Tories predict $30B deficit next year

[BC_chick]

Only the ridiculously hack Liberals are criticizing the stimulus package. It's exactly what their party was proposing and threatening to bring the government down if it did NOT happen.

Cut & paste, with a couple of changes, and voila... the new revised version:

Only the ridiculously hack Conservatives are supporting the stimulus package. It's exactly what their party was opposing when threatened to be brought down if it did NOT happen.

Edited December 19, 2008 by BC_chick

[fellowtraveller]

The coalition proposed a 30 billion deficit? Nonsense.

But for argument's sake, let's say they did.... what does that make you for supporting Harper now instead of screaming bloody murder the way you did when the coalition (hypothetically) proposed the same thing?

I didn't say I supported Harper spending $30 billion now, or the coalition spending it anytime.

Much of it will be wasted on politic decsions and I do not belive that governments can spend their way to prosperity. It dod not work for Pearson or Trudeau, it won't work now.

What is hytpothetical here? The coaliton claimed that the fiscal stimulus was inadequate, and pretended that is why they were intent on bringing down the govt- with the obvious intent to spend their way out when they were in power.. If you are denying that, then I guess the only alternate theory for them precipating this clusterf**k is their panic at having their election funding taken away.

Which, by the way, is still an excellent, easily implemenetd and fair reduction in federal spending in these troubled times.

[madmax]

The coalition will be shouting from the rooftops that if they were the govt they'd make it $50 billion, no make that $100 billion........

Highly unlikely.

Regardless, what the hell is this government doing? Oh, wait, the answer is nothing. They are on holiday running up large tabs on the taxpayers money while the deficit rises.

[Martin Chriton]

Highly unlikely.

Regardless, what the hell is this government doing? Oh, wait, the answer is nothing. They are on holiday running up large tabs on the taxpayers money while the deficit rises.

What more could they possibly do? Some would say they've already spent too much, the coalition would probably say too little.

You can't have it both ways.

If you wanted less money spent you should have been more vocal against the coalition. They left the Conservatives little choice. I also disagree with this spending but it obviously wasn't their first choice.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Martin Chriton

[Martin Chriton]

The coalition proposed a 30 billion deficit? Nonsense.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081201/...iament_crisis_1

This took a total of 5 seconds to find.

Only the ridiculously hack Conservatives are supporting the stimulus package. It's exactly what their party was opposing when threatened to be brought down if it did NOT happen.

I think the biggest concern was letting the Bloc and NDP run the country.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Martin Chriton

[BC_chick]

I didn't say I supported Harper spending $30 billion now, or the coalition spending it anytime.

Much of it will be wasted on politic decsions and I do not belive that governments can spend their way to prosperity. It dod not work for Pearson or Trudeau, it won't work now.

What is hytpothetical here? The coaliton claimed that the fiscal stimulus was inadequate, and pretended that is why they were intent on bringing down the govt- with the obvious intent to spend their way out when they were in power.. If you are denying that, then I guess the only alternate theory for them precipating this clusterf**k is their panic at having their election funding taken away.

Which, by the way, is still an excellent, easily implemenetd and fair reduction in federal spending in these troubled times.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, but everyone who is calling liberals hypocritics for supporting a stimulus package under the coalition but not the CPC.

That's the kind of double-talk that's based on absolutely nothing.

We, as leftist, want government intervention in the economy. However, instead of a trickle down conservative approach, the coalition wanted to give the stimulus package to lower brackets to give them more purchasing power. Harper wants to reward failing corporations.

Who's the real hypocrite here? Those who show outrage at the stimulus package that is geared entirely in the wrong places as far as they're concerned? Or those who don't even believe in government intervention yet don't show any kind of outrage when their beloved Harper proposes it?

Edited December 19, 2008 by BC_chick

[Martin Chriton]

Or those who don't even believe in government intervention yet don't show any kind of outrage when their beloved Harper proposes it?

How could anyone be outraged? If Harper didn't spend the money the Liberals would've used that as an excuse to seize power and spend more. It's the lesser of two evils.

It's a minority government, Harper has to work with the other parties. If you don't like that you should have given him a majority and we wouldn't be in this mess.

[madmax]

If you don't like that you should have given him a majority and we wouldn't be in this mess.

ROTFLMAO

The whopper of the week.

[BC_chick]

If Harper didn't spend the money the Liberals would've used that as an excuse to seize power and spend more. It's the lesser of two evils.

Sorry you're having trouble with the English language. Let's try that again, but slower:

W e - d o n ' t - h a v e - a n - i s s u e - w i t h - a - s t i m u l u s - p a c k a g e , o u r - i s s u e - i s - w h e r e - t h e - s t i m u l u s - p a c k a g e - i s - b e i n g - s p e n t.

Edited December 19, 2008 by BC_chick

[Martin Chriton]

Sorry you're having trouble with the English language. Let's try that again, but slower:

W e - d o n ' t - h a v e - a n - i s s u e - w i t h - a - s t i m u l u s - p a c k a g e , o u r - i s s u e - i s - w h e r e - t h e - s t i m u l u s - p a c k a g e - i s - b e i n g - s p e n t.

1. If you think a budget crafted by NDP/Liberals/Bloc would have more productive uses for the money, you're indeed smoking something. The Bloc involvement would see a disproportionate amount going to Quebec.

2. As for the CPC, reading the article I see the highlights are:

* More than $6 billion for infrastructure, which doubles the previous year's spending

* Major funding for public housing and for home renovations, which is intended to stimulate the construction industry

* Tax breaks so consumers will spend more money

* Billions of dollars for the Employment Insurance program

Nothing really stands out as a poor choice.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Martin Chriton

[jdobbin]

Which, by the way, is still an excellent, easily implemenetd and fair reduction in federal spending in these troubled times.

So was reducing the size of cabinet. Harper chose not to.

[jdobbin]

This took a total of 5 seconds to find.

And I can produce a McCallum response a day or later refuting that $30 billion was proposed. In fact, I have posted it here a couple of times.

I think the biggest concern was letting the Bloc and NDP run the country.

My concern was Harper playing the brinkmanship game rather than concentrating on the economy. He was set and determined to call an election himself before May.

[Keepitsimple]

I saw the interview and it seemed to me that the $30 billion deficit was the total for the next 4 years.

[dlkenny]

The sad reality is that even a Liberal government would have difficulty in today's economy to prevent a deficit. Our national spending remains at record levels and if one remembers in the past, the Libs were regularily posting budget surpluses of $20 Billion and more each year. The conservatives initially projected a budget surplus of $3 Billion after cutting taxes and additional spending and in their fiscal update are now projecting a $30 Billion deficit. Though I think some better management would certainly have helped reduce the impact, the reality is that the economy is weaker and there are fewer tax dollars flowing into Ottawa to begin with. I fail to see how any government could prepare for a severe and sudden downturn in the economy.

Consider that in Alberta the government has been floating in Cash for the past 5 years since paying the debt, and were initially forecasting a surplus of $8.5 Billion but now are expecting a $2 billion deficit without changing the fiscal policy at all. I feel that the state of the economy is much more to blame than Conservative mismanagement, though better management wouldn't hurt.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The state of the economy is much more to blame than government you say? So in that case its nobody's fault at all because business will accept no responsibility either. I guess the next logical step in that line of reasoning is to bailout everybody for everything, the tax payer has limitless funding available for wealth transfer.

In truth I guess you get headed down an ideological path with this. To intervene in the economy or not, that would be the question. This time however the equation is very complicated, to not intervene is political suicide, even if it is considered a leftist path. The politics of the situation require a leader with real balls. What is good or perhaps in the best interest of the public is to NOT spend billions of tax dollars during a time of decreasing tax revenues. However, when the public becomes unemployed due to the incompetence of private enterprise it costs the government in terms of public benefits. The question then becomes one in which the government has to determine which course of action it can afford. Here is where Harper takes it in the ear.

It simply doesn't matter which side of the street you are walking on, because you are going to be wrong no matter what you do. It isn't just our economy that is in rough shape, it is everybody elses' too. To add to our problems we have our entire economy geared toward export and import. We sell off and export cheap unrefined resources and then import and buy them back as finished products. Since we have entered trade pacts with everyone and their dog, we gave up controlling the ebb and flow of products across our border. This makes middlemen and retailers very happy, and the consumer is lead to believe that they get cheaper products. They sort of do get reduced prices, but they gave up some jobs in the manufacturing sector to get them.

While this whole crisis began with problems in America, it has spread around the world and nobody is blaming the US for the trouble, funny how that works. Sort of like not having a SARS outbreak, or even one single BSE cow. I guess it depends on what you test for doesn't it?

[White Doors]

Sorry you're having trouble with the English language. Let's try that again, but slower:

W e - d o n ' t - h a v e - a n - i s s u e - w i t h - a - s t i m u l u s - p a c k a g e , o u r - i s s u e - i s - w h e r e - t h e - s t i m u l u s - p a c k a g e - i s - b e i n g - s p e n t.

lol, Layton has been begging for a auto bailout for months now.

hypocrite

[punked]

lol, Layton has been begging for a auto bailout for months now.

hypocrite

Yep and he was going to pay for it by rolling back the corporate tax cuts not by stealing the money from you and me.

[Mr.Canada]

Yep and he was going to pay for it by rolling back the corporate tax cuts not by stealing the money from you and me.

Raising corporate taxes in a recession? Yeah, that's sure to keep jobs in Canada...yeah, right.

[punked]

Raising corporate taxes in a recession? Yeah, that's sure to keep jobs in Canada...yeah, right.

I got it how about we cut them when the economy is booming. You don't get to be a Keynesian during a recession and douche bag when you aren't in one that isn't the way it works. Harper is whatever he wants to be whenever he wants to be.

PS when Jack was for this the PM told me and you we weren't in a recession that is was 3 weeks ago. What changed ohhhh yah Harper stopped lying.

[Mr.Canada]

I got it how about we cut them when the economy is booming. You don't get to be a Keynesian during a recession and douche bag when you aren't in one that isn't the way it works. Harper is whatever he wants to be whenever he wants to be.

PS when Jack was for this the PM told me and you we weren't in a recession that is was 3 weeks ago. What changed ohhhh yah Harper stopped lying.

Don't try to deflect the idiocy of Commando Jack Layton. His support is falling like a stone, the only way he can form government is through backroom deals with separatists. The NDP is a nearly worthless protest party. On the Federal stage they simply don't matter.

[White Doors]

Yep and he was going to pay for it by rolling back the corporate tax cuts not by stealing the money from you and me.

That would be stealing from me. I own stoks. You see, I guess I am an anomoly, but I am actually trying to save for my retirement.

I guess if you are happy to bitch and moan your whole life for the government to wipe your arse for you then you couldn't care could you?

That's the problem with high taxes, they penalize people who take the least and reward those who ask for the most.

No problem I guess if you think life owes you something.

Myself? I like to take care of my family and help out others who are not able.

Your type don't care, life owes you a living and anyone else who has more than you is a greedy, corrupt, fat cat - who you want a piece of.

Talk about greed. lol

so transparent.

Edited December 21, 2008 by White Doors

[Mr.Canada]

Well said White.Doors, and I had you down as a socialist. I guess when I read peoples posts I learn. Great post just the same.

[madmax]

Raising corporate taxes in a recession? Yeah, that's sure to keep jobs in Canada...yeah, right.

Cutting Taxes hasn't been saving jobs either. Cutting taxes isn't about jobs, cutting taxes is about cutting taxes. There are far to many variables with regards to employment growth that have little to do with a corporate tax cut.

But just keep thinking that way. It just hasn't been effective, but continue with your positive thinking.

[madmax]

That would be stealing from me. I own stoks. You see, I guess I am an anomoly, but I am actually trying to save for my retirement.

Good luck with that, I wish you the best.

That's the problem with high taxes, they penalize people who take the least and reward those who ask for the most.

Wow, I could have sworn I used the roads alot less then the McCains and Irvings. Fact is, people who pay higher taxes use more services and more government money then those who do not. They just don't want anyone to know. You want to see who lines up to the government for Grants and property access, it isn't John Doe.

The banks got in line too, they sure did ask for alot of money. I know of few individuals with that much need for government cash.

anyone else who has more than you is a greedy, corrupt, fat cat - who you want a piece of.

Talk about greed. lol

so transparent.

As the Government holds the purse strings, the government is look upon as an endless treasure trove of cash to plunder. Best take a visit to Ottawa and see who the hangers on are.

You will meet the fat cats, some corrupt, some greedy, who want a piece of our money.

[punked]

That would be stealing from me. I own stoks. You see, I guess I am an anomoly, but I am actually trying to save for my retirement.

I guess if you are happy to bitch and moan your whole life for the government to wipe your arse for you then you couldn't care could you?

That's the problem with high taxes, they penalize people who take the least and reward those who ask for the most.

No problem I guess if you think life owes you something.

Myself? I like to take care of my family and help out others who are not able.

Your type don't care, life owes you a living and anyone else who has more than you is a greedy, corrupt, fat cat - who you want a piece of.

Talk about greed. lol

so transparent.

Yah I own stock too what does that have to do with taxes? Thanks for assuming I don't.

Canada's economy is much like a third world nation. It is built on the extraction of natural resources. The idea we some how can not tax these companies which take from our lands becuase they will move elsewhere is one which is build on places where that can happen. You think those Oil moguls in Alberta are going to get their oil somewhere else? The trees in BC? The diamonds in the North? What we should do is tax these guys and take that money and invest it refining our own products make Canada a more competitive nation. Instead we give them tax breaks and treat them like they own our country.

Your type want this country to last for your generation only and after you are gone you don't care. Well I do and those who take need to make sure this country is invested in for the future.

Edited December 22, 2008 by punked