spend’, but the philosophy of the right can accurately be described as ‘borrow and spend’.

 

[L Gilbert]

Dion's green shift would never have worked as it relies on logic that is deeply flawed.

The scenario that you paint only works when the 'resource efficient' technology actually exists and can be comercialized on a reasonable basis... If we're talking cars, then we need battery systems that are specific to the utility AND we'll also need to generate the power in order to charge said batteries.

Not all provinces have the potential for massive hydro projects, wind power needs to be more consistent and the same goes for solar.... Right now, employing your strategy would solely result in driving-up everyone's cost of living and nothing more.

A couple decades ago Germany decided to help people add solar panels to their roofs. For a little bit of expenditure, the government gained leaps and bounds and the people of Germany spend less on power by a long shot.

Germany – World Leader in Renewable Energy « Cooler Planet

You want consistency? I'd say solar power technology is available and is pretty consistent. Point out where it's driven Germans' cost of living up.
Want energy from wind? Snoop around Lethbridge, AB a while. Wave power? Try Portugal. BC people are releiving some of the burden off BC Hydro and West Koot. Power, by developing micro-hydro energy.

So the technology and production for all this is already in place.

 

[Machjo]

What would you consider downsizing gov't to be? The cons trimmed off quite a bit of liberal fat, size-wise. No problem. I agree.

1. Cut spending on second-language training for civil servants. Few of them learn their second language well anyway, so it's a waste of money in most cases.

2. Promote the adoption, revision, or creation of a universal auziliary language at the UN. This could easily save billions if not trillions of dollars worldwide.

3. Promote the sharing fo a common currency and military force between a few countries. This would get rid of the middle men in the money markets and duplicate top heavy bureaucracies in the military, as well as help integrate military alliances to make them more efficient. A common language as mentioned above would help make it eventualy realisble in the long term.

4. Promote freer movement of labour, not just freer trade. We might have unemployed people in Canada with skills that are in demand abroad, or vice versa. This helps more people find work while allowing government to save on social assistance.

4. Once the debt is paid off, reduce bureaucracy in social services by making more of our money charity deductible.

These would be some ideas.

 

[Machjo]

6. Shift taxes to resource taxes. This would allow the free market to protec resources naturally rather than needing a large bureaucracy to do so. Again, more efficient.

 

[Machjo]

That is what conservatives do, Machjo. They are ideologically committed to tax cuts (if they favour the rich, all the better). The only sensible way to pay for tax cuts is by spending cuts. But while tax cuts prove to be popular, spending cuts prove to be unpopular. There is usually a political price to pay for spending cuts.

Strange comment there. I thought you were accusing me of being a conservative awhile back?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Strange comment there. I thought you were accusing me of being a conservative awhile back?

I am talking of conservative politicians here, Machjo. You may be conservative (and certainly your abortion position is a conservative position), but how can YOU cut taxes and borrow money (unless you become the PM)? Living beyond one's means, to go on a spending spree (in the form of tax cuts) using a credit card is a privilege accorded only to the Premiers, PMs and Presidents, not to mortals like you or I.

 

[Machjo]

That is what conservatives do, Machjo. They are ideologically committed to tax cuts (if they favour the rich, all the better). The only sensible way to pay for tax cuts is by spending cuts. But while tax cuts prove to be popular, spending cuts prove to be unpopular. There is usually a political price to pay for spending cuts.

So tax cuts must be done for ideological reason, but we can’t have spending cuts, that may be politically damaging. The only alternative left is to borrow the money and run up huge debt and deficit. The love affair between conservatives and budget deficit is not a coincidence, there is a very good reason for it.

And it goes back all the way to Reagan, who enacted tax cuts and borrowed money to pay for them. Bush did the same thing, he blew away all of Clinton surplus for the tax cuts, many of them favoring the rich. Harper here did the same thing.

That is what I like about Liberals, they do not hesitate to raise taxes if they think it is needed, and are willing to face the consequences. When Clinton came to power, the first thing he did was to raise the taxes (to get rid of the deficit). The tax increase barely squeaked through the House (I think the Speaker had to cast tie breaking vote). The tax increase lost Democrats the Senate and House in 1994, but the tax increase stayed in place, and it contributed substantially in getting rid of the deficit.

McGuinty did the same thing here in Ontario. After the election it turned out that Cons were lying trough their teeth and the deficit was 6 billion $, and not 2 billion $. McGuinty promptly broke his promise and raised taxes. But since he did succeed in getting rid of the deficit, he did not pay any political price, votes rewarded him with another, increased majority (two back to back majorities, a feat unheard of for Liberals). But if he had not been able to get rid of the deficit, Liberals would have been decimated at the election.

Liberals have the courage of their conviction. But conservatives usually take the easy way out, they cut taxes and borrow the money. They accuse left of ‘tax and spend’, but the philosophy of the right can accurately be described as ‘borrow and spend’.

Excessive partisan pidgeonholing aside, I will agree overall with your statement. That still doesn't change the fact that I find the Liberl Party way too mainstream too. I'd vote for a Liberal candidate if a good one showed up in my riding, mind you, but as a party, I'm not impressed.

By the way, if you look at the recommendations I'd made above for how we could reduce government spending without sacrificing services in any way, what party would come closest to that? I don't think any of them really. I guess that's why I lean independent.

You have to realise that the sources of spending cuts I recommend above would challenge certain Gramscian notions of common sense among the population, preventing any deeper critical analysis. No party would want to go there.

I could also support converting natural monopolies into workers' and consumers' co-ops, thus allowing the consumers to vote directly for the board of directors of these monopolies, which is simply not possible when they are nationalized. I would not support their sale in a recession mind you, but in a boom it could be a way to fight inflation.

 

[captain morgan]

Oh! I see. When the Conservatives add huge amounts to the debt, it's because of a world wide economic down turn, and when the Liberals pay off debt it is because of a wonderful up turn in the Canadian economy. Flaherty has said there would be a debt increase but we don't know how much and nor does he. At least that is what he says. How much will the debt increase? You tell us Captain.

You're in waaayyyy over your head juan. Sadly, you refuse to see any of these issues from an objective stand-point but insist on toe-ing the party-line.

Here's the deal: Mulroney added tons to the debt due to a number of reasons, least of which he is an idiot. However, the reality that he faced was a huge economic recession, Trudeau's accumulated debt, but more importantly, Trudeau expanded the size of gvt to the point that 53% of Canada's entire economic output was necessary to pay for the gvt's operating costs. What that measn is that for every dollar earned in Canada, 53 cents went towards paying employees and running the gvt.... PET did all this during an economy boom - So tell me how and why it was necessary to spend billions of dollars in borrowed money (as high as 21% - you forgot to mention that part) when the times were good? According to you, the liberals are all that is good and wholesome and only reduce debt. What happened here?

Surely you'll evade the real issue and ask why Mulroney didn't chop gvt.. The fact is that we were in a recession and the most pragmatic solution involves the gvt spending money (borrowing) in order to keep people employed and maintain the economy at some level... Every developed nation does this - you're seeing it right now and you're railing at Harper for taking these steps. (BTW - you still haven't answered my question re: what magical solution that the liberal polituro would forward - interesting, ne c'est pas?)

The worst thing that Mulroney could have done is to reduce the size of gvt and lay-off (potentially) 1/2 of the gvt employees which would equate to approx 25% of the work force (directly/indirectly employed by gvt) only to pay them through EI or welfare.... Not a real good idea.

As for your curiosity about the debt increase, how the hell should I know.... But you see, I don't claim to have all the answers whereas you make quite a show about condemning Harper/Flaherty as if you have the answers.. So, what is it? What should we be doing - what would the liberals do that is so blindingly obvious?

I'm guessing that once again, you'll evade the question by attempting to deflect the focus.

 

[L Gilbert]

1. Cut spending on second-language training for civil servants. Few of them learn their second language well anyway, so it's a waste of money in most cases.

That's it? No scrapping of the gun registry and other programs, dumping redundant commissions, etc.?

2. Promote the adoption, revision, or creation of a universal auziliary language at the UN. This could easily save billions if not trillions of dollars worldwide.

English is already replacing damned near all other languages in business, cultures, n whatnot. Dozens and dozens of languages are active now, and you wanna add another. mmhmmm I see

3. Promote the sharing fo a common currency and military force between a few countries. This would get rid of the middle men in the money markets and duplicate top heavy bureaucracies in the military, as well as help integrate military alliances to make them more efficient. A common language as mentioned above would help make it eventualy realisble in the long term.

I'd be happy using Eurobucks. Not so happy using Yen (denominations are outlandish). Greenbacks are boring. What's NATO?

4. Promote freer movement of labour, not just freer trade. We might have unemployed people in Canada with skills that are in demand abroad, or vice versa. This helps more people find work while allowing government to save on social assistance.

hmmm I can see freedom of movement for terrorists in that idea. Probably safer to just equalize nations concerning cost of labor.

4. Once the debt is paid off, reduce bureaucracy in social services by making more of our money charity deductible.

Dreaming.

These would be some ideas.

I agree; they are some ideas.

 

[pegger]

re: auto sector bailout - this bailout was to specific companies - not the SECTOR.

I don't believe that iff GM or Chryslar were allowed to fail, there would not have been mass layoffs. Someone would have bought the factories (Ford, VW, maybe even Magna?), etc... at bargin prices, and someone else would have built cars. The demand for cars is still there.

The whole "auto sector bailout" was a scam, and a waste of money.

 

[Machjo]

I am talking of conservative politicians here, Machjo. You may be conservative (and certainly your abortion position is a conservative position), but how can YOU cut taxes and borrow money (unless you become the PM)? Living beyond one's means, to go on a spending spree (in the form of tax cuts) using a credit card is a privilege accorded only to the Premiers, PMs and Presidents, not to mortals like you or I.

Yet like I'd said before, the Conservative party is not all conservative. If anything, the Green Party is more conservative in many respects.

 

[L Gilbert]

That is what conservatives do, Machjo. They are ideologically committed to tax cuts (if they favour the rich, all the better).

Wanna know how many of Martin's rich friends benefited by his generosity? Was he a Con?

The only sensible way to pay for tax cuts is by spending cuts......................

blah blah blah

 

[L Gilbert]

6. Shift taxes to resource taxes. This would allow the free market to protec resources naturally rather than needing a large bureaucracy to do so. Again, more efficient.

I'd rather spend a bit on educating companies about the disadvantages concerning not going green and the benefits about saving future money by going green. It's the difference between pushing and pulling. Make em wanna do it.