Tories predict $30B deficit next year

[Mr.Canada]

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.

That is completely absurd. I cannot believe you just said that one...lol.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[dlkenny]

Jerry, I think you're right in a lot of ways. It's my opinion that trying to grow commerce in a recessing economy is like trying to swim upstream. I will agree that Canada didn't cause the problem but as you point out we are affected with it like a disease. Unfortunately at this point laying blame doesn't help. The truth is that after the meltdown of the 1930s that safeguards and regulations were made to prevent such a collapse recurring. What's troubling is the way that people, businesses, banks and governments around the world have all largely ignored the rules in the face of hyper-growth, exponentially increasing profits, and overflowing public coffers (tax revenues). Now we are in imminent danger of a largescale collapse again and because desperate times call for desperate measures, Harper said he'd rather go into deficit than risk the economy collapsing. In 1929 the government allowed the money supply to shrink and the markets collapse, today the government is willing to expand the money supply to help prevent such an event. I think this isn't even a partisan issue as much as it's an emergency measure and although the Liberals would have a larger surplus to work from that we'd still have to deal with the possibility of deficit, simply because of the times.

I will also say that taxes and jobs are directly related. Our jobs are not "created" they are a function of supply and demand. As demand for products and services increase, so does the need for people to fulfill that demand. What people forget is that businesses require investment and re-investment to build, grow and operate and by reducing taxes in the right sectors it mobilizes money and creates jobs.

By reducing personal taxes it helps to spur spending because people have more money, by cutting corporate taxes it improves bottom lines and promotes growth within corporations, and by cutting taxes on investment dividends (and capital gains) it encourages people to put up capital for companies to operate and grow upon. The whole thing is cyclical and more jobs means more money, which means more demand and again more jobs. Tax reductions are in fact a reasonable measure to help spur the economy.

Edited December 23, 2008 by dlkenny

[punked]

Jerry, I think you're right in a lot of ways. It's my opinion that trying to grow commerce in a recessing economy is like trying to swim upstream. I will agree that Canada didn't cause the problem but as you point out we are affected with it like a disease. Unfortunately at this point laying blame doesn't help. The truth is that after the meltdown of the 1930s that safeguards and regulations were made to prevent such a collapse recurring. What's troubling is the way that people, businesses, banks and governments around the world have all largely ignored the rules in the face of hyper-growth, exponentially increasing profits, and overflowing public coffers (tax revenues). Now we are in imminent danger of a largescale collapse again and because desperate times call for desperate measures, Harper said he'd rather go into deficit than risk the economy collapsing. In 1929 the government allowed the money supply to shrink and the markets collapse, today the government is willing to expand the money supply to help prevent such an event. I think this isn't even a partisan issue as much as it's an emergency measure and although the Liberals would have a larger surplus to work from that we'd still have to deal with the possibility of deficit, simply because of the times.

I will also say that taxes and jobs are directly related. Our jobs are not "created" they are a function of supply and demand. As demand for products and services increase, so does the need for people to fulfill that demand. What people forget is that businesses require investment and re-investment to build, grow and operate and by reducing taxes in the right sectors it mobilizes money and creates jobs.

By reducing personal taxes it helps to spur spending because people have more money, by cutting corporate taxes it improves bottom lines and promotes growth within corporations, and by cutting taxes on investment dividends (and capital gains) it encourages people to put up capital for companies to operate and grow upon. The whole thing is cyclical and more jobs means more money, which means more demand and again more jobs. Tax reductions are in fact a reasonable measure to help spur the economy.

Or you keep taxes at the same level and invest in infrastructure. This means things are made such as concrete, roads, steal and so fourth. This is made inside your country not like that DVD from china. So instead of promoting a consumer economy driven on buying things from china we promote an economy and jobs created here dependent on jobs created here. This assumes our government chooses to buy from Canadian companies which has not been true of the CPC but I would hope they would try. This creates those jobs you need and the spending you want in hard times.

This however is bottom up approach not a top down one. You give the jobs to the middle class and they spend the money and the rich benefit from strong spending. As opposed to tax cuts which is your top down approach. Give the money to the rich in hopes they employ the middle and lower class. I prefer the invest in infrastructure approach.

[Topaz]

Harper now says the deficit is going to be 30 Bil. OK, so we as Canadians should be able to see how he gets that figure. Were is the money going???

[NanaimoConservative]

The only reason the Liberals balanced any books was because they made EI harder to get for out of work Canadians and raised the premiums and then spent the windfall.

Top court says Ottawa broke law in financing EI

[punked]

The only reason the Liberals balanced any books was because they made EI harder to get for out of work Canadians and raised the premiums and then spent the windfall.

Top court says Ottawa broke law in financing EI

I am just going to point out from your article.

"The court, though, rejected union claims that Ottawa diverted money from deliberately-over-inflated EI surpluses to balance the federal budget and fund programs."

[NanaimoConservative]

I am just going to point out from your article.

"The court, though, rejected union claims that Ottawa diverted money from deliberately-over-inflated EI surpluses to balance the federal budget and fund programs."

The judge rejected that part just because they left a balance owing to the EI account when they moved money from EI to the general revenue fund to pay down to balance the books. So they still took the money but because they left an IOU they aren't in the wrong. Well the books weren't that balanced then were they?

The methods they used to raise the premiums where found to be wrong by the court.

So what happened was the Liberals illegally made it very hard for Canadians down on their luck to get EI so they could have a huge surplus in the EI fund. They then took money from that fund and moved it to another account to make it look like they balanced the books. So Harper can't be attacked for running a deficiet this next year as the Liberals had a deficit also but just hid for a while until now as they have been caught.

[gordiecanuk]

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.

The problem with leaving people to fend for themselves...they'll behave just like Wall Street, spending lavishly until all the money is gone...then just like Big Biz...they too will come running for help. Yeah, I know...not ALL, some will behave responsibly...but I'm talking about a critical mass here. Not all Wall Street companies and the like, they didn't all screw the pooch while it was open bar time and everyone was making great cake...but enough of them did.

[dlkenny]

Or you keep taxes at the same level and invest in infrastructure. This means things are made such as concrete, roads, steal and so fourth. This is made inside your country not like that DVD from china. So instead of promoting a consumer economy driven on buying things from china we promote an economy and jobs created here dependent on jobs created here. This assumes our government chooses to buy from Canadian companies which has not been true of the CPC but I would hope they would try. This creates those jobs you need and the spending you want in hard times.

This however is bottom up approach not a top down one. You give the jobs to the middle class and they spend the money and the rich benefit from strong spending. As opposed to tax cuts which is your top down approach. Give the money to the rich in hopes they employ the middle and lower class. I prefer the invest in infrastructure approach.

I don't disagree with spending on infrastructure, but it's the same principle. The money spent by the government goes into the hands of the business owners which in turn use it to pay salaries and produce a product. The creation of capital is the bottom line, and corporations both big and small require it to operate. The challenge with the infrastructure approach is that its very targeted and mostly flows into the companies directly associated with the projects.

I disagree though with the idea of only buying and selling Canadian produced goods and services. This idea isn't new and was the foundation for the National Energy Program, which theoretically was going to make sure Canadians all had access to abundant, cheap, domestic oil products, and the Canadian Wheat Board which supposedly was to ensure consumers had access to abundant, cheap, domestic agriculture products. What happened in both cases is that it regulated the profits of farmers and oil producers through paying set prices for domestic stocks.

Both programs wound up being extremely hard on the economy, and while the NEP was scrapped, the Canadian Wheat Board continued to drive Farmers into near bankruptcy for many years. To this day, farmers are still paid 1960's prices for grain while trying to pay 2008 level overhead. Moreover, anyone who works in agriculture will tell you that agriculture wages are not very lucrative. This leads me to conclude that this type of government intervention hurts industry more than it helps it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Our people need sufficient leadership to create a national will. This political will can be focused into purchasing domestic production. Real leadership would encourage the development of domestic business that would serve to support our own economy. Transnational corporations export profits from their sphere of operations back to the corporate headquarters. This does not benefit the "host nation" to the degree advertised at all. This is the basic problem with the advent of globalization and the rise of corporatism.

The government needs to lead the citizens into a direction that provides benefits to people not companies. Corporate influences will declare this to be a case of social engineering, and so it is. That is the function of government, to preserve and protect citizens.

[Progressive Tory]

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.

I didn't know you were keeping a list. How do you have me put down?

[Jack Weber]

And the Halton Hills GESTAPO says....

Subversive Pinko Radical!!!!!

[segnosaur]

The books should be publically accessible. Mr. Flaherty lied to the people of Ontario in the election that saw the PCs in Ontario get decimated. I can't believe they are letting this guy run the country now. He said a surplus of $8 billion, when they were defeated and the books were looked at, there was really $3 billion.

Keep in mind that there is a heck of a lot of liberal spin in those deficit claims.

When the Liberals got into power, there were a couple of things going on:

- Ontario was just coming off a few situations, such as SARS, which may have caused a temporary problem with government finances

- If I remember correctly, when the Liberals came into power, they changed some of the accounting practices, for example, including hospital deficits in with the provincial government deficits. This was not something that had been done before (and wasn't done in other provinces). So, the size of the deficit may have been artificially inflated.

[segnosaur]

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.

Ummm... did you actually read the article that Martin Chriton had referenced earlier in this thread? It gives details about the stimulous package that the coalition had been proposing. That article specifically states: NDP adviser Ed Broadbent says the deal will include substantial aid to the troubled auto and forestry industries. .

"Substantial aid to the troubled auto and forestry industries" is not some sort of bottom-up program. Its the same type of 'trickle down' idea that the conservatives are implementing.

Or do you not consider Ed Broadbent to be a 'leftist'?

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?

Hey, some of us do dislike some provisions of government spending. We just recognize potential actions by a Liberal/NDP coalition has the potential to be even worse.

[jdobbin]

- If I remember correctly, when the Liberals came into power, they changed some of the accounting practices, for example, including hospital deficits in with the provincial government deficits. This was not something that had been done before (and wasn't done in other provinces). So, the size of the deficit may have been artificially inflated.

If you remembered correctly, you would know accounting practices were changed to what many considered the gold standard for government accounting. It was what the Auditor General and many in the accounting industry demanded. They changed the accounting practice again in 2005 based on what the Auditor said.

So the deficit wasn't artificially inflated. It was reported as it was.

I think the Liberals in Ontario needed to cut their bloated budget a lot more than they have if they wanted to actually end the deficit.

Edited January 2, 2009 by jdobbin

[Mr.Canada]

If you remembered correctly, you would know accounting practices were changed to what many considered the gold standard for government accounting. It was what the Auditor General and many in the accounting industry demanded. They changed the accounting practice again in 2005 based on what the Auditor said.

So the deficit wasn't artificially inflated. It was reported as it was.

I think the Liberals in Ontario needed to cut their bloated budget a lot more than they have if they wanted to actually end the deficit.

Yes after ADScam was uncovered. Adscam was when the Liberals stole hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers to give to their Quebec friends.

[jdobbin]

Yes after ADScam was uncovered. Adscam was when the Liberals stole hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers to give to their Quebec friends.

And you support a party that won't intervene to stop the murder (according to you) of babies.

Edited January 3, 2009 by jdobbin

[Mr.Canada]

And you support a party that won't intervene to stop the murder (according to you) of babies.

I have no idea what you're on about dobbin. Abortion will be reformed regardless of your own apathy sir. Through a private members bill. A private members bill means that Harper doesn't need to even include it in his policy statement as it isn't Harper but a MP of any political party who will bring it forth in the HoC. If you need further lessons of how the Commons works lmk.

[gordiecanuk]

Yes after ADScam was uncovered. Adscam was when the Liberals stole hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers to give to their Quebec friends.

Which is why we FINALLY put the Liberals under Paul Martin in the opposition benches. Now he's gone from politics, the Liberals had done a good job of putting this country's financial house in order. But under Marin/Chretien the Liberals had been in power too long and had become too corupt.

Edited January 3, 2009 by gordiecanuk

[Mr.Canada]

Which is why we FINALLY put the Liberals under Paul Martin in the opposition benches. Now he's gone from politics, the Liberals had done a good job of putting this country's financial house in order. But under Marin/Chretien the Liberals had been in power too long and had become too corupt.

Yeah, Canadians could have really used that Billion dollars the Liberals gave to their Quebec friends. Don't worry the Coalition will make sure that Quebec recieves more of our money. Rejoice!