Forget about the future deficits, and let's talk Harper lies

[jdobbin]

So, for now we are still in the black. But Harper needs to cut spending. Now.

Actually, he needed to cut spending back in 2006 and build a reserve fund just for this type of event.

[jdobbin]

It seems that some posters have forgotten that Do Do Dion and Jumpin' Jack Flash both committed to NOT running deficits in the last election. Both seemed to be conveniently oblivious to the oncoming economic storm.

And they were defeated in part because Harper said they would run a deficit and he wouldn't. Now, he'll have to wear the economy in a minority situation. At least he has Flaherty to play around with the numbers so they don't look so bad.

[Topaz]

Here's a Xmas gift for the Harper supporters, perhaps what the majority of voters who didn't vote for Harper should keep him in his minority govt for awahile until the supporters decide hey its time for Harper to go. Harper is going to go into 30 Bil or more deficit, he'll have to raise taxes sooner or later and I think that gov't that brings in the deficits should be the one to get rid of it! Why should always be the Libs to get us out of the mess that the PC and the Cons get us in?? IF Harper is so well educated as a economist,(which isn't working so far) he should have no problem getting rid of the deficit but then again, if he was that good, we shouldn't be in one to start! So all you supporter , are you ready for high taxes or less services, cut backs to all you western farmers perhaps, but hey, anything for our guy right?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Harper will be held to account from within his own party before the end of January. After that it will be up to the opposition to determine whether or not the public gets a chance to pass judgment on him. That will happen, the only question is when it will be. When it does come to pass, I think that Harper will find himself behind the eight ball.

[jdobbin]

Harper will be held to account from within his own party before the end of January.

I don't know about that. He has his party in a stranglehold. It would take an actual electoral defeat to rile them.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Or a successful coup by the coalition. The stand down of government was only a reprieve, not an end to the troubles he has created. After the throne speech we will have an opportunity for Iggy to make himself known. Does anyone really think that he will sit in the weeds?

[jdobbin]

Or a successful coup by the coalition. The stand down of government was only a reprieve, not an end to the troubles he has created. After the throne speech we will have an opportunity for Iggy to make himself known. Does anyone really think that he will sit in the weeds?

If Harper decides to act like a donkey again, I suspect the vote will be no on the budget. Harper might hope for an election but I don't know that he will get it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If Harper decides to act like a donkey again, I suspect the vote will be no on the budget. Harper might hope for an election but I don't know that he will get it.

Which goes toward my point that his own party could well break out the long knives. The Governor General will have another say not very far into the future. If she decides not to hold an election, then Harper's goose may well be cooked if he does not bring a majority to the Commons.

[Oleg Bach]

Or a successful coup by the coalition. The stand down of government was only a reprieve, not an end to the troubles he has created. After the throne speech we will have an opportunity for Iggy to make himself known. Does anyone really think that he will sit in the weeds?

All of them are rats and liars and not a one should be given a drop of trusting support...Politicals are lawyers - all lawyers are liars - that's what they do...that is the nature of the profession...I hope they all go jobless...and I hope in the new year they will finally tell the truth - but they could not be honest if their lives depended on it ---give it time and their careers and prosperous postions will become threatened by the historical string of deception - time to pay the piper...and there is a place for these men and woman who betrayed a nation...They are hopeless - we need honest men and woman to run the nation - not lieing cut throat opportunists that do everything from tax you to death to steal your children if you do not comply to their so-called legalist demands.

[Argus]

If ever this saying says about a PM THIS is the one for Harper......If LIES were money, Harper wouldn't ever go into a DEFEIT!!!!!!!!!!

Speak English much?

[Argus]

Those of us in Ontario are used to this kind of thing from Conservatives. Flaherty was a minister under Harris and Eves in this province, and they ran a campaign saying the books were balanced...when the Libs won the auditor gen reported something along the lines of a 5 billion dollar deficit.

Uh huhhhh. There was a "potential" deficit but I don't think it was ever settled as to how high it would have been given the Tories didn't get a chance to bring in a budget. In any even, you're talking about the McGuinty Liberals, right? The "read my lips, no new taxes" guy who signed a document not to raise taxes on live TV, and flourished the pen for all to see? The guy who said in every commercial "I won't raise your taxes, but I won't lower them either"? The guy who promised not to raise hydro rates either, then did? The guy who increased spending by 50% over the following five years without any discernible improvement in health care, education, welfare, roads or bridges, or government services?

That guy? The guy you uhm, support?

[Argus]

Both didn't have access to the latest financial from the Department of Finance.

Ah, that explains it. I had no idea that the Department of Finance had information about the upcoming failures in the American banking system and that this would lead to a world-wide financial crisis within months.

Clearly, since the department knew all this was going to be arriving on our doorstep within months Harper must have known everything that was going to happen, as well.

No one else seems to have known, of course, including the Americans and British, but our department of finance has the very best clairvoyants on staff.

[gordiecanuk]

Uh huhhhh. There was a "potential" deficit but I don't think it was ever settled as to how high it would have been given the Tories didn't get a chance to bring in a budget. In any even, you're talking about the McGuinty Liberals, right? The "read my lips, no new taxes" guy who signed a document not to raise taxes on live TV, and flourished the pen for all to see? The guy who said in every commercial "I won't raise your taxes, but I won't lower them either"? The guy who promised not to raise hydro rates either, then did? The guy who increased spending by 50% over the following five years without any discernible improvement in health care, education, welfare, roads or bridges, or government services?

That guy? The guy you uhm, support?

Voters here gave McGuinty a pass and re-elected him to a majority. Of course when you're told the books are balanced, and walk into a 5 billion deficit its hard to keep promises. McGuinty's government passed a law requiring the AG to audit the books before any future elections so we won't have that kind of mess again.

The Tories might have been able to balance the books and wipe out the deficit if they'd be re-elected......they gave away the 407 toll hi-way for a song, so maybe they might've had a garage sale dumping other revenue generating assets for next to nothing...Kind of like what Flaherty is proposing now.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In Alberta was faced deregulation and privatization. The net cost to the citizen was very high because at the time we were in debt and were having services cut to reduce our operating deficit. However, today the government in Alberta is debt free. Actually we are still paying down a liability that was recently found in our Alberta Teachers Pension Plan, but for all intents and purposes we are without debt. The point being wherever there was room to reduce bureaucratic effort and expense, where ever there was the potential to reduce public expenditures, the government took the bull by the horns and dealt with the problem. Our problems started with the NEP and continued for decades until the politicians finally decided to act. Even then it was years of heart ache before the goal was realized.

My point is that with a specific goal in mind, a government can legislate and reform its internal operations to achieve that goal. The thing of it is that you have to know what you want, then make the tough calls to get there.

[Smallc]

Ah, that explains it. I had no idea that the Department of Finance had information about the upcoming failures in the American banking system and that this would lead to a world-wide financial crisis within months.

Clearly, since the department knew all this was going to be arriving on our doorstep within months Harper must have known everything that was going to happen, as well.

Things started to go to hell during the campaing. Didn't seem to stop him from making false assurances did it?

You mentioned McGuinty in the other post. YOu know the difference between when Harper and McGuinty break promises? MeGuinty apologizes and Harper just pretend that what he said he didn't mean.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Harper needs to take a few lessons from Ralph Klein. The band is playing, all he has to do is get out in front and direct the traffic.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Jerry J. Fortin

[Argus]

Voters here gave McGuinty a pass and re-elected him to a majority. Of course when you're told the books are balanced, and walk into a 5 billion deficit its hard to keep promises.

No, in fact, it's quite easy to keep when you leave yourself an out. The out he left was that if he had to raise taxes for some reason he would first hold a referendum. What happened to that referendum? What prevented it from being held?

Mulroney brought in a huge health tax which he said was needed to improve health care. Except he didn't spend any of it on health care. The amount the provincial government raised its health care spending by was exactly equal to the increased funding for health care they got from the federal government. That health care premium went into general revenues.

And to repeat - despite huge tax increases - allegedly needed to take care of that Conservative deficit - the Liberals increased spending by 50%. So uhmmm, why did they have to increase taxes again?

[Argus]

Things started to go to hell during the campaing. Didn't seem to stop him from making false assurances did it?

You mentioned McGuinty in the other post. YOu know the difference between when Harper and McGuinty break promises? MeGuinty apologizes and Harper just pretend that what he said he didn't mean.

I could put another slant on it. I could say the difference was that circumstances changed beyond Harper's ability to keep that promise while McGuinty never intended to keep his, and made no effort whatsoever to do so.

[Smallc]

I could put another slant on it. I could say the difference was that circumstances changed beyond Harper's ability to keep that promise while McGuinty never intended to keep his, and made no effort whatsoever to do so.

Of course, then you would be speculating.

[Argus]

Of course, then you would be speculating.

Not at all. The promise made - in the centrepiece of his campaign - was that if he would not raise taxes, but if for some reason he had to, he would hold a referendum. Even if one believes the fiction that he had no idea what shape the province's finances are in order (which would make him incompetent) he could still have held a referendum. But he never did.

[Smallc]

Not at all. The promise made - in the centrepiece of his campaign - was that if he would not raise taxes, but if for some reason he had to, he would hold a referendum. Even if one believes the fiction that he had no idea what shape the province's finances are in order (which would make him incompetent) he could still have held a referendum. But he never did.

Unless of course he really had no choice. There's no reason to believe that he did know about the deficit because he didn't have access to the books. Harper on the other hand.....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Whats the difference? They lie about everything anyway. Harper is no better or worse than the next guy.

[Smallc]

Whats the difference? They lie about everything anyway. Harper is no better or worse than the next guy.

I'm not quite that cynical...in fact I'm not cynical at all. They tell the truth. We just seem to remember when they don't...and most of all we remember the ones that don't.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

They tell the truth? If that was true then our economy was in great shape during the election. Of course things seem to have changed since then. There is no way to hold these people accountable, they can make promises and then choose to ignore them with impunity. We elect them based upon platforms that cannot be enforced. That is little more than fraud.

[Jack Weber]

Voters here gave McGuinty a pass and re-elected him to a majority. Of course when you're told the books are balanced, and walk into a 5 billion deficit its hard to keep promises. McGuinty's government passed a law requiring the AG to audit the books before any future elections so we won't have that kind of mess again.

The Tories might have been able to balance the books and wipe out the deficit if they'd be re-elected......they gave away the 407 toll hi-way for a song, so maybe they might've had a garage sale dumping other revenue generating assets for next to nothing...Kind of like what Flaherty is proposing now.

Is'nt this the standard Tory con game?

It's simply ideological with these hacks...All things public are BAD!!!All things private are Good because "Private Sector Discipline"(like Enron) will protect the public purse and competition will bring the best prices!

Off course this is a con game because while the hacks are giving folks boutique tax cuts,which do nothing but rob the gov't of the funds to do anything in bad times but act as the bread in their Tory circus,they are selling off assets that add value to the state as a whole.Unfortunately,these "economists" tend to sell off the assets at a fire sale rate(see the 407) to cover their usual fiscal incompetence.This happens until there are no assets to sell and the tax cut election hooks prove worthless and the cupboard is bare.