canadiantothecore

good point, I definitely am not that experienced on this forum. How do you add that information at the top of a quotation? And the quoted material was stated on the 34th page of this post and as no one deemed it prudent to call the poster on it, I thought I might as well.

I hope its readily apparent to everyone that this is the greatest load of fear-mongering BS that has ever been spewed on this forum.

Well yes, I would have to say that the governments of Germany/France still view the fiscal policy of their European neighbours as an important issue seeing as they are essentially donating thousands of dollars per citizen to these financially inept states. As for the Greeks, They have had to undergo a variety of undesirable austerity measures in order to procure this aid so i would assume that they are going to take their fiscal policy much more seriously from now on. Additionally, The UK has had to introduce a 20% GST due to their out of control deficits and debt accumulation. I doubt anyone in Britain views their deficit as a matter of little significance either. While the outcome of DIon's carbon tax is definitely debatable, I would have to say that Ignatieff is far more committed to the development of an advanced, high-tech, high-profit economy that will be sustainable throughout the twenty-first century than is Harper. The only "anti-corporate" move he is hinting at is freezing the corporate tax rate at 18%(it was 30 in the late 90s when growth was higher) rather than cutting it to 15%(Harper's plan) so that the excess funds will got to getting more young canadians in universities and trade schools(which would probably benefit corporate Canada in the long run anyway). I think that the vast majority of Canadians, myself included, agree with you on this one. That is why I cannot understand why Harper is escalating the war on drugs on our own soil. How can he possibly think that S-10, the bill that imposes a 18 month minimum jail term for the posession of four or more weed plants or hash(a refined form of weed), is sound legislation? That we can possibly afford to spend billions of dollars imprisoning recreational drug users at a time of great financial need? I think Harper must be submitting himself to far-right ideologues of the party on this one, but his own statements concerning weed have been hopelessly inept as well. For this reason alone its obvious he's out of touch with the sentiments held by the majority of Canadians and IMO should not be our PM. He would have introduced a stimulus package before christmas in 2008 without needing the opposition to force him too. BUTTT, he would have carefully explained to the Canadian people that the funds, that would have totalled around 25-45 billion IMO, were an extraordinary measure for that year(possibly 2009 as well) and that he would do everything in his power to balance the budget by 2009...at the latest 2010(aka he would not introduce a bunch of crime bills with massive hidden costs without finding a way to pay for them...at risk of the debt sprirallign out of control). THe stimulus package he introduced would have emphasized the creation of sustainable high-tech jobs to a much greater extent than Harper's. The funds would also have been issues in a much more transparent process that would not have been characterized by blatant pork-barrelling in conservative ridings. He would not have just built a bunch of hockey rinks etc. in Liberal ridings in ontario IMO. Ultimately though, the key difference would have been the extent to which he prioritized getting our fiscal policy under control after the recession had passed. I don't think Harper and Flaherty care in the slightest how much our debt escalates while they are in control. I included info concerning the fiscal policy of the previous govt. so that readers could contrast it with Harper's record although I will freely admit that I did not include every critique of Martin's policies that could be made.

THe original poster is 100% correct. The signage on any governmental institutions should utilize the correct spelling of words in Canadian(or Queen's or w/e) English. The views of others concerning the current utility of respective strands of English are not really relevant to the issue at hand. Just because one can discover a few private organizations that also do not spell the word correctly(in the canadian setting) does not mean that this is not the case.

To begin I want to make something very clear. The reason I directed the focus of this post on fiscal policy is because it is a realm that is completely under the control of the federal government. I agree that maintaining stable economic growth is, and should be, a key priority of the federal govt. but this is not completely within their control. Thus I focused on what is. Riiiiight, deficits and surpluses, and hence the growth or shrinkage of the national debt, are not of importance. We should'nt learn anything from the large number of states that had massive fiscal issues and defaulted on their loans throughtout the twentieth century. The possibility that we could not attain sufficient purchasers of our governmental bonds, which was a real concern in 1993(before the "miser" took over), is not something that should be taken lightly(esp. with a govt that likes to spend in power). I think that any resident of the UK or Greece(or any Euopean state for that matter) right now would laugh if your face if you were to make this claim to them. However, I do fully agree that a chief role of the govt. is the maintenance of a stable economy that continually grows at a sustainable rate. That is why I, or any other informed reader for that matter, would find your next comments incredibly puzzling... This is possibly the most partisan and misinformed comment I have EVER read on this forum. The deficit was actually almost entirely eliminated via decreased federal government spending across the board and increased governmental revenue due to increased economic activity. If you honestly believe that it was via taxation and reduced transfer payments, as all Martin's critics for some reason do, please explain how. Can you name a single note-worthy tax he created as finance minister? What was the grand total of the reduced transfer payments(aka was it nearly enough to cover even a notable portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to reduce our national debt from 75 to 25%)? But the strangest part of your argument regards your commentary on economic growth. You claim that a government's ability to control economic growth is their chief economic responsibility. You then claim that the liberals somehow stifled economic growth via massively increased taxation(that didn't exist in reality). However, as you ought to know, the largest economic growth rates in Canada SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR were achieved under the liberals during the late 1990s. I believe the country's GDP(correct me if Im wrong) grew at an average of 5% a year between 1996-2000. Here's the best link I could readily find on this, scroll down to get to the numbers... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Canada Looks like economic growth actually decreased in both 2006 and 2007, the first two years in which our current government was in power. And this does not even take into account the recession years of 2008, 2009, 2010 so there's no need to use that as an excuse for poor economic growth in your reply to this post. So according to your own argument the liberal government's economic policies in the 1990s were UNDENIABLY superior to the conservative's since 2006. This is using your definition of sound economic policy...I have to ask, did you just make all these claims up in the hopes I would not know any better? Waittt...that's right, you claim that you recall "hearing some grumbling on the economy at the time". I also recall hearing some grumbling from leftists that Steven Harper is a fascist that is bent on abolishing the parlimanet of Canada. Do you recommend that employ this as evidence in a future informed debate? lay off the conservative kool-aid bro OOOh the horror of a frugal finance minister! If I had two words to describe Jim Flaherty as Finance Minister I think that "idiot" and "arrogant" apply even more to him than yours does to Martin. Is this productive? That's why I dedicated this post to fiscal policy and have constantly expressed my opposition to unnecessary spending. In fact I am one of the most outspoken critics of the current crime legislation(which are "social" bills) in parliament. Is this comment intended to be taken seriously? I never said, or even hinted at, this. I have no idea why you would think this. This is simply a mistaken conclusion you have drawn from the previous mistaken conclusion. Bravo, you were able to paint me with both the socialist and fascist brush in the same paragraph. I would have to think that your apparent support for the crime bill s-10 would place you in the latter camp to a greater extent than me. As an aside, does this not sound just like Michael Savage desribing US democrats, particularly Obama, as both marxists and fascists? Is this the same intuition that lead you to conclude that we had negative economic growth under the previous liberal government? So you would submit that the harsher penalties in the united states have resulted in the establishment of a safer, more crime-free society? I take it that you are not aware that the current crime bills will abolish the prison farms and halfway houses that are proven to be effective "rehabilitative technologies"? Actually my prime interest in this post is to expose that the current government has been blatantly lying to the Canadian people and the international community regarding its fiscal and economic histories. Why does any criticism of Harper, or legitimate recognition of our greatest fiscal conservative, have to be viewed by the conservative fan club as being made from the position of being in bed with the liberal party? I do genuinely want for there to exist a Canadian conservative party that actually practises fiscal conservatism! I think my interest in fiscal policy would make that self-explanatory. And how can you say I have a tainted economic sense when it is you who clearly, clearly has little to no knowledge of economic growth and fiscal policy(and their histories in the canadian context) and the implications of each. Your economic arguments have been far more partisan and misinformed that mine... If you are not a die hard conservative the logical implication of this statement is that you gave Paul Martin an hour long standing ovation for cutting the size of the PMO, every ministerial department staff, and the bureaucracy of every ministry. Actually I'm a fourth year poli-sci/history student at one of the top research universities in Canada. I have extensively studied the economic history of Canada over the past few decades. I am deeply passionate about maintaining Canada's strong position in the world and the living standards of all Canadians throughout the twenty-first century.

But Radsickle, don't you know that everything Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, says is a lie. Jim Flaherty says so all the time in interviews. Just tune in to your television at night and you'll see our great finance minister putting that rabble rouser in his place. I hardly think that a man of Mr. Flaherty's great intellect, whose also a key member of Harper's "bringing trasparent governance to Canada" cabinet, should ever have to justify his name-calling with evidence or numbers.

And there lies the crux of the matter. I completely agree that the fiscal and economic policies of the Canadian Government are currently not of interest to the majority of the Canadian public. Clearly such things as a cop car burning in downtown TO, the fact that Ignatieff spent decades as a prof. outside of Canada, minimal evidence of an upcoming NDP-liberal merger, Rahim Jaffer's possible involvement in illegal lobbying are all topics that are much more compelling to the Canadian public...at least in terms of the media/partisan coverage they receive. However, while these "issues" are utterly meaningless to the average Canadian, the topic of this post could potentially have devastating consequences for the Canadian people. I think that the young people of this country deserve to know that the current government of Canada is recklessly abusing the nation's finances and will saddle them with a massive debt, that will only increase with the retirement of the baby boomers and the continued aging of our pop., that they, and not stevey harper(a man who has never worked a real job), will be responsible for. For that reason, and of course my dislike of the spin-doctor fear-mongor financial-illiterates that currently effectively control parliament hill, I decided to post this. If you find it boring please do simply switch over to the much sexier topic of the conduct of the police during the G8 G20 weekend in To. I never said Martin was completely equitable in all his dealings that he made in order to achieve his goals. But those complaints have already been made and noted on this post. But I disagree that Harper simply cutting an 8 billion dollar cheque to Quebec, when the feds already contribute tens of thousands of dollars of surplus transfer payments(in and above any taxation the govt receives from Quebec) to each quebecor, is somehow rectifying an injustice perpetrated by Martin(although fixing transfer payments to other provinces I will grant is a reasonable use of federal funds, but I have never stated my opposition to this). And stating the misleading line from the conservative webite, that they have paid down the debt, has to be viewed in the context that our debt has grown from 25% to 32% of the GDP under Harper(while it decreased from 75 to 25% under Martin - yes albeit not from completely, as you say, just financial dealings). I understand that you clearly despise lawyers...But why do you think that the opinion of the average Canadian is inherently superior to that of just about all lawyers, law profs, experts on the prison system in Canada, and sociologists(who disagree with the legislation)when it comes to this legislation? While I understand your conflict of interest theory, you must be aware that only a minority of lawyers are involved in criminal cases and thus they do not ALL have a conflict of interest in critiquing the new crime bills. Is simply stating the obvious...that throughout history incarcerating a greater % of the population, and increasing the harshness of sentencing for crimes, has not once led to the establishment of a safer, more crime-free society an argument that has to be made by someone with a conflict of interest in the justice system? or is it not possible that these legal experts actually care about what our country is going to look like in twenty years. Is arguing against parole abolition, closure of halfway houses, abolishment of jail farms, something that has to be made from the position of a conflict of interest - all this is going to do is create large numbers of criminals that will, and are not currently, be desperate enough to kill normal canadians for the cash in their pockets, because they know nothing else...its all good and dandy for fear mongers to claim we have a crime problem in Canada today but the reality is we do not. Crime rates are lower than they have ever been. Most murders comitted in BC, my province, are drug related and would not occur if the govt just legalized weed, their biggest cash cow. May I ask you what your stance is on s-10? I'm no pot head but I do understand that this bill is utterly injust and is a massive waste of money.

Clearly someone has no idea how argumentation actually works. Put in simple terms, one argues by presenting a number of premises in order to come to a conclusion. With this article I have made the arguments that a) the fiscal record of the current conservative government is appallingly bad and b ) that the widespread notion that Jim Flaherty is our economic savior is utterly incorrect. My premises in drawing conclusion a) are 1) that the fiscal policy of the previous government was infinitely superior in every way 2) that Harper was able to eliminate our budget surplus at lightning speed and 3) that Harper's ridiculous and almost assuredly ineffective crime bills are going to create a massive stuctural deficit in the budget of the federal government of Canada that is going to leave the next generation of Canadians with a massive debt burden unneccessarily. My premises in drawing the second conclusion were 1) our fiscal policy(as opposed to the UK's or The USA's) is not that bad currently because of the fiscal policy of our previous government and 2) that Martin's reluctance to deregulate Canadian banks(against the wishes of our current PM)...that IMO is why we have come out of the current recession relatively "unscathed", not because of any action of Jim Flaherty..saying that the opposition parties did not present clear alternatives in 2008 does not contest either of these premises..no one on this board as of yet has been able to contest this as of yet...if its a moot argument, as you say, explain why throught the employment of premises or, unfortunatly, your argument is in fact moot...

While you are correct that this notion is not entirely accurate, adherence to it cannot be compared to the notion that Flaherty has somehow saved the Canadian economy. Even those who disagree with my analysis on this site have not presented any material WHATSOEVER defending Flaherty`s fiscal or economic records. Believing Martin singlehandedly slew the deficit is not that ignorant a view because IT WAS HIS OWN spending adjustments, that the PMO and virtually all other ministers strongly opposed, that were the foundation for the budgets that ended the deficits. therefore, I would have to say the idea that he was chiefly responisble for the elimination of the federal deficit, while somehat simplistic, is not entirely ignorant becuase it is not entirely without substance. If you think my assessment is incomplete, please offer amendments as others have already. This is certainly not propaganda, unlike the inredibly erroneous remarks spewed by our conservative government both domestically and abroad, because it is entirely grounded in facts and numbers...two things our current government and its small fan club evidently despise. But seriously...can anyone on this entire forum give a coherent rationale for supporting the fiscal and economic policies of our current government(simply giving excuses for Mulroney`s miserable fiscal record does not count). Or are we in agreement that it is the duty of all informed Canadians to cast their ballots for another party come the next election...

We understand - you're a Liberal right to the very rotten core. If questioning the government when it deliberately lies to the Canadian people in order to attain their votes makes one both Liberal and rotten to the core...then I suppose I am both of those things. Have you guys not heard the ignorant masses praising Mr. Flaherty for saving the Canadian economy?!? It is an incredibly erroneous view that the government has somehow managed to spread throughout Canada...

None of them are draconian. Most are actually quite mild. If you disagree, point out which. And most of us who support getting tougher on criminals are willing to pay the additional cost. You think keeping criminals in prison for their terms is draconian? Expensive? Hey, how about we let them all out after serving just one tenth of their sentences instead! Think of all the money we'd save! Mild crime bills eh? You would say escalating the war on drugs with a similar approach to that of the United States is "mild" legislation? S-10 proposes to do just that. How can you honestly believe that the possession of 4 or more marijuana plants, or simply the possession of hash, are serious criminal offenses that should have a mandatory minimum jail time of 18 months? A serious crime indeed...allowing Canadians to enjoy a harmless organic substance during their leisure time How fucking stupid as a society have we become to believe that incarcerating these people is somehow a legitimate use of billions of dollars of taxation during a time of fiscal need? That we have a government that is apparently all for the proliferation of firearms(gun-registry is a waste of money?) in our country while is in favour of the increasingly tight regulation of organic substances? Ironically, this legislation will in fact stimulate criminal activity in Canada by eliminating a large chunk of the small-time "friendly" neighbourhood dealers. The gangs will be able to further extend their control over the distribution of weed which will make mass distribution of weed much more profitable. As a result more people will die in gang related violence in BC...

Recent developments have convinced me that an informed debate on the recent economic history of our country would be of use. While I found Mr. Harper's entirely scripted "youth outreach" Q and A period, in which he unjustifiably heaped massive amounts of praise on his government's fiscal/economic record, deeply troubling, his comments at the G-8, G-20 meetings have convinced me that it is necessary to challenge the conservative's stated economic "achievments". His statement that other countries must emulate Canada's frugal fiscal policy, and reduce their deficits and debts within the next half decade, must be scruitinized. After all, should we not demand that our political leadership shows the same fiscal policies at home that they so strongly advocate abroad. While Jim Flaherty, and of course Stephen Harper, would have you believe that he saved our country from the economic downturn of 2008 and has been a fine manager of our nation's finances, the historical record shows that the economic/fiscal policies of our current government have thus far been nothing short of disastrous. As you may all recall, Paul Martin was able to eliminate the historically high deficits of the Mulroney government(which have since been surpassed by Harper's deficits) between 1993 and 1997 through a mix of spending cuts and minimal tax increases. Between 1998 and 2005 our government ran consecutive budgetary surpluses, the longest string(totalling the greatest sum of money) in Canadian history. With this excess revenue we were able to pay down our national debt from 75% to 25% of our GDP, an achievment which to the best of my knowledge is unprecedented in the modern history of the world. This incredibly sound fiscal management allowed our government to commence, and sustain, an expeditionary force in Afghanistan without coming close to running a deficit! When Harper won the 2006 federal election, he proceeded to cut corporate taxes(which I don't entirely disagree with - in moderation), reduce the GST from 7 to 5%(a move every economist in the country disagrees with), and massively inrease spending on the military amongst other things. The ultimate result of these fiscal reforms was the elimination of our budgetary surplus in its entirety by 2007. Thus when the economic downturn hit in 2008 we had exactly zero dollars available to freely spend on stimulus. Additionally, Harper's nonchalant response to the recession as "a passing thing" and gleefully as a "chance to buy stocks low", coupled with his and Flaherty's blatant lie that we would not run a deficit in 2008(we ran the biggest in Canada's history), should be seen as some of the most ignorant economic comments ever uttered by a canadian government. It is also important to note that Stephen Harper, in opposition at the time, strongly jumped on the bank de-regulation bandwagon in 1999...he demanded that the majority of regulatory legislation on banks be rescinded by the federal government but Martin told him to go fuck himself. I don't think I need to tell you where we would currently be if he had gotten his way in 1999... Harper now is proceeding(delayed by his disgraceful decision to prorogue parliament in Dec. 2009 which annulled his "critically important crime legislation") to pass a number of draconian anti-crime bills through parliament. The first of fifteen, c-25, is calculated to cost billions of dollars each year. The total annual cost of these "anti-crime" bills will undoubtedly cost the federal government tens of billions of dollars annually. I would have less problem with the government legislating the creation of a permanent structural fiscal deficit, if ALL THE LEGAL EXPERTS did not disagree with their assessment. The Government's Commission on Prisons, which was chaired by none other than the degreeless Stockwell Day and ten others that have no expertise in the area of prison systems, was the clueless body that drafted these proposed bills. Additionally, since crime rates are at an all time low, is it too much to ask for our government to get its fiscal house in order before proceeding with its incredibly costly crime agenda? Is it also too much to ask that it comes clean with the cost of these bills? (bill c-25 was to cost 90 million but according to the budget but Kevin Page(who calls the conservatives on their claims - and is always called a liar, always without justification, by Mr. Flaherty) will cost at least a billion dollars annually) So the Harper Government is responsible for eliminating a massive budgetary surplus within its first year, responding to the economic downturn with shocking ignorance, and legislating the creation of a permanent structural deficit in the Canadian Government's fiscal policy via a number of ignorant crime bills that legal experts disagree with. Additionally, Flaherty's budgets will not come close to eliminating the federal deficit until 2015 - a conclusion that Mr. Page contests with evidence(and Mr. Flaherty dismisses with none). Our national debt will increase considerably over this period of time(the number ive heard is 180 billion dollars - correct me if I'm wrong) even with best case scenarios involving the crime bills. Yet Mr. Harper would have you believe that he saved the Canadian economy during the recession and that his government has an "exceptional" fiscal record. But...It seems to me that the only reasons that we are relatively well off fiscally at the moment is the previous government's denial of Harper's bank de-regulation requests coupled with their incredibly strong fiscal policy. Is it not then ironic that Harper is championning his fiscal record, and pretending to counsel other national leaders on their's, on the world forum. A final point...Harper's decision to hold the G20 conference in downtown TO is incredibly stupid. There is not one locale in the entire country that could have generated protests of the size that TO could. With that being said, the 1.2 billion dollar price tag on security is completely inexcusable. The 20,000 armed personnel deployed in downtown TO was almost twice the size of the US force used to occupy Afghanistan between 2001-2007. THAT'S RIGHT, TWICE THE SIZE OF A FORCE USED TO OCCUPY A HOSTILE MIDDLE-EASTERN COUNTRY(note that I do not think that the small force the US deployed in Afghanistan was sufficient for containing the isurgency)...a few burnt cop cars(that were suspiciously parked within easy access of the protestors) and a few thrown projectiles do not constitute an insurgency, and thus do not justify the placement of an army(that still could somehow fail to prevent the wanton destruction of shops for hours in downtown TO strange no?) in the downtown of our largest city. I will go on record as saying the job could have easily been done by 1/2-1/4 the men. But maybe I have it all wrong and Harper is our economic/fiscal saviour...please let me know your thoughts.

Here's to celebrating the best country to live in on earth!