Paul Martin (rightfully) blasts Tory spending

[wulf42]

One of the major reasons for this deficit is fighting an unneeded war in Afghanistan.

To say this is dishonoring the troops serving bravely in Afghanistan.....................this unwarranted war as you called it...is keeping the filthy animals scumbag Taliban and Al-Qaeda pinned down in caves and taking away their ability to launch attacks in North America....they are to busy trying to survive in their own backyard to attack us here.......this war is needed to destroy the terrorist enemy...to hunt the Terrorist down in his own backyard and kill them entirely......all you hear on the news is when Canadians get killed or wounded you don't hear the successes Canadian and Nato troops are having against this scum...... they (Nato) are slaughtering them by the hundreds maybe the news should support our troops and report that!

Edited October 26, 2008 by wulf42

[jdobbin]

To say this is dishonoring the troops serving bravely in Afghanistan.....................this unwarranted war as you called it...is keeping the filthy animals scumbag Taliban and Al-Qaeda pinned down in caves and taking away their ability to launch attacks in North America....they are to busy trying to survive in their own backyard to attack us here.......this war is needed to destroy the terrorist enemy...to hunt the Terrorist down in his own backyard and kill them entirely......all you here on the news is when Canadians get killed or wounded you don't here the successes Canadian and Nato troops are having against this scum...... they (Nato) are slaughtering them by the hundreds maybe the news should support our troops and report that!

The media do report killing them in the hundreds, in the thousands. The problem is there is an endless supply that comes streaming across the border from Pakistan where they have safe harbour.

Moreover, the corruption and ineptitude of the Afghan government seems to know no bounds. Canada could be there a century or more before the situation could be stable.

In the end the best strategy might be to let the Afghans handle their factious people and to have a rapid deployment strike force nearby to smack down any attempt to launch attacks outside the borders of Afghanistan.

Since Harper plans on pulling the troops out at the end of the deadline, you must think he is a traitor and will be looking for a new party to support next time, right?

[normanchateau]

I do know that governments must absolutely control spending. It is government spending that is the problem - not government deficits or surpluses. A profligate government (such as Harper's) can also claim to have balanced its budget. Is a profligate government good?

Harper is incapable of controlling even spending on the arts.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=726631

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for example, will receive $1.1 billion from Harper this year, an increase of $133 million or 13.5 per cent compared to the last year under the Liberals.

• The Department of Canadian Heritage will spend $1.4 billion this year, up $273 million or 24.4 per cent compared to 2006.

• The Canada Council for the Arts will spend $181 million this year, up $30.3 million or 20.2 per cent.

• The National Arts Centre Corporation will spend nearly $50 million this year, up $18.3 million or nearly 60 per cent compared to the Liberals.

• The National Gallery of Canada will spend $53.3 million, up $8.8 million or nearly 20 per cent.

Conservatives attack Martin for spending while they spend far more than Martin ever did and call themselves fiscal conservatives.

[wulf42]

The media do report killing them in the hundreds, in the thousands. The problem is there is an endless supply that comes streaming across the border from Pakistan where they have safe harbour.

Moreover, the corruption and ineptitude of the Afghan government seems to know no bounds. Canada could be there a century or more before the situation could be stable.

In the end the best strategy might be to let the Afghans handle their factious people and to have a rapid deployment strike force nearby to smack down any attempt to launch attacks outside the borders of Afghanistan.

Since Harper plans on pulling the troops out at the end of the deadline, you must think he is a traitor and will be looking for a new party to support next time, right?

No i don't think Harper is a traitor.........i think he is the Best leader this country has had in a long time.......the reason for pulling out in 2011

is to try to put pressure on Afghanistan to start taking control of their future.......i doubt that a pullout will happen honestly.......The U.S. is starting to attack the scum in Pakistan now hitting them with missiles in their so called "safe havens" but of course our stupid media only reports when unintended civilians get hurt or killed....but nevermind the hundreds of scum we kill...............these so called innocent civilians

are likely aiding these animals .........Canada is doing a great job killing these vermin and i my opinion our troops should stay there and if it means for years then thats what has to happen............do you really think after we killed thousands of them then pull out and come home they won't come to Canada and attack us???...........its a war to the finish.

[normanchateau]

........Canada is doing a great job killing these vermin and i my opinion our troops should stay there and if it means for years then thats what has to happen............

That was Harper's position as well until he decided that he wanted to call another election. All of a sudden, Harper now claims Canada will leave in 2011 whether the Taliban are winning or losing.

Conservatives would be outraged if a Liberal PM were to announce that he'd cut and run from the enemy and even tell the enemy the date.

I wonder why Harper flipflopped. Honourable principles or slimy pandering for Quebec votes?

[jdobbin]

No i don't think Harper is a traitor.........i think he is the Best leader this country has had in a long time.......the reason for pulling out in 2011

is to try to put pressure on Afghanistan to start taking control of their future.......i doubt that a pullout will happen honestly

So Harper is lying again like he was on fixed elections.

.......The U.S. is starting to attack the scum in Pakistan now hitting them with missiles in their so called "safe havens" but of course our stupid media only reports when unintended civilians get hurt or killed....but nevermind the hundreds of scum we kill...............these so called innocent civilians

The only way the U.S. or NATO be able to stop the stream of infiltrators from Pakistan is if Pakistan does it themselves or the allies invade Pakistan. Doubt that is going to happen unless nuclear weapons are used.

are likely aiding these animals .........Canada is doing a great job killing these vermin and i my opinion our troops should stay there and if it means for years then thats what has to happen............do you really think after we killed thousands of them then pull out and come home they won't come to Canada and attack us???...........its a war to the finish.

I think we could be there for many centuries and the war won't be finished.

[capricorn]

It is totally clear the Conservative government under Harper has damaged the Canadian Government's Fiscal Position in a way that will set it back atleast 10 or 15 years.

It is totally clear that people like you who now support the rudderless Liberals were either asleep during post-Trudeau times or you were still in the womb. Otherwise you'd have a pretty good clue about how Canada's economy unfolded over the last 35 years or so.

They have effectively sold off and sold out Canada.

More rhetoric, devoid of facts.

One of the major reasons for this deficit is fighting an unneeded war in Afghanistan.

There is still a chance that the government will post a modest year-end surplus. But don't let this stop you from joining the chorus of "Conservatives=deficit".

About Afghanistan, you may or may not know (or recall) that it was Chretien who committed our ill-equipped military to a war in Afghanistan. The Liberals had previously decimated our military by cutting back its funding and failing to equip them properly. Committing a military to war is the most far reaching decision a government can take. On this basis alone, by deploying a wanting military into war the Liberals failed in a major foreign policy decision.

The Conservatives acted to increase the odds of survival of our troops by equipping them properly. They also acted to meet a NATO/UN commitment made by the Liberals on behalf of Canada. Thankfully, this country still has honour.

[capricorn]

That was Harper's position as well until he decided that he wanted to call another election. All of a sudden, Harper now claims Canada will leave in 2011 whether the Taliban are winning or losing.

It is not Harper's position, it is the position of the Canadian Parliament.

A confidence motion to keep Canadian soldiers in Kandahar until 2011 has passed easily in the House of Commons.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/13/...confidence.html

Why don't you research the facts before you pull statements out of your derriere?

Conservatives would be outraged if a Liberal PM were to announce that he'd cut and run from the enemy and even tell the enemy the date.

Utter crap. Harper is listening to Canadians and hopefully Liberals would too. The outrage you speak of is strictly yours.

The survey, conducted between July 12-16 for CTV and The Globe and Mail, suggests the level of intensity for Canadians strongly opposed to the mission is far greater than those who are in firm support: (percentage point change from a July 12-15, 2006 poll in brackets):

* Total Support: 36 per cent (-3)

* Strongly Support: 7 per cent (-1)

* Support: 29 per cent (-2)

* Oppose: 31 per cent (same)

* Strongly oppose: 27 per cent (+2)

* Total Oppose: 59 per cent (+3)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...70718/20070718/

I wonder why Harper flipflopped. Honourable principles or slimy pandering for Quebec votes?

You have zero credibility. Just keep pulling stuff out of the air and feel smart doing it.

[normanchateau]

Harper is listening to Canadians and hopefully Liberals would too. The outrage you speak of is strictly yours.

Harper listening to Canadians? Utter crap and outrageous.

A majority of Canadians not only support decriminalization of marijuana, a position consistent with that of other political parties, but a majority also support the legalization of marijuana:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

[normanchateau]

It is not Harper's position, it is the position of the Canadian Parliament.

Parliament voted to extend the mission to 2011. Harper's position is that we will cut and run in 2011 whether the Taliban are winning or losing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2...fghanistan.html

There has been no vote to extend the mission beyond 2011.

[capricorn]

Harper listening to Canadians? Utter crap and outrageous.

A majority of Canadians not only support decriminalization of marijuana, a position consistent with that of other political parties, but a majority also support the legalization of marijuana:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

Oh lookie. I said "Harper is listening to Canadians" and failed to add "on the Afghanistan question". Because, that was the topic of discussion, was it not? Normanchateau's inane statements on the Afghanistan war were demolished but he found a convenient aperture to introduce a completely different topic into the discussion. How very crafty of you.

[capricorn]

Parliament voted to extend the mission to 2011.

Why are you repeating what I said in one of my previous posts?

Harper's position is that we will cut and run in 2011 whether the Taliban are winning or losing:

You're repeating yourself.

There has been no vote to extend the mission beyond 2011.

It's an improvement that you found that out all by yourself and didn't need my help.

[White Doors]

That may be how you imagine government, but that's not how I see it. I want my government to be responsible and pay down debt. That way, we can have lower taxes and higher spending in the long run. Tax cuts right now are nice and all, but if all they end up doing is adding to the debt and increasing service charges thereby compounding the problem and resulting in either service cuts or a tax increase at a later time, what have they really accomplished?

But they haven't. We are not in deficit. We should post a small surplus for this year, ending in April.

So far we have a surplus. Taxes have been cut quite a bit. That is a good thing, espially in light of what is happening now. Ask a home builder how much they like the GST cut.

Also, what about the poor people who pay no income tax? They don't want an income tax, they want their money to go further. They not count anymore?

[Smallc]

But they haven't. We are not in deficit. We should post a small surplus for this year, ending in April.

So far we have a surplus. Taxes have been cut quite a bit. That is a good thing, espially in light of what is happening now. Ask a home builder how much they like the GST cut.

Also, what about the poor people who pay no income tax? They don't want an income tax, they want their money to go further. They not count anymore?

I said, the tax cuts are a good thing, they just may have a been brought in a bit too fast. If we start going int deficit now, we destroy all the work that has been done over the last few years trying to get us out of deficit and debt. I know we are still ok and I really hope it stays that way as I don't hate Mr. Harper and I even voted for him. I was just pointing out something that I thought could have been left to its original date (the GST cut) to ensure we stay in the black (and even that money may not have been enough to do it if next years projections are right).

Edited October 27, 2008 by Smallc

[White Doors]

I said, the tax cuts are a good thing, they just may have a been brought in a bit too fast. If we start going int deficit now, we destroy all the work that has been done over the last few years trying to get us out of deficit and debt. I know we are still ok and I really hope it stays that way as I don't hate Mr. Harper and I even voted for him. I was just pointing out something that I thought could have been left to its original date (the GST cut) to ensure we stay in the black (and even that money may not have been enough to do it if next years projections are right).

With how the financial's are not performing right now, putting in the second cut to GST early looks like divine provenance in retrospect from where I am sitting.

Edited October 27, 2008 by White Doors

[Argus]

It is totally clear the Conservative government under Harper has damaged the Canadian Government's Fiscal Position in a way that will set it back atleast 10 or 15 years. They have totally been irresponsible to Canada and its assets, and curried to megacorps.

Those of us who don't get messages through our tinfoil caps, on the other hand, don't see things the same way.

Can you suggest how the government has damaged anything - oh right, they decided not to tax us an extra fifteen billion dollars above what they thought they needed. Damn them!

As for this hoary old cliché about the tories and corporations, I remind you - or more likely, I inform you - that for the last twenty years Elections Canada documents have shown that the great majority of donations to the Liberal Party have come in the form of very large donations from a small group of wealthy people, and corporations. The Tories, on the other hand, have always gotten almost all their donations in small amounts from a vast group of contributors.

One of the major reasons for this deficit is fighting an unneeded war in Afghanistan.

Complete and utter nonsense, and it was the Liberals who sent us there anyway.

[Argus]

This 10 Billion Deficit is just over half the over $18 Billion the war costs Canada

What 10 billion dollar deficit are you talking about? The one your tinfoil cap told you about?

[Argus]

There is a reason why Mulroney's cohorts were reduced to 2 seats in the election that followed Mulroney leaving. Present day Conservatives should keep that in mind before trumpeting that brilliant "bigger" picture of Mulroney rule.

I remind you that the Tories were AHEAD in the polls until Kim Campbell totally blew the campaign.

There was still a huge deficit after 8 years of Mulroney rule.

Well Duh. They were in the midst of the deepest recession in a generation, with double digit unemployment and interest rates approaching 20%. Mulroney had to pay about $41 billion every year on debt servicing costs on Trudeau's debt. That totally hamstrung him. Ninety percent of the money he had to borrow during his time in office was simply to pay the debt servicing costs.

There was no meaningful cuts when he was prime minister.

I guess he felt that the midst of a deep, hard recession was not the time to be cutting transfer payments to the provinces for health, education and welfare. Clearly the cold-hearted Liberals felt otherwise.

He raised taxes 19 times not including the GST which was a replacement for the MST.

When you've got a big deficit you have to either cut spending or raise taxes.

The following years were not just a case of added revenues ending the deficit no matter what twisted logic that Tories wish to repeat with such gullible orgiastic enthusiasm. It required cuts in government service and programming the like of which had not been seen in Canadian history.

Nonsense. First, the federal government didn't really cut much of its own spending. Instead it preferred to cut transfer payments to the provinces, and let them worry about cutting. Second, the immense increase in tax revenue after the recession ended was almost entirely responsible for the balanced budgets - not the cutbacks earlier.

[Argus]

The media do report killing them in the hundreds, in the thousands. The problem is there is an endless supply that comes streaming across the border from Pakistan where they have safe harbour.

I think the Americans should spend a few months simply carpet bombing everything along the Paksitani border. Just fly their old B-52s back and forth and turn the whole place into a wasteland. Pakistan can snivel all it wants about its "sovereignty" but it either has no control over the area - in which case it has no soverignty, or its allowing their people to attack their neighbour - in which case, screw em.

[Argus]

Parliament voted to extend the mission to 2011. Harper's position is that we will cut and run in 2011 whether the Taliban are winning or losing:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2...fghanistan.html

There has been no vote to extend the mission beyond 2011.

Why are you snivelling anyway? The NDP position is that we should cut and run now, today. that we should, in effect, abandon our equipment, guns, even our sleeping rolls, run, not walk to anything we can fly out of there, and come home, never again to fight anywhere for any reason whatsoever - unless it's, like, to save Africans in Darfur, of course.

The Liberal position is that we lay down our weapons, embrace the taliban, explain to them that we're only there to help build schools and roads and such, and then let them cut our throats. Sure, Canadians will die, but they'll die nobly.

So which party do you support again?

[Argus]

Harper is incapable of controlling even spending on the arts.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=726631

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for example, will receive $1.1 billion from Harper this year, an increase of $133 million or 13.5 per cent compared to the last year under the Liberals.

• The Department of Canadian Heritage will spend $1.4 billion this year, up $273 million or 24.4 per cent compared to 2006.

• The Canada Council for the Arts will spend $181 million this year, up $30.3 million or 20.2 per cent.

• The National Arts Centre Corporation will spend nearly $50 million this year, up $18.3 million or nearly 60 per cent compared to the Liberals.

• The National Gallery of Canada will spend $53.3 million, up $8.8 million or nearly 20 per cent.

Thank you for providing us with the data on where the Conservatives should be making cuts in their next budget. I'm sure someone will be passing it along to them.

[Keepitsimple]

Harper is incapable of controlling even spending on the arts.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=726631

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for example, will receive $1.1 billion from Harper this year, an increase of $133 million or 13.5 per cent compared to the last year under the Liberals.

• The Department of Canadian Heritage will spend $1.4 billion this year, up $273 million or 24.4 per cent compared to 2006.

• The Canada Council for the Arts will spend $181 million this year, up $30.3 million or 20.2 per cent.

• The National Arts Centre Corporation will spend nearly $50 million this year, up $18.3 million or nearly 60 per cent compared to the Liberals.

• The National Gallery of Canada will spend $53.3 million, up $8.8 million or nearly 20 per cent.

Conservatives attack Martin for spending while they spend far more than Martin ever did and call themselves fiscal conservatives.

These are lies.....all lies - you must have made this up just to support your argument. Are you saying all those Quebecers were wrong? We know that Harper cut funding for the arts and we know that he hates culture and is ripping apart the fabric of our society. Don't we?

[jdobbin]

I think the Americans should spend a few months simply carpet bombing everything along the Paksitani border. Just fly their old B-52s back and forth and turn the whole place into a wasteland. Pakistan can snivel all it wants about its "sovereignty" but it either has no control over the area - in which case it has no soverignty, or its allowing their people to attack their neighbour - in which case, screw em.

In which case, I can imagine nuclear weapons might eventually come into play.

[Mr.Canada]

In which case, I can imagine nuclear weapons might eventually come into play.

They should have launched a couple ICBMs already. It would have saved many Allied lives.

[Renegade]

That's utter nonsense but rather than argue this in theory, let me be very practical.

When you borrow, what is your best rate? For example, what is the interest rate on your mortgage? (If you don't borrow or don't have a mortgage, imagine what rate a bank would lend to you.)

Now, SmallC, do you know at what interest rate the Canadian federal government borrows? If you don't know: It is below anything that you or I borrow. The Canadian federal government borrows at around 2%-3%.

IOW, the federal government is taxing Canadians (who have a mortgage at 5% or credit card debt at 15%) and using the money to pay back government debt at 3%. A first rule of finance is to pay back the debt of higher interest.

August your scenario ignores some important considerations. It is only rational that I support government borrowing if the borrowing flows through money to me to pay down the higher interest debt. Is government borrowing better than me borrowng? No, not if it means I directly or indirectly pay the debt costs without assurance that the benefit flows back to me to pay down my higher-interest debt. More than likely the borrowing will be used to fund programs which I may not benefit or only marginally benefit.