Jump to content

Conservatives cancel $4.7M arts travel program


Recommended Posts

And elect a party who have a proven reputation of not running a deficit?

Your party CREATED the deficit, and ran deficits during the Trudeau years and the early Chretien years. The deficits disappeared because of the booming American economy and the money which poured into federal coffers from the GST the Liberal Party fought tooth and nail against and promised to cancel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your party CREATED the deficit, and ran deficits during the Trudeau years and the early Chretien years. The deficits disappeared because of the booming American economy and the money which poured into federal coffers from the GST the Liberal Party fought tooth and nail against and promised to cancel.

So in your opinion, there were no spending cuts by the Liberal government in the 1990s?

The deficit was eliminated by factors on both the revenue side and the spending side. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your party CREATED the deficit, and ran deficits during the Trudeau years and the early Chretien years. The deficits disappeared because of the booming American economy and the money which poured into federal coffers from the GST the Liberal Party fought tooth and nail against and promised to cancel.

It took a whole lot more than just a good economy and the GST to end the deficit and most on the right know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. It also took some fantastic luck with very low interest rates through the mid-late nineties, which also enabled Chretien to pretend his 'good management' had anything much to do with it..

And massive sending cuts that the present day Tories don't seem to remember since they are running up the bill fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And massive sending cuts that the present day Tories don't seem to remember since they are running up the bill fast.

I stand to be corrected but I think the largest sources to reduce the deficit were as follows:

1) Major reductions in transfer payments to provinces - in effect, these were cuts to Healthcare, Education and Social Programs

2) Creating a new Employment Insurance out of the old UIC Program. All monies collected were then put into General Revenues. Stringent new rules were put in place to limit payouts. This resulted in extra revenue of $44 billion up to 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand to be corrected but I think the largest sources to reduce the deficit were as follows:

1) Major reductions in transfer payments to provinces - in effect, these were cuts to Healthcare, Education and Social Programs

2) Creating a new Employment Insurance out of the old UIC Program. All monies collected were then put into General Revenues. Stringent new rules were put in place to limit payouts. This resulted in extra revenue of $44 billion up to 2003.

There were massive cuts in defence and sale offs of Crowns and all manner of cutting programs. There wasn't an area that wasn't hit, every department faced cuts.

It was extremely painful for Canadians and yet it was supported as a means to end the deficit. It should be noted now that there isn't a government from any political party that can afford to be seen as running the deficit up. That was not always true.

The Conservatives like to play down the ending of the deficit or to say it really wasn't ended or any number of things that basically say it was not Liberal policy but fortuitousness. Certainly, it helped to have a good economy and a tax that helped pay off the debt. However, it would all be for naught had not spending been slashed.

The Tories are trying to being back the tax and spending Liberal moniker but 13 years showed a tax cut and spending cut Liberal regime. The Tories have cut taxes but all they have to show for 2+ years is a few million in one program?

Will some Conservative supporters here finally admit that the Tories have broken their spending promise of the election and are now doing what they accused Martin of doing? The key thing is they are spending even bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind, in fact I'd say the government should cut all arts funding. If an artist wants money they should earn it like the rest of us, if they can't earn money through their art then they should get a different job.

Edited by Canadian Blue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind, in fact I'd say the government should cut all arts funding. If an artist wants money they should earn it like the rest of us, if they can't earn money through their art then they should get a different job.

If that is your stance then let's eliminate all job-related funding. After all, this is what you are really saying: if you can't earn enough through your current employment then get a different job.

So let's eliminate all government funding of tools and other work-related items (e.g. uniforms). We should also eliminate all funding for apprenticeships. If those people can't afford their own tools or can't afford to work as an apprentice, then they should go elsewhere. This could save the government a lot of money, particularly once they start eliminating all industry specific funding. Why should the government assist in scientific research & development? If a company can't afford to invest in the future then they should do something else, right? Why should the government give subsidies to farmers? They can just get different jobs if they can't survive on their own.

The arts are as much a part of Canadian society and culture as any other industry. If other careers deserve funding from the government, why not artists? You see, they do earn money like the rest of us. And, just like the rest of us, the government has programs in place to help the arts "industry" and artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is your stance then let's eliminate all job-related funding. After all, this is what you are really saying: if you can't earn enough through your current employment then get a different job.

Basically, more or less because it seems the market doesn't require those jobs.

"So let's eliminate all government funding of tools and other work-related items (e.g. uniforms). We should also eliminate all funding for apprenticeships. If those people can't afford their own tools or can't afford to work as an apprentice, then they should go elsewhere. This could save the government a lot of money, particularly once they start eliminating all industry specific funding."

Yes, because quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if their is a high demand for such jobs that private enterprise would step in and pick up the slack.

"Why should the government assist in scientific research & development? If a company can't afford to invest in the future then they should do something else, right?"

If that company isn't profitable, and isn't making any new advances then yes it shouldn't receive anymore money.

Why should the government give subsidies to farmers? They can just get different jobs if they can't survive on their own.

No the government shouldn't give subsidies to farmers. In fact Canada is currently getting screwed primarily due to farm subsidies south of the border. The only thing the government should allow is farm and crop insurance.

The arts are as much a part of Canadian society and culture as any other industry. If other careers deserve funding from the government, why not artists?

If Canadian's truly care about the arts they can then put their money towards artists. Otherwise were just propping up the few shitty artists who shouldn't even be in that line of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Canadian's truly care about the arts they can then put their money towards artists. Otherwise were just propping up the few shitty artists who shouldn't even be in that line of work.

Your statment here tells me that you truely don't understand the travel program at all....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who would that be the greens or the ndp as neither have ever had the chance to deliver a budget.

The Tories keep on the way their going, they are going to head into an annual deficit. They just can't control their spending.

Most Canadians are strongly against the deficit and if Harper doesn't want to see the Liberals elected, he will rein in spending. So far he is spending like a drunken sailor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tories keep on the way their going, they are going to head into an annual deficit. They just can't control their spending.

Most Canadians are strongly against the deficit and if Harper doesn't want to see the Liberals elected, he will rein in spending. So far he is spending like a drunken sailor.

The spending I am seeing is spending on infrastructure and replacing military equipment, two things the liberals let slide for many years. Not to mention the tax cuts as huge surpluses mean that we the people are being overtaxed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, more or less because it seems the market doesn't require those jobs.

You get points for being consistent at least. Some people would have applied a double standard based on their personal preferences.

That being said, I think your philosophy is shortsighted. Not being able to earn enough does not mean that the market does not need that particular job. The market may need the job, but may not be willing to pay enough that a person could live on that salary without a bit of financial help. Giving some financial help allows the market to fill that need without exploiting people. Isn't that part of what government is supposed to do?

Yes, because quite frankly it wouldn't surprise me if their is a high demand for such jobs that private enterprise would step in and pick up the slack.

And yet many of these programs were put in place specifically because private enterprise was not picking up the slack (e.g. the apprenticeship tax credits). Where was the market at that time? These programs can do two things: 1) make up for deficiencies in how the market operates; and 2) speed up market responses. The market is not some magical answer to all of life's questions. Sometimes it needs some help.

If that company isn't profitable, and isn't making any new advances then yes it shouldn't receive anymore money.

That is a good theory. However, specifically with advanced R&D, how do you know if that R&D project will be successful? Using this specific example, companies sometimes cannot tell what R&D will be profitable and what won't be. If we were to eliminate R&D funding (or require absolute proof of profitability) then we would hamstring our economy. For Canada to be competitive the Canadian government should be there to take on some of the risk.

If Canadian's truly care about the arts they can then put their money towards artists. Otherwise were just propping up the few shitty artists who shouldn't even be in that line of work.

Providing funding for the arts is about more than just propping up a few people. It is about supporting Canadian culture. To bring this back to the topic of this thread, the program in question was about promoting Canadian arts internationally. Helping to build and maintain Canada's reputation around the world is a good thing. Being proud of what some of our citizens do is also a good thing.

It is unfortunate that some people's vision for Canada is so limited. A nation's art and culture says as much (or more) about that nation as its GDP or unemployment rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention the tax cuts as huge surpluses mean that we the people are being overtaxed.

As far as tax cuts are concerned this article link (posted earlier in this thread) points out that the Harper government really hasn't given as many tax cuts as they would like us to believe. They have just introduced new spending programs into the tax system.

All that being said, it still might be too early to begin worrying about deficits. Yes, there have been some monthly deficits. But let's wait until closer to the government's year end. It is an annual deficit that really causes problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spending I am seeing is spending on infrastructure and replacing military equipment, two things the liberals let slide for many years. Not to mention the tax cuts as huge surpluses mean that we the people are being overtaxed.

Defence and First Nations money is not included in Harper's promise to cap annual spending. He is easily breezing past that electoral promise. It isn't just roads and the like. He has increased transfer payments that he was against while in Opposition. He has re-opened a military college and he spends twice as much on government advertising (something he used to oppose the Liberals on).

Even friends of the Conservatives have taken note.

I once said it came out to $4 million a day. Looks like I was wrong. It is $4 million an hour they are spending.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/t...06-171965853dfa

Prudence was the buzzword around Ottawa after the release of the federal budget in February. After two years of decidedly imprudent spending increases --

7.5 per cent in 2006 and 6.9 per cent in 2007 -- the Harper government pledged itself to a rise of 3.4 per cent in 2008.

Prudence went out the window about a day after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty brought down last winter's budget. My guess is the Tories have blown by their pledged 3.4-per-cent spending limit (or are roaring up on it rapidly) four months into the current fiscal year.

And what are they spending money on?

Money to the Calgary Stampede to celebrate Quebec City's birthday?

The Stampede received nearly half a million so it could throw Quebec City a party for its 400th anniversary. Quebec City itself received $46 million for its quadricentennial. More than $300 million has been given to Montreal aircraft maker Bombardier (the most heavily subsidized company in Canadian history, after the railroads) to build a plane for which there are no firm orders yet.

Wasn't Harper totally against Bombardier funding?

Gunter keeps saying that Liberal spending in less than Martin but he obviously isn't happy with what Harper is doing now. Fiscal conservatives should stop making excuses for the spending. How does $500,000 to Calgary for a birthday part for Quebec make fiscal sense?

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Conservatives like to play down the ending of the deficit or to say it really wasn't ended or any number of things that basically say it was not Liberal policy but fortuitousness. Certainly, it helped to have a good economy and a tax that helped pay off the debt. However, it would all be for naught had not spending been slashed.

Bull. You had massive surpluses, so massive that you played accounting games which would have had Martin in prison if he were in the private sector.

You cut transfer payments to the provinces, thus forcing them to cut actual programs, largely in health care, education and social welfare. You largely avoided cutting federal programs, except to defence, which Liberals hate

The hypocrisy is that even while slashing transfer payments to the provinces for health care and social services the Liberal government portrayed itself in every election as the great saviour and protector of health care and social services. And even while Martin was frantically trying to hide billions and billions in surpluses Canadians were dying on waiting lists and in overcrowded emergency rooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tories keep on the way their going, they are going to head into an annual deficit. They just can't control their spending.

Yeah, you keep up with the fantasies there, dobby. No one but an idiot would believe it - but then again, that's your party's target market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is always interesting to see what programs get cut compared to what programs receive money. You would think that the Canadian government would be interested in promoting Canada internationally.

The rhetoric used in the article is also kind of sad.

Promoting Canada isn't the same as promoting wacko left wing so-called artists who'd be on welfare were it not for government subsidies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arts are as much a part of Canadian society and culture as any other industry.

Nonsense. Most of this so-called art is never seen nor heard of by the vast, vast, vast majority of Canadians. It exists to serve the interests of those who create it, an incestuous little community which writes and paints and sculpts for itself alone, and a few hangers-on. They all go to each others' openings, and oooh and ahh at the right places, then hand out their hands for more subsidies from the ordinary citizen - who, btw, they sneer at as uneducated and unsophisticated.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Promoting Canada isn't the same as promoting wacko left wing so-called artists who'd be on welfare were it not for government subsidies.

Well let's look at that shall we? We can assume that the Conservative government would want to show the worst of the worst when canceling this program. And what did we end up with? A "general radical" who received $5,000 to travel to film festivals in Australia and Argentina (according to the article). Hmm... wait a minute... could it be that this "general radical" was maybe just going to promote his documentary on Argentinean factory workers? That doesn't seem too radical.

Which is why the Conservative rhetoric is so sad. It's over the top and ridiculous. But I guess if they can convince a few people that it was a program that just promoted "wackos" then they have accomplished their newspeak purpose. Heaven forbid that you actually look to see if that was an accurate description of the program.

Nonsense. Most of this so-called art is never seen nor heard of by the vast, vast, vast majority of Canadians. It exists to serve the interests of those who create it, an incestuous little community which writes and paints and sculpts for itself alone, and a few hangers-on. They all go to each others' openings, and oooh and ahh at the right places, then hand out their hands for more subsidies from the ordinary citizen - who, btw, they sneer at as uneducated and unsophisticated.

I am not even remotely a part of the arts community, but I have met a few people who are and even attended some events. I have other friends who also are, to use your words, ordinary citizens and they also attend events and have friends who would be considered part of the arts community. The success of a number of Canadian film festivals also indicate that maybe this isn't just "an incestuous little community". Just because you apparently do not take part in this aspect of Canadian life do not presume that others are equally disinterested. Luckily for Canadians, this is a society where people can have different interests. But isn't it funny how some individuals can't stand the idea that maybe those interests hold value for a large number of people, even if they are of no interest to the individual.

As for the rest of your post... I have to say it looks like you are the one doing the sneering. It looks like you are the one being condescending. Your narrow-minded stereotype of the arts community only shows your ignorance. (And that isn't because you apparently aren't interested in the arts; that does not make one unsophisticated. It is your own actions - i.e. the stereotyping of a particular group - that show your ignorance.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case anyone is curious about some of the recipients who receive grants you should check out Holy Fuck. They're techno pop, sorta, nothing objectionable about them really. They sorta sound like they were influenced by Kraftwerk with some old ELP, Rick Wakeman and Genesis (pre Disney Collins).

Nothing objectionable, but certainly nothing really noteworthy either. Nothing deserving of special funding in any form. If people like what they do then they'll buy it and they'll do well. If people don't like it they wont buy it and these guys will have to get jobs, rather simple really. Given that people don't like it the question that arises is why should we fund it? Why prop up something most people do not like through artificial means? Purely for the sake of "art"?

Holy Fuck

Edited by AngusThermopyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...