Harper didn't break his own law

[jdobbin]

but that's the thing. This was no real accomplishment. I already said it many times. Cutting transfer payments to the provinces, accumulating unjustifiable surpluses in EI and crippling our military to balance the books that largely the same Liberals ruined is like puking on someone else's carpet, cleaning it up and then saying, "HEY! LOOK I CLEANED YOUR CARPET! I DID GOOD!"

The fact that previous Tory governments didn't do the job, even with two majorities and good economic numbers, meant that the Liberals had to do the job. You say no real accomplishment. I disagree. And so it appears did Canadians who supported the party through these tough times.

You act like the monthly accounts matter. They don't. It's the average that counts. Tax cuts are good. Tax and spend is bad. Tax and spend hurts the economy and consumers and the theory has been disproven by economies all over the world.

Tax cuts and spending is bad. See Ronald Reagan. Harper seems to have discovered Reaganomics.

This is just rehashing the previous point. They drastically cut spending on social and healthcare systems to BELOW pre-Trudeau levels because Trudeau sent our country on its way so far into debt that we were headed for bankruptcy as a nation. At one point 40% of every tax dollar went to paying back debt. Why are we congratulating the Liberals for cleaning up their own mess? Don't even try to bring up Mulroney here either because Harper quit from the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives because he found them to be the same sort of crap that the Trudeau Liberals were.

I am saying that Harper's own economic record of tax cuts and spending is dreadful. Harper is not Mulroney. He seems to be modelling his economic policy on Ronald Reagan.

[Moonbox]

The fact that previous Tory governments didn't do the job, even with two majorities and good economic numbers, meant that the Liberals had to do the job. You say no real accomplishment. I disagree. And so it appears did Canadians who supported the party through these tough times.

but comparing the Tory governments of the past to today is really not a fair thing to do. Mulroney PC's were NOTHING like Harper's Conservatives. Mulroney is widely considered to have been more a liberal than a conservative. I'll remind you again that Harper quit the Progressive Conservative party in the 1980's out of disgust for their policies.

Tax cuts and spending is bad. See Ronald Reagan. Harper seems to have discovered Reaganomics.

Canada is considered the world over as an over-taxed country. This is thanks to Trudeau and Mulroney and their deficit spending. The Chretien Liberals ran a balanced budget by governing through 11 years of almost unprecedented prosperity throughout the WHOLE world and by DRASTICALLY cutting social services throughout the country.

Liberal economic policy over the last 30 years has been to tax over-heavily and spend the money where they think it's needed. Lately that's been to pay back the debt they accumulated while the Canadian economy was booming which in itself is an alright thing to do...but that's not the point.

Conservative economic policy, that is REAL conservative economic policy and not thinly disguised Mulroney liberalism, is to tax lightly and let the people decide where to spend the money. This is what Harper has been doing. We are paying less taxes than we would under the Liberals and the budget is still balanced. This is good. Our economy has been cooling for a good number of years now too so it's even more noteworthy as far as I'm concerned. Either way, spending during a recession is a GOOD thing because it to some extent smoothes out the shock of a collapsing economy. It saves jobs.

I am saying that Harper's own economic record of tax cuts and spending is dreadful. Harper is not Mulroney. He seems to be modelling his economic policy on Ronald Reagan.

Your failure is that you hugely exaggerate Harper's spending record. Yes, he has been spending money, but he has been doing so within the confines of his budget. Spending the money you receive in revenue and putting that money towards areas that sorely need it (ie our troops in Afghanistan, the unprotected North and Canadian industry right now) I would say is responsible governing. If he starts running huge deficits, THEN i'll agree with you. Until then, you're just exaggerating everything he does and putting a negative spin on it.

Our social services have not really been affected and I'm paying less taxes. Thank you Stephen Harper. I much prefer this to having my taxes raised back to where they were and spending extra money on consumer goods under Dion's Green Shift so that he and his government can give hand outs.

[Smallc]

Our social services have not really been affected and I'm paying less taxes.

Yes, but the countries fiscal capacity has been severely compromised. If something were to happen where the government needed to use a great deal of money, they wouldn't have it now. They would have a a few years ago. At the level of conservative spending, I heard one economist tell CTVNN that the government could go into deficit next year.

Also, according to almost all people, the Liberals under Chretien gave the largest tax cut in Canadian history when they eliminated Federal bracket creep. Its something that economists thought was a good idea. The conservatives on the other hand, have given tax cuts that make a huge difference to the countries bottom line, but very little difference to the bottom line of the working person. Income tax cuts would have been much better for those who work and are in the middle class, the life blood of the country. The Conservatives actually RAISED income taxes when coming into power.

Lastly, the only people who I have every heard say Canada was over taxed were people from south of the border. Canada actually ranks average in the OECD numbers.

[jdobbin]

but comparing the Tory governments of the past to today is really not a fair thing to do. Mulroney PC's were NOTHING like Harper's Conservatives. Mulroney is widely considered to have been more a liberal than a conservative. I'll remind you again that Harper quit the Progressive Conservative party in the 1980's out of disgust for their policies.

May I remind you that the PCs and Alliance merged together and that a lot of PCs are in the economic portfolios?

Flaherty is finance minister. Remember how successful he was at that at the provincial level?

Canada is considered the world over as an over-taxed country. This is thanks to Trudeau and Mulroney and their deficit spending. The Chretien Liberals ran a balanced budget by governing through 11 years of almost unprecedented prosperity throughout the WHOLE world and by DRASTICALLY cutting social services throughout the country.

True. Who is denying that?

Liberal economic policy over the last 30 years has been to tax over-heavily and spend the money where they think it's needed. Lately that's been to pay back the debt they accumulated while the Canadian economy was booming which in itself is an alright thing to do...but that's not the point.

Canadian corporate taxes are less than the U.S. by 46% to 43%. That started under the Liberals. The biggest incomes tax cut in one budget in the last 10 years came in 2005 by the Liberals.

Conservative economic policy, that is REAL conservative economic policy and not thinly disguised Mulroney liberalism, is to tax lightly and let the people decide where to spend the money. This is what Harper has been doing. We are paying less taxes than we would under the Liberals and the budget is still balanced. This is good. Our economy has been cooling for a good number of years now too so it's even more noteworthy as far as I'm concerned. Either way, spending during a recession is a GOOD thing because it to some extent smoothes out the shock of a collapsing economy. It saves jobs.

He cut taxes but keeps spending like crazy.

Your failure is that you hugely exaggerate Harper's spending record. Yes, he has been spending money, but he has been doing so within the confines of his budget.

He has been over every budget. Every budget. By quite a lot, I might add. That isn't fiction. It isn't an exaggeration. It is the truth right from the government's own records but they don't much like talking about it.

Spending the money you receive in revenue and putting that money towards areas that sorely need it (ie our troops in Afghanistan, the unprotected North and Canadian industry right now) I would say is responsible governing. If he starts running huge deficits, THEN i'll agree with you. Until then, you're just exaggerating everything he does and putting a negative spin on it.

Defence spending and Aboriginal affairs are not covered by the Tory promise to reduce spending so one can't blame either for the Tories going over budget.

The surplus is drastically reduced, spending is not.

Our social services have not really been affected and I'm paying less taxes. Thank you Stephen Harper. I much prefer this to having my taxes raised back to where they were and spending extra money on consumer goods under Dion's Green Shift so that he and his government can give hand outs.

Harper is headed towards annual deficits if he can't control his spending. I will remind you of this conversation later on.

It seems everyone forgot when I said Harper would call an election on confidence without a vote in the House. Some said hey would be less likely to vote for him if he did but looks like people can rationalize anything. One thing is certain is that no one believed me when I said that this is what Harper would do.

He ended up doing exactly that.

So when I say he is headed for annual deficit with his present spending habits and you say that you will agree with me that an annual deficit is a problem, I will bookmark this post for you.

[Moonbox]

May I remind you that the PCs and Alliance merged together and that a lot of PCs are in the economic portfolios?

The Progressive Conservative government of years past was crippled and largely destroyed. There is I think maybe ONE MP from the federal PC's in Harpers new government.

Flaherty is finance minister. Remember how successful he was at that at the provincial level?

Actually, I loved Mike Harris and Flaherty at the provincial level. The Liberals in the 1980's followed Trudeau's example and sent the province spiralling into debt. It was so bad that the province ended up electing an NDP government of all things. While Rae did better than the provincial Liberals, it was Mike Harris and Flaherty that had fix the province's finances. Now we have a whining Liberal sop as our premier and his backward economic theory is just making Ontario's economic slowdown worse.

Canadian corporate taxes are less than the U.S. by 46% to 43%. That started under the Liberals. The biggest incomes tax cut in one budget in the last 10 years came in 2005 by the Liberals.

The taxation on capital investment, which is one of the biggest factors in determining where a company will invest their money, is VERY high.

In Ontario, which is responsible for something like 40% of Canada's GDP, the tax on capital investment is 42% and only trails Congo, Argentina and China for the highest in the world. Way to go McGuinty. Now seeing as though Ontario is literally BLEEDING jobs, why is it that the provincial Liberals are discouraging companies from investing here?

He has been over every budget. Every budget. By quite a lot, I might add. That isn't fiction. It isn't an exaggeration. It is the truth right from the government's own records but they don't much like talking about it.

Defence spending and Aboriginal affairs are not covered by the Tory promise to reduce spending so one can't blame either for the Tories going over budget.

Do we need to remind you that we have soldiers in Afghanistan (that the Liberals sent) under equipped without helicopters to move themselves around in? Do I need to remind you that thanks to Trudeau and Chretien the poor men and women in Afghanistan are fighting with equipment from the 1960's? Our military has been so sorely neglected under the Liberals that NOT investing in it would have left it impotent. It's despicable the Liberals would send them to Afghanistan in the first place with the sort of equipment they're using right now.

The surplus is drastically reduced, spending is not.

Harper is headed towards annual deficits if he can't control his spending. I will remind you of this conversation later on.

So when I say he is headed for annual deficit with his present spending habits and you say that you will agree with me that an annual deficit is a problem, I will bookmark this post for you.

I'll tell you one last time. In an economic slowdown, BASIC economic theory is to spend (invest) money in the economy to smooth out short term fluctations. Increasing spending while revenues are decreasing MAY seem silly to you, but it's sound economic theory tried and tested for the last 100 years.

Running an enormous deficit a la Trudeau/Mulroney days would be bad. Bookmark this thread. If Harper runs a great big fat deficit I'll be switching camps. I can't justify that and I wouldn't even try unless something completely ridiculous were to happen (like a plague or a nuke).

With that said my background in economics and finance would make me EXPECT the government to be spending with a cooling economy but feel free to ignore that point again.

I'll repeat again: Thank you Stephen Harper for lowering my taxes. I prefer having my taxes lowered than having them back where they were under the Liberals and I much prefer this to an indirect tax on my wallet via the Green Shift.

[jdobbin]

The Progressive Conservative government of years past was crippled and largely destroyed. There is I think maybe ONE MP from the federal PC's in Harpers new government.

What? What about all the Atlantic MPs? What about MacKay and Prentice?

Actually, I loved Mike Harris and Flaherty at the provincial level. The Liberals in the 1980's followed Trudeau's example and sent the province spiralling into debt. It was so bad that the province ended up electing an NDP government of all things. While Rae did better than the provincial Liberals, it was Mike Harris and Flaherty that had fix the province's finances. Now we have a whining Liberal sop as our premier and his backward economic theory is just making Ontario's economic slowdown worse.

The Peterson government ended the deficit in 1989-1990. They were among the first governments in North America to end deficit spending.

We certainly know that Flaherty had a government in deficit.

The taxation on capital investment, which is one of the biggest factors in determining where a company will invest their money, is VERY high.

In Ontario, which is responsible for something like 40% of Canada's GDP, the tax on capital investment is 42% and only trails Congo, Argentina and China for the highest in the world. Way to go McGuinty. Now seeing as though Ontario is literally BLEEDING jobs, why is it that the provincial Liberals are discouraging companies from investing here?

Even in Ontario business taxes are lower than the U.S. according to the KPMG study I already posted. Further study by the Globe said the Canadians rate was 43% versus the U.S. at 46%.

It can be better but Harper playing the blame game with Ontario was a stupid thing. If Flaherty wants to run in Ontario, he should quite and run for a seat again in that province.

Do we need to remind you that we have soldiers in Afghanistan (that the Liberals sent) under equipped without helicopters to move themselves around in? Do I need to remind you that thanks to Trudeau and Chretien the poor men and women in Afghanistan are fighting with equipment from the 1960's? Our military has been so sorely neglected under the Liberals that NOT investing in it would have left it impotent. It's despicable the Liberals would send them to Afghanistan in the first place with the sort of equipment they're using right now.

Mulroney sold our heavy lift helicopters and bought the Ilitis. Martin began an agrressive purchase plan for equipment. Harper cancelled $3 billion of that spending a few week ago.

In any event, the overspending is in areas other than defence and aboriginal affairs.

I'll tell you one last time. In an economic slowdown, BASIC economic theory is to spend (invest) money in the economy to smooth out short term fluctations. Increasing spending while revenues are decreasing MAY seem silly to you, but it's sound economic theory tried and tested for the last 100 years.

The economy was clipping along until very recently and Harper was still breaking his promise not to go overbudget.

Running an enormous deficit a la Trudeau/Mulroney days would be bad. Bookmark this thread. If Harper runs a great big fat deficit I'll be switching camps. I can't justify that and I wouldn't even try unless something completely ridiculous were to happen (like a plague or a nuke).

I've seen too many Conservatives try to justify Harper turnaround on things like income trusts. He hammered the Liberals on that and now it is the right thing to do?

With that said my background in economics and finance would make me EXPECT the government to be spending with a cooling economy but feel free to ignore that point again.

I'll repeat again: Thank you Stephen Harper for lowering my taxes. I prefer having my taxes lowered than having them back where they were under the Liberals and I much prefer this to an indirect tax on my wallet via the Green Shift.

Harper's plan will add $8 to $9 billion with his environment plan. I guess that is brilliant indirect taxes though.

[marksman]

Actually, I loved Mike Harris and Flaherty at the provincial level. The Liberals in the 1980's followed Trudeau's example and sent the province spiralling into debt. It was so bad that the province ended up electing an NDP government of all things. While Rae did better than the provincial Liberals, it was Mike Harris and Flaherty that had fix the province's finances. Now we have a whining Liberal sop as our premier and his backward economic theory is just making Ontario's economic slowdown worse.

Harris and Flaherty did "fix" ON's finances just maybe not the way you meant. They may've improved the financial situation but all their talk of balancing the budget was exageration. They balanced budgets by selling off assets like the 407 then people were surprised when after those assets were gone ON had budget problems. They hadn't really brought everything into order they just delayed the pain. This was better than spending into debt but it's far from the financial feat they claimed. It's easy to balance your budget when you make 1 time deals but it's not a sustainable longterm strategy.

I'll repeat again: Thank you Stephen Harper for lowering my taxes. I prefer having my taxes lowered than having them back where they were under the Liberals and I much prefer this to an indirect tax on my wallet via the Green Shift.

I remember reading analyses of Harper's and Martin's tax plans in the last election. They were almost identical in total savings and Harper's plan overall would've reduced taxes by only a few million more than Martin's. The big difference was that under Martin's plan most people would've got equal tax breaks but Harper's plan gave bigger breaks to a smaller number of people. That's because Harper's plan raised income taxes and involved the GST and tax credits but Martin's was more generic income tax cuts. After the election Harper did endup lowering the income rate back down and I think threw in a few more goodies but I'd have expected that from any minority government whether it was Martin or Harper.

The carbon tax is put on fuel you buy and use is that any more indirect than the GST?

[DrGreenthumb]

Harris and Flaherty did "fix" ON's finances just maybe not the way you meant. They may've improved the financial situation but all their talk of balancing the budget was exageration. They balanced budgets by selling off assets like the 407 then people were surprised when after those assets were gone ON had budget problems. They hadn't really brought everything into order they just delayed the pain. This was better than spending into debt but it's far from the financial feat they claimed. It's easy to balance your budget when you make 1 time deals but it's not a sustainable longterm strategy.

I remember reading analyses of Harper's and Martin's tax plans in the last election. They were almost identical in total savings and Harper's plan overall would've reduced taxes by only a few million more than Martin's. The big difference was that under Martin's plan most people would've got equal tax breaks but Harper's plan gave bigger breaks to a smaller number of people. That's because Harper's plan raised income taxes and involved the GST and tax credits but Martin's was more generic income tax cuts. After the election Harper did endup lowering the income rate back down and I think threw in a few more goodies but I'd have expected that from any minority government whether it was Martin or Harper.

The carbon tax is put on fuel you buy and use is that any more indirect than the GST?

Watch out marksman, moonbox put me on ignore for pointing out that conservatives balance their books by selling off public assets, when they are done handing over all the public funds to their rich friends. Filmon balanced his books by selling our telephone system, Harper balanced his by the one time spectrum selloff. Four more years off Harper will have our economy completely flushed down the toilet. I swear the liberals must build up our surplus's in case of a dire economical emergency, like a conservative government getting their hands in the till., or a Hurricane, or country wide tornadoes. So far its only been used up in the case of a tory government spending us into the ground while cutting taxes to those who can most afford them tho.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Wait for it. " Its all about the economy stupid. " Harper will win this election, and he will do it without my vote. Ontario is in a shambles, and that folks is Canada's economic heartland. I am a westerner and I can say with some confidence that it simply doesn't matter how well Alberta and the rest of the west are doing. When more than a third of the population lives in central Canada and they are experiencing economic difficulty and the public is looking for solutions, in democratic terms the west doesn't count. If Harper picks up support in Quebec and Ontario he wins, nothing new there.

What is new is the crisis in the USA and the spin off impact to Canada. If the government thinks for one minute that the nation is immune from the effects of a downturn in the US economy it will be in for a rude awakening. Ontario relies on the auto industry, almost to the extent that Alberta relies on the oil industry. Here comes India and China who will very shortly begin selling cars here. Don't expect them to start building auto plants here folks. They may, if the government reacts harshly, but if the government is Harper's I have news for you. There will be no protectionist attitude, there will be no investment assistance. There will be even more trouble.

The government does indeed need to spend a lot of money on infrastructure, but again don't expect Harper to do it. This is where citizens are in error, because there is a large difference between deficit program spending which yields not a dime in revenues and infrastructure spending which draws investment to take advantage of it. The current "fiscally conservative" attitude has much support, yet it gets that support from an uneducated public. A manipulated public is actually the case, their opinions being formulated by extreme effort on the part of politicians.

Harper called this election because the economy is about half a step from the abyss and he knows it. He knows he will be the one to take the heat over it and doesn't want a political campaign during the firestorm because that would be an uphill battle. So he calls an election prior to the first effects are being harshly felt. Astute call on his part.

This election is not about economic direction, yet it should be. It is about Harper retaining power. The truth is that in the best interests of the nation his government should fall, but it won't. We are about to enter a new phase in our development, one in which Mulroney was very key in creating. With both the US and Canada in economic freefall the entire concept of a North American Union becomes more and more viable. That is so because between the two nations we would have sufficient resources and productive capacity to actually turn our economies around. Pie in the sky you say? Time will tell.

[Moonbox]

What? What about all the Atlantic MPs? What about MacKay and Prentice?

Touché. Prentice was a federal PC since 1976. Even so, Harper quit the federal progressive conservative party in the 1980's out of disgust and his lowering of taxes really doesn't lead to a reasonable comparison of the conservatives of today compared to the Mulroney wannabe Liberals.

The Peterson government ended the deficit in 1989-1990. They were among the first governments in North America to end deficit spending.

No they didn't. They proposed a balanced budget in 1990 which ended up being a great big fat deficit by the time Bob Rae took over. I will have to admit that saying Bob Rae did any better is categorically wrong. He led Ontario to its highest deficits albeit during an economic recession but now he's a federal Liberal now so that doesn't really hurt my argument.

We certainly know that Flaherty had a government in deficit.

In 1999-2000 Ontario recorded a $668 million surplus, balancing the budget one full year ahead of the schedule laid out in the government's Balanced Budget Plan. With a $3,325 million surplus in 2000-01 and an interim surplus of $58 million for 2001-02, Ontario achieved three consecutive budget surpluses.

When Ernie Eves succeeded Mike Harris as the Premier of Ontario, Jim Flaherty was not reinstated as the Minister of Finance. That means that Jim Flaherty left the province of Ontario with a budget in surplus.

Even in Ontario business taxes are lower than the U.S. according to the KPMG study I already posted. Further study by the Globe said the Canadians rate was 43% versus the U.S. at 46%.

I'm not talking about business income taxes. What difference do they really make when entire industries in Ontario are failing? Lowering income taxes on these businesses isn't all of the sudden going to make them profitable again. I'm talking about capital investment taxes, of which Ontario has the fourth highest in the WORLD. What you're effectively doing is over taxing companies that potentially want to start, grow or expand their business in Ontario. These are companies that would create jobs to replace the ones being lost by backwards thinking corporations who are bleeding money (see GM/Ford/Chrysler).

C.D. Howe Institute on Ontario Business Taxes

It can be better but Harper playing the blame game with Ontario was a stupid thing. If Flaherty wants to run in Ontario, he should quite and run for a seat again in that province.

When Ontario accounts for the vast majority of Canada's economic slowdown and when the province also has the one of the most anti-investment tax policies in the world I think he MIGHT be on to something. Encourage new business. Don't scare it away with high taxes.

Mulroney sold our heavy lift helicopters and bought the Ilitis. Martin began an agrressive purchase plan for equipment. Harper cancelled $3 billion of that spending a few week ago.

Mulroney was a bonehead and Martin made a plan to buy new helicopters. He didn't make a plan to purchase the helicopters way over budget during an economic slowdown. All of the bidders came in over budget. Now what?

I've seen too many Conservatives try to justify Harper turnaround on things like income trusts. He hammered the Liberals on that and now it is the right thing to do?

Harper's plan will add $8 to $9 billion with his environment plan. I guess that is brilliant indirect taxes though.

The difference is that Harper hasn't made the environment a priority for this election and he's not likely to implement ANY plan on the environment in the near future. Dion has staked his entire campaign on the Green Shift. He's promising billions to Atlantic fishing fleets and for people to make their houses more energy efficient. That's cool and all, but his platform appears to be environment first and economy second and that's not striking a chord with Canadians.

[jdobbin]

Touché. Prentice was a federal PC since 1976. Even so, Harper quit the federal progressive conservative party in the 1980's out of disgust and his lowering of taxes really doesn't lead to a reasonable comparison of the conservatives of today compared to the Mulroney wannabe Liberals.

The spending certainly is the same.

No they didn't. They proposed a balanced budget in 1990 which ended up being a great big fat deficit by the time Bob Rae took over. I will have to admit that saying Bob Rae did any better is categorically wrong. He led Ontario to its highest deficits albeit during an economic recession but now he's a federal Liberal now so that doesn't really hurt my argument.

In 1989-1990, the Ontario government registered a surplus. The next budget registered a $3 billion dollar deficit.

Ontario was one of the first government's in North America to register a suplus.

In 1999-2000 Ontario recorded a $668 million surplus, balancing the budget one full year ahead of the schedule laid out in the government's Balanced Budget Plan. With a $3,325 million surplus in 2000-01 and an interim surplus of $58 million for 2001-02, Ontario achieved three consecutive budget surpluses.

All true.

When Ernie Eves succeeded Mike Harris as the Premier of Ontario, Jim Flaherty was not reinstated as the Minister of Finance. That means that Jim Flaherty left the province of Ontario with a budget in surplus.

However, most economic experts say that the way Ontario recorded surpluses and deficits was not standard and that the surplus Flaherty boasted about ended up being huge deficits later on.

I'm not talking about business income taxes. What difference do they really make when entire industries in Ontario are failing? Lowering income taxes on these businesses isn't all of the sudden going to make them profitable again. I'm talking about capital investment taxes, of which Ontario has the fourth highest in the WORLD. What you're effectively doing is over taxing companies that potentially want to start, grow or expand their business in Ontario. These are companies that would create jobs to replace the ones being lost by backwards thinking corporations who are bleeding money (see GM/Ford/Chrysler).

Why didn't Flaherty reduce taxes in those areas when he was finance minister of Ontario?

And why does he criticize just Ontario when Saskatchewan has the same tax issue? It is just partisan bashing from someone who wants to be premier of Ontario.

When Ontario accounts for the vast majority of Canada's economic slowdown and when the province also has the one of the most anti-investment tax policies in the world I think he MIGHT be on to something. Encourage new business. Don't scare it away with high taxes.

I guess Flaherty telling the world not to invest in Ontario isn't exactly encouraging new business.

Mulroney was a bonehead and Martin made a plan to buy new helicopters. He didn't make a plan to purchase the helicopters way over budget during an economic slowdown. All of the bidders came in over budget. Now what?

Now what is that Harper has to lease helicopters which could end up costing a lot of money.

The difference is that Harper hasn't made the environment a priority for this election and he's not likely to implement ANY plan on the environment in the near future. Dion has staked his entire campaign on the Green Shift. He's promising billions to Atlantic fishing fleets and for people to make their houses more energy efficient. That's cool and all, but his platform appears to be environment first and economy second and that's not striking a chord with Canadians.

You keep forgetting that Harper's plan as it is will still be costly, possibly moreso that the Liberal one. Are you saying that Harper is not telling the truth when he says he will implement it?

[Moonbox]

Harris and Flaherty did "fix" ON's finances just maybe not the way you meant. They may've improved the financial situation but all their talk of balancing the budget was exageration. They balanced budgets by selling off assets like the 407 then people were surprised when after those assets were gone ON had budget problems.

They also cut social assistance rates by 22% because it was being abused, eliminated OAC in high schools and closed down hospitals the government couldn't afford because of Federal Liberal cuts in transfer payments. They cut provincial income taxes by something nuts like 30% from what I remember reading and that helps me as a taxpayer rather than the 500,000 useless people Harris took off of Ontario's Welfare rolls. For the record, I think that the selling of the 407 was a bad decision but the bulk of Harris' budget balancing most certainly DID come from frugal spending.

The carbon tax is put on fuel you buy and use is that any more indirect than the GST?

Nobody is claiming that the GST is revenue-neutral and that families don't feel its effect. Dion and the Liberals are saying the Green Shift is revenue neutral. This is rubbish. It's another tax and spend equalization plan for poor people.

[Moonbox]

The spending certainly is the same.

In 1989-1990, the Ontario government registered a surplus. The next budget registered a $3 billion dollar deficit.

Well done? Wait no...

Ontario was one of the first government's in North America to register a suplus.

and it didn't last more than a few months.

However, most economic experts say that the way Ontario recorded surpluses and deficits was not standard and that the surplus Flaherty boasted about ended up being huge deficits later on.

That really doesn't mean anything unless you can come up with some reputable citations to back that up. The huge deficits, however, are wild exaggerations on McGuinty's part seeing as though he's increased spending since Harris left.

Why didn't Flaherty reduce taxes in those areas when he was finance minister of Ontario?

because he already reduced provincial income tax by 30% and making further reductions all at once might not be prudent? Also, Ontario's economy wasn't bleeding jobs in dying industries with nothing to replace them.

And why does he criticize just Ontario when Saskatchewan has the same tax issue? It is just partisan bashing from someone who wants to be premier of Ontario.

Because SK's natural resource industry is absorbing the effects of any sort of recessionary pressures. Ontario's economy is fully exposed to everything that happens in the US and is suffering accordingly. Saskatchewan is doing fine. I'm sure Flaherty doesn't agree with their high taxes, but there's no point in criticizing a province that is having no trouble finding investors.

Corporations aren't stupid when choosing where and how to invest. They see how high taxes are and make decisions on a ton of different variables including this. Ontario's economy is not suffering because Flaherty said it's an unattractive place to invest. They already see how high the taxes are. Crying about how unfair he's being for openly criticizing the McGuinty government for being shortminded is silly.

You keep forgetting that Harper's plan as it is will still be costly, possibly moreso that the Liberal one. Are you saying that Harper is not telling the truth when he says he will implement it?

Unless you can come up with a citation where he guarantees he'll implement his plan, I'm not biting on that one. If you do manage to find one then yes, I firmly believe that his environmental plan would be left on the backburner, changed a hundred times and then slowly implemented years from now if he decides to do anything with it at all.

[marksman]

They also cut social assistance rates by 22% because it was being abused, eliminated OAC in high schools and closed down hospitals the government couldn't afford because of Federal Liberal cuts in transfer payments. They cut provincial income taxes by something nuts like 30% from what I remember reading and that helps me as a taxpayer rather than the 500,000 useless people Harris took off of Ontario's Welfare rolls. For the record, I think that the selling of the 407 was a bad decision but the bulk of Harris' budget balancing most certainly DID come from frugal spending.

Harris did take other steps to balance ON's budgets but all I'm saying is that despite those steps the only reasons the budgets ended up balanced so early was because he sold off assets which can't be sold again. There're ways to balance the budget that only work shortterm and ways that are sustainable in the longterm. Selling off assets is a shortterm solution. So I'm saying that I find those claims that he balanced the budget so quickly to be exageration.

Nobody is claiming that the GST is revenue-neutral and that families don't feel its effect. Dion and the Liberals are saying the Green Shift is revenue neutral. This is rubbish. It's another tax and spend equalization plan for poor people.

How's that rubbish? The point of the Green Shift is that the carbon tax in addition to income tax savings will be revenue-neutral for the government and that most families will see their increased expenditures on the carbon tax balanced by reduced expenditures on income tax.

I won't be surprised if the government's revenue from the carbon tax isn't equal to the cent with its reduction in income tax revenue but that's no different from any other economic policy. Every tax reduction proposed by a politician never costs exactly what they say because its hard to predict to the cent. It's also no different than Harper's claim that people would save $400 with his GST cut. It was really unlikely that the average Canadian would've saved that much but it didn't stop Harper's claim. If the Green Shift is a tax plan for poor people then the GST cut was a tax plan for rich people. Of the 2 I'd choose to help poor people.

[Moonbox]

Harris did take other steps to balance ON's budgets but all I'm saying is that despite those steps the only reasons the budgets ended up balanced so early was because he sold off assets which can't be sold again. There're ways to balance the budget that only work shortterm and ways that are sustainable in the longterm. Selling off assets is a shortterm solution. So I'm saying that I find those claims that he balanced the budget so quickly to be exageration.

I'm not ignoring that he sold off assets. Yes, I know that helped. Personally I think the 407 sale was a bad move. With that said, he DID make the most drastic expenditure cuts the province has really ever seen. Budget balancing takes time and in this case they set Ontario back on track after Peterson and Rae. The Ontario Liberals are wildly exaggerating their claims that Harris mismanaged finances. The finances just didn't work into the Ontario Liberal's plan and that's just too bad for them.

How's that rubbish? The point of the Green Shift is that the carbon tax in addition to income tax savings will be revenue-neutral for the government and that most families will see their increased expenditures on the carbon tax balanced by reduced expenditures on income tax.

Go play with the Green Shift calculator on the Liberal website. The savings are directed almost entirely towards the VERY BOTTOM income earners. It's crap for anyone with anything better than a job at Mcdonald's or without two kids. Seriously. Try it out.