First Ministers Meeting

[jdobbin]

It is pretty much a time for the premiers to be demanding money from Ottawa.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081110/...nisters_meeting

Rescuing the teetering economy is the only item on the agenda as Prime Minister Stephen Harper sits down to a three-hour power lunch with Canada's premiers and territorial leaders.

The prime minister has been playing down expectations for the meeting, but several premiers - particularly Ontario's Dalton McGuinty - will be lobbying hard for a rescue package for the country's battered manufacturers.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty suggested Sunday the government may be willing to aid auto plants that have viable prospects.

The minister also said Ottawa is open to a new fiscal stimulus package to try to stave off a recession.

Starting to sound more and more like we will head for a deficit with this type of spending.

[Smallc]

It is pretty much a time for the premiers to be demanding money from Ottawa.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081110/...nisters_meeting

Starting to sound more and more like we will head for a deficit with this type of spending.

I was of the same mind as you until recently, but now I think its time to do what is needed to keep this economy going. If that means a deficit, then so be it.

[jdobbin]

I was of the same mind as you until recently, but now I think its time to do what is needed to keep this economy going. If that means a deficit, then so be it.

Once it starts, it is difficult to overcome without severe cuts later on. I have seen no indication that the Tories have been able to make those big cuts.

[Smallc]

Once it starts, it is difficult to overcome without severe cuts later on. I have seen no indication that the Tories have been able to make those big cuts.

I've seen no indication that they've had a reason to until now. Canadians won't accept a budget out of balance for an extended period. Right now though, we have to be at the table for a lot of things. We have to ensure we help the auto industry so those jobs aren't moved to the US. We have to make sure that we spend on infrastructure and other job creating areas. etc. This is an unprecedented crisis which calls for unprecedented response. We can worry about getting out of deficit after we get out of economic trouble.

[jdobbin]

I've seen no indication that they've had a reason to until now.

You've seen no indication why the Tories should have been keeping spending in check from 2006 to 2008?

Edited November 11, 2008 by jdobbin

[Smallc]

You've seen mo indication why the Tories should have been keeping spending in check from 2006 to 2008?

With the amount of money that was pouring in, there was really no reason to be thrifty. We had it to spend, we had it for tax cuts. Now, maybe they should have been a bit more careful, but the last thing we want to do right now is cut spending in most areas. Efficiencies should be found where possible, but we have to get money out in the system.

Overall, we have had good financial stewards in each of the last three Prime Ministers. Most economists seem to agree that we need to spend to get through this. Because of the good management we've had, we have more room to maneuver in this area than most others.

[jdobbin]

With the amount of money that was pouring in, there was really no reason to be thrifty. We had it to spend, we had it for tax cuts. Now, maybe they should have been a bit more careful, but the last thing we want to do right now is cut spending in most areas. Efficiencies should be found where possible, but we have to get money out in the system.

A basic princple should be applied in good times: don't spend over the rate of population growth and the rate of inflation. Harper can't seem to do that.

Overall, we have had good financial stewards in each of the last three Prime Ministers. Most economists seem to agree that we need to spend to get through this. Because of the good management we've had, we have more room to maneuver in this area than most others.

I disagree. The last two PMs should have been more steadfast in keeping spending down. Most economists are worried that once a deficit starts, it won't stop. Considering what Harper has done under good times, I suspect we might be in for a long haul of deficits.

[Smallc]

Most economists are worried that once a deficit starts, it won't stop.

Apparently we aren't listening to the same economists.

[jdobbin]

Apparently we aren't listening to the same economists.

You haven't heard Don Drummond from TD Bank on this subject? We have talked about it at length when he forecast deficits for a long time to come.

[capricorn]

Apparently we aren't listening to the same economists.

There are enough experts around with differing views, it's not difficult to find one that suit one's purpose.

[Bryan]

You've seen no indication why the Tories should have been keeping spending in check from 2006 to 2008?

The Liberals neglected a lot while they were in. It cost a lot of money to fix the mess they left. It's not fun, but eventually somebody has to pay the bills.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Bryan

[jdobbin]

The Liberals neglected a lot while they were in. It cost a lot of money to fix the mess they left. It's not fun, but eventually somebody has to pay the bills.

I know. UFO museums were not getting money till the Tories go in.

[jdobbin]

There are enough experts around with differing views, it's not difficult to find one that suit one's purpose.

So it is your opinion that if a $10 billion deficit happens next year that it will not be hard to get rid of it down the line?

[Smallc]

The Liberals neglected a lot while they were in. It cost a lot of money to fix the mess they left. It's not fun, but eventually somebody has to pay the bills.

Well, Paul Martin started the process of rebuilding after making such drastic cuts to eliminate the deficit. Spending had to be increased, as you say. The level of funding that was being provided wasn't enough to sustain vital services. We are at the point now I would say where there is ample funding for must programs. The last think that we want to do is cut deeply during a downturn.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Smallc

[Smallc]

I know. UFO museums were not getting money till the Tories go in.

If I were a Conservative, this may be the proper time to insert a quip about Liberal friendly Quebec ad agencies.

[jdobbin]

If I were a Conservative, this may be the proper time to insert a quip about Liberal friendly Quebec ad agencies.

And the Liberals lost because of that. You think the Tories should lose for deficits?

[Smallc]

And the Liberals lost because of that. You think the Tories should lose for deficits?

If we develop long term deficits? than maybe. Short term non structural deficits? no.

[jdobbin]

If we develop long term deficits? than maybe. Short term non structural deficits? no.

How about $2 billion this year, $10-12 billion next year, $10 billion the year after and $10 billion the year after that. Is that structural or poor management of spending?

[Bryan]

I know. UFO museums were not getting money till the Tories go in.

I assume you're talking about Shag Harbor. They got $2000. Compare that to the $25 BILLION the Liberals cut from healthcare, then add on the billions they cut from education and infrastructure.

Bottom line, the Liberals were terrible fiscal managers. Their so-called surplus was smoke and mirrors. The only thing they were good at was lying about it.

[Smallc]

How about $2 billion this year, $10-12 billion next year, $10 billion the year after and $10 billion the year after that. Is that structural or poor management of spending?

That would be structural. Other economists don't believe that will happen though, so we'll have to wait and see.

[jdobbin]

I assume you're talking about Shag Harbor. They got $2000. Compare that to the $25 BILLION the Liberals cut from healthcare, then add on the billions they cut from education and infrastructure.

There is a long list of Tory spending that has little to do with sound fiscal management. The restoration of $600 million to VIA, the increase in transfer payments and Conservative government spending on polls comes to mind.

Bottom line, the Liberals were terrible fiscal managers. Their so-called surplus was smoke and mirrors. The only thing they were good at was lying about it.

The deficit ended under that so-called fiscal bad management. That's no lie although some Tory supporters here seem to think so.

The Tories had eight years under Mulroney to end the deficit and never did.

[Bryan]

The deficit ended under that so-called fiscal bad management.

That is the big Liberal lie.

You can't just stop paying your bills and claim you have balanced the budget because you have money in the bank. Try that with your mortgage and see if the bank thinks you are a good fiscal manager.

Liberals did not balance the budget, they did not run surpluses. They moved spending off the books, and left major spending commitments unpaid. Enron and Worldcom executives went to prison for doing their books the way the Liberals did theirs.

[jdobbin]

That is the big Liberal lie.

I'm sure Conservative supporters think so. It is probably why they keep spending like there is no tomorrow and will find it difficult to stop even when they drive the country into enormous deficits.

You can't just stop paying your bills and claim you have balanced the budget because you have money in the bank. Try that with your mortgage and see if the bank thinks you are a good fiscal manager.

Liberals did not balance the budget, they did not run surpluses. They moved spending off the books, and left major spending commitments unpaid. Enron and Worldcom executives went to prison for doing their books the way the Liberals did theirs.

What utter crap. Bills were paid, spending was reduced. Provinces that always claimed that certain things were their responsibility could have kept funding areas that the Feds cut, but they cut themselves.

The big lie is the Conservative one that the deficit didn't end under the Liberals.

We are certainly seeing the Tories driving the country into a deficit with no prospect for reducing their already bloated spending.

[Bryan]

I'm sure Conservative supporters think so. It is probably why they keep spending like there is no tomorrow and will find it difficult to stop even when they drive the country into enormous deficits.

What utter crap. Bills were paid, spending was reduced. Provinces that always claimed that certain things were their responsibility could have kept funding areas that the Feds cut, but they cut themselves.

The big lie is the Conservative one that the deficit didn't end under the Liberals.

We are certainly seeing the Tories driving the country into a deficit with no prospect for reducing their already bloated spending.

$25 Billion cut from healthcare says that Liberals and their supporters have forfeited their right to judge anyone on their fiscal management. Take a look at how the finances of the party are going if you want to see how they really operate when they don't have taxpayers money to shove into their own pockets.

Paul Martin = the Ken Lay of Canadian politics.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Bryan

[jdobbin]

$25 Billion cut from healthcare says that Liberals and their supporters have forfeited their right to judge anyone on their fiscal management. Take a look at how the finances of the party are going if you want to see how they really operate when they don't have taxpayers money to shove into their own pockets.

Paul Martin = the Ken Lay of Canadian politics.

What utter nonsense. Even the Canadian Taxpayer Federation disagrees with you.

http://www.economicnews.ca/cepnews/wire/article/158438

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is slamming talks by federal Conservative leaders of the possibility of running a deficit. The group says the current government should take a page out of former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien's playbook and cut government spending.

Only a hyperpartisan Conservative supporter would be against programs cut to eliminate a deficit.

Edited November 12, 2008 by jdobbin