Flaherty to slash public funding for federal parties

[Alta4ever]

We aren't the US. It would be irrelevant. There's no reason to think that increases to infrastructure spending would not create jobs.

We may not be the US but the effects of thier bail outs will be felt here. Until we know how the golbal economy is reacting to it we are stupid to waste our money.

We are in the best economic shape of all countries in the world. To waste money until we know how this is going to effect us is stupid and wastefull.

Do you slap a patch on tire before you know where the leak is?

We don't even know what the Americans are going to in the Auto industry yet, should we not work in tandem with them for greatest effect?

[Alta4ever]

Seems to me that he is the frontrunner in a three person race. He will have been an MP the same amount of time Harper was if he becomes leader.

Seems to me he was the front runner in a previous race as well.

[jdobbin]

Seems to me he was the front runner in a previous race as well.

True. You think Rae is the likely winner or Leblanc?

[Smallc]

We may not be the US but the effects of thier bail outs will be felt here. Until we know how the golbal economy is reacting to it we are stupid to waste our money.

We are in the best economic shape of all countries in the world. To waste money until we know how this is going to effect us is stupid and wastefull.

Do you slap a patch on tire before you know where the leak is?

We don't even know what the Americans are going to in the Auto industry yet, should we not work in tandem with them for greatest effect?

Some economists agree with you, most don't. We have to act now and make sure we're not forced to follow a model the US puts out.

[Alta4ever]

True. You think Rae is the likely winner or Leblanc?

Unfortunatly I think Rae is the most likely victor.

[Alta4ever]

Some economists agree with you, most don't. We have to act now and make sure we're not forced to follow a model the US puts out.

What are we acting against if we don't know what the full problem is. Yes the foresty industry is down, but throwing money at loggers won't build houses or create new markets will it?.

Until we know exactly what the problem is we need not waste breath, nor funds.

To solve a problem you first have to identify the root of the problem.

[Smallc]

What are we acting against if we don't know what the full problem is. Yes the foresty industry is down, but throwing money at loggers won't build houses or create new markets will it?.

It will keep the companies from becoming victims of this crisis. As I have said though, infrastructure is a sure way to stimulate. Even though its winter, there is a lot of work outside of roads that can be done. We need social housing, we need training for workers out of jobs. There are so many things that we can start right now, without waiting.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Smallc

[johhny]

What are we acting against if we don't know what the full problem is. Yes the foresty industry is down, but throwing money at loggers won't build houses or create new markets will it?.

Until we know exactly what the problem is we need not waste breath, nor funds.

To solve a problem you first have to identify the root of the problem.

sure it will if you create jobs workers can afford homes in turn they purchase lumber to build those homes and furnish homes with wood products. Same as auto workers give them jobs they can afford to go buy neew vehicles. If we don't we will be suseptabel like the states and instead people will forclose and not have money for consumer spending.

I don't see how you don't understand that.

Edited November 29, 2008 by johhny

[Alta4ever]

sure it will if you create jobs workers can afford homes in turn they purchase lumber to build those homes and furnish homes with wood products. Same as auto workers give them jobs they can afford to go buy neew vehicles. If we don't we will be suseptabel like the states and instead people will forclose and not have money for consumer spending.

I don't see how you don't understand that.

So why are new vehicle sales up in our country? I haven't seen any massive layoffs in Canada have you?

The Americans were in a huge market bubble its correcting and no Amount of Canadian government spending is going to change this. house aren't being built in the US so lumber demand has dropped. Americans are travelling so the price of oil has dropped. Americans aren't buying cars so the demand has dropped.

We are an export nation, if we have no one to export to whats going to happen?

So what if rush through a stimulus and spend money to create new infrastructure in Atlantic canada, but the recession hurts Manitoba and they need the jobs their? We now have to spend even more money because the government got it wrong the first time. Exactly what is happening in the US. Sec. Polsen rush through a stimulus and bail out package before he really new how to solve the problem and guess what nothing no change just a hell of alot more money spent, with more ot come once they actually find the right chord to pluck.

[Alta4ever]

It will keep the companies from becoming victims of this crisis. As I have said though, infrastructure is a sure way to stimulate. Even though its winter, there is a lot of work outside of roads that can be done. We need social housing, we need training for workers out of jobs. There are so many things that we can start right now, without waiting.

How will infrastructure spending stop Gm from becoming a victim of the crisis?

We already have EI programs to retrain workers.

Social housing is provincial jurisdiction.

Do we even know how many jobs are going to be lost, or what industries will pick up? What are we going to retain all these people to do.

Or is it just that you want to see a new deal. People digging holes for the government today and filling them up again tomorrow. We have seen what blinding spending money did in the late 20's it took a deep recession, and turned it into a long recessions. (and yes it was the gop conservatives that made the mistake first under hoover to have it compounded under FDR).

[Smallc]

How will infrastructure spending stop Gm from becoming a victim of the crisis? Thats a different issue. They and Chrysler need loans, billions, and now.

We already have EI programs to retrain workers. More is needed

Social housing is provincial jurisdiction. But Ottawa can give them the money...now

Do we even know how many jobs are going to be lost, or what industries will pick up? What are we going to retain all these people to do? So we just sit and wait and hope and pray at all turns out just great?

Or is it just that you want to see a new deal. People digging holes for the government today and filling them up again tomorrow. No, I want things that will benefit the county and create jobs.

So you want to wait? Until when? until it gets so bad it can't be stopped? Almost every economist agrees, we need action now or at least a plan of action so that te consuming public doesn't completely lose confidence.

[Alta4ever]

So you want to wait? Until when? until it gets so bad it can't be stopped? Almost every economist agrees, we need action now or at least a plan of action so that te consuming public doesn't completely lose confidence.

Ever economist agrees? Care to prove that? I have heard plenty that disagree.

I said

How will infrastructure spending stop Gm from becoming a victim of the crisis?

You said "Thats a different issue. They and Chrysler need loans, billions, and now."

You said "It will keep the companies from becoming victims of this crisis. As I have said though, infrastructure is a sure way to stimulate"

So again I ask how is infrastructure spending going to save companies?

"But Ottawa can give them the money...now." Do provincial governments not have access to money? They can run deficits if they need to. Nobody is stopping provincial governments from doing this on their own.

So what if wasting money doesn't create jobs or benefit the country. Throwing money at problems doesn't solve them.

[Smallc]

Ever economist agrees? Care to prove that? I have heard plenty that disagree. Didn't say every

I said

How will infrastructure spending stop Gm from becoming a victim of the crisis?

You said "Thats a different issue. They and Chrysler need loans, billions, and now."

You said "It will keep the companies from becoming victims of this crisis. As I have said though, infrastructure is a sure way to stimulate" The first sentence addressed your question about giving money to logging companies. Infrastructure is a separate point.

So again I ask how is infrastructure spending going to save companies? But since you asked, it creates jobs. People then have money to spend.

"But Ottawa can give them the money...now." Do provincial governments not have access to money? They can run deficits if they need to. Nobody is stopping provincial governments from doing this on their own. Many of them are moving forward on their own. I'm sure they would like to have a partner in Ottawa and I'm sure the people would like to see their government doing something.

So what if wasting money doesn't create jobs or benefit the country. Throwing money at problems doesn't solve them. There is no way infrastructure won't create jobs and there is no way that helping companies survive won't help us in the long run. Sometimes throwing money at problems does help. One things is for sure though, doing nothing, does nothing.

[jdobbin]

Unfortunatly I think Rae is the most likely victor.

That would be some feat.

[jdobbin]

Until we see the play out from the American stimulus why waste our money? The Sky Isn't falling.

This is why Harper has said Canadians should go out and buy stock right away.

[OddSox]

This is why Harper has said Canadians should go out and buy stock right away.

TSX up over 20% this week - did you miss out?

[jdobbin]

TSX up over 20% this week - did you miss out?

Nope. But then I haven't been displaced from my job.

[Argus]

That's not necessarily true. He is supposed to a lot of influence, but it is debatable whether the Prime Minister of Canada has too much authority. Some people see it as undemocratic for the PMs word to mean more than the will of the constituents.

Oh I think the party leader DOES have too much authority. But to suggest this started with Harper is inane in the extreme. Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau ruled as one man dictators, for all intents and purposes.

[Argus]

Now that I would support.

Hmm, wasn't he the imbecile who gave a conference call to "insiders" during the election who, when asked how the Liberals would pay for so many promises, and where they would cut back said that Defense has too much money and that would be the first place he would be making cuts? Of course, he didn't check to see if anyone was recording him....oops!

So I suppose the first thing we would see would be major cutbacks to Defense. So much for rebuilding. Got to find money for those arts programs somewhere!

[Argus]

The list of those who didn't agree with yesterdays statement and the information and decisions within was almost as long.

The list of those media commentators from print, television, radio and magazines who think this has everything to do with the Tories attempt at cutting election funding and nothing to do with the economy is even longer. In fact, I have not heard a single one who doesn't snigger at the Liberals claim this is about the economy.

[Argus]

They certainly might have to go up once the economy has recovered to pay for the deficit.

You just got done saying they should do it immediately to pay for infrastructure projects.

[Argus]

He's not going to run a deficit, we have a 100 mill. surplus. Next election, the "opposition" has to go to the electorate and explain why they want to go into deficit and why they are going to want to either raise taxes or cut services to pay for it.

Oh don't be naive. Presuming this little farce doesn't run its course as a storm in a teacup, and there actually IS some kind of Liberal coallition, they will take their cue from Dalton McGuinty. They will raise spending and taxes, and then make fictiious statements about how it was all the Tories fault, and how they actually would have had a huge deficit, but were lying about it.

McGuinty played all kinds of accounting games to make the Tory's seem guilty of enormous overspending, all while raising his own spending by nearly 50% above what the Tories had been spending in their last year.

[Argus]

I'm wait for people to remember that the last Tory government ran massive deficits and this one is about to as well because they can't control themselves.

The Trudeau Liberals created our debt. That debt was what forced the Mulroney Tories to run massive deficits during the last recession. The Chretien Liberals who followed added enormously to that deficit in the first few years of their reign as well, until the deficit ended.

But... you know all this, of course.

[Argus]

He is saying he is accepting that he will have one. Still going to vote for him? Well sure, if you support the big spending Bush, you have to support the big spending Harper.

Afterall, it is the Liberals fault.

So you're saying that a Liberal coallition would definitely NOT run a deficit, right?

[Argus]

The NDP will have to go to their electorate about that. They won't like being short changed on gov't services.

The NDP had a coallition with the Liberals before. The story did NOT end pleasantly for them.