Canada will slump into deficit next year: Flaherty

[jdobbin]

The worldwide recession happened in the early 90's jdobbin, the same time that the Liberal Party was opposing NAFTA and changes to the GST. The fact that most spending cuts were opposed by the Liberal dominated Senate doesn't even seem to come up on the radar.

And Mulroney had a boom before that where he could have cut spending and didn't.

Mulroney got his stacked Senate and could have done what he wanted after that.

Have you ever wondered why people call you hyper-partisan. This is the reason why because you argue that if we had elected a protectionist government in 1988 are country would have been far better off today.

The only ones I hear call me hyperpartisan are hyperpartisan Tories.

There was no way that I was voting for Mulroney for what he did on the CF-18 contract.

I supported free trade but was against his overspending that entire time he was in office. I believed Turner would have been far better at that than he ever was. Moreover, I don't think Turner would have opened the Constitution.

The Tory supporters who are trying to revive Mulroney should know that few people believe we are better off because of him. Most believe we are better off because he left. He split the country, raised taxes and destroyed his party.

Edited December 18, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I fully acknowledge that Harper put the country into deficit, what I'm questioning is why you're stating that a party which was going to increase taxation by $40 billion and introduce largescale national social programs was going to keep us out of deficit and promote a strong economy.

I criticized Dion's spending promises. I thought they increasingly looked ridiculous. I also pointed out that Harper's promise on climate change was going to be passed along at the same rate as the Liberal one with no tax cuts according to many economists.

Problem with the Liberals is that they've veered far to the left. Depending on what Ignatieff does, the LPC could instead become just an NDP lite, if they do the party of Paul Martin, John Manley, and Frank McKenna, is dead.

I think you can trust that the Liberals will move to occupy the center. The question is whether Harper will move farther to the right.

[Mr.Canada]

On the radio news just now, they said that Conservatives will have four years of deficits, even BEFORE a dime is spent on stimulating the economy!! Go figure, Flaherty... do to Canada what you did to Ontario! So the debt will probably be higher than the Cons say because more EI payments and social payments will be going out and less corporate and income tax revenues coming in. I'm totally surprise at Harper who suppose have all these degrees behind him in economics and a IQ of 128. He should have listened to Dion's warning during the election.

Topaz, in a recession spending goes up. This is normal, any PM would do the same. Raising EI is one of the best ways to stimulate spending on the ground level when there are tough times. You should really know all of this already.

[Canadian Blue]

I supported free trade but was against his overspending that entire time he was in office. I believed Turner would have been far better at that then he ever was. Moreover, I don't think Turner would have opened the constituent.

The Tory supporters who are trying to revive Mulroney should know that few people believe we are better off because of him. Most believe we are better off because he left. He split the country, raised taxes and destroyed his party.

Most people also think we're far better off because of Trudeau despite the fact he left this country in more debt then any PM, raised taxes, split the country, as well as took away civil liberties in the early 70's. Just because most people are more enamoured with charisma than actual policies doesn't make a man great.

You're still negating the fact that both the GST and NAFTA were essential in helping to provide a stronger economic recovery, as for the stacked senate, it happened in 1991 right when the battle over the GST was coming into play. That had occured during the recession, not before it.

Any person who thinks that a continuation of the National Energy Program, protectionism, ownership of 63 crown corporations, and the creation of 'make work programs' would have led to a stronger economy and balanced budget is a victim of false hope.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

I think you can trust that the Liberals will move to occupy the center. The question is whether Harper will move farther to the right.

Hold on, if you're preaching a balanced budget at any cost won't the mean the Tories need to move right.

Or are you talking about Stephen Harpers hidden agenda to turn Canada into 1950's Alabama... or is this the hidden agenda where Stephen Harper puts soldiers in our cities, with guns, in Canada!!!

[Mr.Canada]

Harper tried to set the tone for the budget when they announced that the Government would lead by example in the tough times and cut the public funding of political parties, then they all went crazy, remember the coalition. That would have saved money.

All 3 of the other parties wanted this spending and now they have it. They don't get to ask for spending then when they get it criticize it. It doesn't work that way you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Jdobbin, I don't think any of the parties are conservative enough for you. You are more conservative even more so than I am. Yet you vote for a left wing party that will raise taxes and spend like mad, I don't get it.

[madmax]

Topaz, in a recession spending goes up. This is normal, any PM would do the same. Raising EI is one of the best ways to stimulate spending on the ground level when there are tough times. You should really know all of this already.

No, spending does not go up in a recession. Spending goes down, cuts are made to programs. Raising EI is coming, expanding EI is coming, it is a necessary program and was already paid for by the tax payers and its going to be well used in the next year.

Government may increase spending in certain areas, programs or infra structure, but Spending will be lower in a recession then in a boom period. What is uncertain is if the government runs a deficit or not. This government has hit the deficit wall in a good period and is very likely to be deep into deficit sooner then later.

[madmax]

Harper tried to set the tone for the budget when they announced that the Government would lead by example in the tough times and cut the public funding of political parties, then they all went crazy, remember the coalition. That would have saved money.

He can save just as much money by not handing out 18 patronage appointments to the Senate.

Considering the paltry savings in public funding, where did the Billions and Billions of Surplus go?

[Mr.Canada]

He can save just as much money by not handing out 18 patronage appointments to the Senate.

Considering the paltry savings in public funding, where did the Billions and Billions of Surplus go?

I didn't hear any crying when Chretien was making patronage appointments to the Senate for over 10 years.

The surplus which is a result of over taxation went largely to pay down our national debt.

[blueblood]

I criticized Dion's spending promises. I thought they increasingly looked ridiculous. I also pointed out that Harper's promise on climate change was going to be passed along at the same rate as the Liberal one with no tax cuts according to many economists.

I think you can trust that the Liberals will move to occupy the center. The question is whether Harper will move farther to the right.

Your not going to like this, Harper plans on spending 20-30 billion dollars in stimulus. Youch!! I'm not happy. That's 3 yrs. of debt repayment down the crapper. At least Harper is P.O'd about having to dole out the cash.

[dpwozney]

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday that Canada will fall into deficit during the next fiscal year as recessionary economic forces continue to slowdown the world's economy.

“We're not running a deficit. We have planned a realistic scenario. We've got conservative budget estimates. We've got a modest platform that doesn't even fill the existing fiscal room that we have and we have plenty of flexibility in how we phase it. So that's our policy. We're not going into deficit.”

-Stephen Harper, October 2008

[jdobbin]

Hold on, if you're preaching a balanced budget at any cost won't the mean the Tories need to move right.

Or are you talking about Stephen Harpers hidden agenda to turn Canada into 1950's Alabama... or is this the hidden agenda where Stephen Harper puts soldiers in our cities, with guns, in Canada!!!

I haven't seen a hidden agenda. I do see Tories who attended the Winnipeg convention wanting to move to the right on social and economic policy.

[jdobbin]

Most people also think we're far better off because of Trudeau despite the fact he left this country in more debt then any PM, raised taxes, split the country, as well as took away civil liberties in the early 70's. Just because most people are more enamoured with charisma than actual policies doesn't make a man great.

Had Trudeau not repatriated the Constitution and helped create the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I think he would have letf with a rather weak record. Financially, he was a disaster.

You're still negating the fact that both the GST and NAFTA were essential in helping to provide a stronger economic recovery, as for the stacked senate, it happened in 1991 right when the battle over the GST was coming into play. That had occured during the recession, not before it.

I have no problem saying free trade and the GST helped economic and revenue growth.

Harper won two majorities and showed no real inclination to cut spending. He didn't. He could have done it any budget and the Senate cannot vote down money bills. They can delay, they amend but they cannot defeat the bill. Mulroney stacked the Senate to ensure quick passage of the GST.

He made no real attempt to cut spending. He didn't. He just increased taxes constantly.

Any person who thinks that a continuation of the National Energy Program, protectionism, ownership of 63 crown corporations, and the creation of 'make work programs' would have led to a stronger economy and balanced budget is a victim of false hope.

Any person who thinks Turner would have continued these things is delusional.

[Canadian Blue]

I haven't seen a hidden agenda. I do see Tories who attended the Winnipeg convention wanting to move to the right on social and economic policy.

Really, individual Tories have differing views on abortion, I'm shocked. Like I said not everyone engages in groupthink like the Liberal Party of Canada.

Harper won two majorities and showed no real inclination to cut spending. He didn't. He could have done it any budget and the Senate cannot vote down money bills. They can delay, they amend but they cannot defeat the bill. Mulroney stacked the Senate to ensure quick passage of the GST.

Mulroney stacked the Senate in the early 90's, not during the 80's when said spending cuts would have taken place.

Any person who thinks Turner would have continued these things is delusional.

Probably because John Turner was a strong proponent of an interventionist government and never showed any inclination to discontinue Trudeau's policies.

[jdobbin]

Really, individual Tories have differing views on abortion, I'm shocked. Like I said not everyone engages in groupthink like the Liberal Party of Canada.

Harper felt it was important to address this push to the right at the convention. I think there is a fairly large segment of the party that no longer wants to creep along incrementally as Flanagan and Harper want.

As far as the criticism of the Liberal party, I think we have seen ample evidence of blue and red Liberals tugging back and forth for decades now. We used to see that with the PCs but there seems to be less of a Red Tory element left.

Mulroney stacked the Senate in the early 90's, not during the 80's when said spending cuts would have taken place.

Harper was not blocked by the Senate on major spending cuts because he didn't make any. He had a majority and the Senate cannot defeat budgets. Let's try to be clear about that.

The reason he stacked the Senate on the GST was to ensure a quick passage, not because the Senate could have defeated the budget.

Probably because John Turner was a strong proponent of an interventionist government and never showed any inclination to discontinue Trudeau's policies.

Really? For years discontinuing Trudeau's financial policies was the hallmark of Turner's leadership. What a whopper you've told.

[Canadian Blue]

Really? For years discontinuing Trudeau's financial policies was the hallmark of Turner's leadership. What a whopper you've told.

No, I can recognize the problems with protectionist politicians unlike yourself. I believe one of John Turner's campaign promises was to ensure bureaucrats in Ottawa ran the nurseries of the nation.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Canadian Blue]

Harper felt it was important to address this push to the right at the convention. I think there is a fairly large segment of the party that no longer wants to creep along incrementally as Flanagan and Harper want.

As far as the criticism of the Liberal party, I think we have seen ample evidence of blue and red Liberals tugging back and forth for decades now. We used to see that with the PCs but there seems to be less of a Red Tory element left.

So you're only supportive of some kind of individual thought as long as it's in the Liberal Party.

By the way you must also be a strong opponent of incrementalism if you oppose any stimulus package and want to avoid a deficit no matter what. That would put you to the right of Stephen Harper and the CPC at the moment.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[jdobbin]

No, I can recognize the problems with protectionist politicians unlike yourself. I believe one of John Turner's campaign promises was to ensure bureaucrats in Ottawa ran the nurseries of the nation.

What utter BS.

[jdobbin]

So you're only supportive of some kind of individual thought as long as it's in the Liberal Party.

I've liked lots of PCs over the years. Just not a fan of some of the right wingers they have foisted in my riding over the years. They even embarrassed Mulroney and Harper. I'd be hard pressed to name a Tory in the present government who doesn't seen more ideologically to the right of what we have seen the past. In short, I don't see any Red Tories.

By the way you must also be a strong opponent of incrementalism if you oppose any stimulus package and want to avoid a deficit no matter what. That would put you to the right of Stephen Harper and the CPC at the moment.

Think I on the side of Canadians who in polling yesterday said they want to avoid a deficit as a priority. What side are you on?

[Canadian Blue]

I'd be hard pressed to name a Tory in the present government who doesn't seen more ideologically to the right of what we have seen the past. In short, I don't see any Red Tories.

How do you define Red Tory. Are you talking a social conservative/economic nationalist or are we actually talking about someone who's socially liberal/fiscally moderate.

Think I on the side of Canadians who in polling yesterday said they want to avoid a deficit as a priority. What side are you on?

I'm on the side that wants to avoid a deficit, unfortunately you can't name me a single political party that realistically wants to avoid deficit. Don't tell me that Stephane Dion would avoid a deficit since this whole coalition has been about proposing a large stimulus for the economy.

Is their a second Reform Party that I should know about?

[jdobbin]

How do you define Red Tory. Are you talking a social conservative/economic nationalist or are we actually talking about someone who's socially liberal/fiscally moderate.

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I still see a lot of that on provincial front but not a lot of that on the federal front.

I'm on the side that wants to avoid a deficit, unfortunately you can't name me a single political party that realistically wants to avoid deficit. Don't tell me that Stephane Dion would avoid a deficit since this whole coalition has been about proposing a large stimulus for the economy.

The Liberals under Paul Martin would have likely avoided a deficit since I doubt they would have cut the GST.

Stephane Dion is gone because he wasn't able to articulate solid policies, organization, leadership or financing. It is why I said he would be defeated since 2006.

I actually expected Harper to continue Martin's earlier work on keeping spending in check. You can imagine how sorely I have been disappointed.

Is their a second Reform Party that I should know about?

Wouldn't need one if Harper could have controlled his spending habit. He can hardly blame a weak and dispirited Liberal party. He was able to push through his whole agenda for the most part. He just never made spending cuts a priority.

[Canadian Blue]

The Liberals under Paul Martin would have likely avoided a deficit since I doubt they would have cut the GST.

No, they would have just put that money into national childcare and buying off the NDP and banning handguns.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[jdobbin]

No, they would have just put that money into national childcare and buying off the NDP and banning handguns.

Instead you supported Mulroney who opened up the Constitution twice and awarded the CF-18 contract to Quebec?