Conservatives to table $40 billion deficit: CTV

[jdobbin]

The PM has consulted with the opp parties the matter of the budget. Ignatieff will vote with the Tories anyways. The budget is very reasonable and it'll be an election if Harper is defeated as the GG is getting an advance copy of it so she can review it before the vote.

Where are you getting this? You already know the contents of the budget?

The Governor General gets an advance copy of the budget? Since when?

When has the consultation taken place? Why so many lies?

[Mr.Canada]

Where are you getting this? You already know the contents of the budget?

The Governor General gets an advance copy of the budget? Since when?

When has the consultation taken place? Why so many lies?

You're being incredibly naive jdobbin, I'm very surprised by you.

[jdobbin]

You're being incredibly naive jdobbin, I'm very surprised by you.

You are lying. I'm not very surprised.

[ToadBrother]

Iggy is being very cagey and is careful to point out that it will be the Conservative budget that gets voted on, not a Liberal or Coalition budget.

Well of course he is. He's no moron. He's not going to let he or his party wear any of this, though I agree that the Opposition most assuredly has had a major influence on this budget, and if all things were equal, *Parliament* as a whole would be wearing it, but that's not how the electorate tends to look at things.

[normanchateau]

That only makes it clear to the rest of Canadians the cost of appeasing Quebec.

Do you think that Harper's out of control spending since he took power is restricted solely to Quebec and that otherwise he has behaved as a fiscal conservative?

[blueblood]

Do you think that Harper's out of control spending since he took power is restricted solely to Quebec and that otherwise he has behaved as a fiscal conservative?

It was the lesser of two evils...

[normanchateau]

It was the lesser of two evils...

So other than his out of control spending on Quebec, do you think he has behaved like a fiscal conservative?

[Jean_Poutine]

Do you think that Harper's out of control spending since he took power is restricted solely to Quebec and that otherwise he has behaved as a fiscal conservative?

The Conservatives cut taxes and paid down a substantial amount of the debt, and it's only now that we're going into the red.

Paul Martin believed in having a small contingency fund of about $3 billion to ensure a balanced budget each year. However, does anyone really believe that that would be sufficient to deal with the current global economic crisis? That wouldn't even cover the auto sector. Given the severity of the problem, we would be in the red regardless.

Quebec should not receive special treatment, but I do agree with increased spending on the military.

[Smallc]

Given the severity of the problem, we would be in the red regardless.

Harper said that each Canadian family pays an average of $2000 a year less in taxes from when they took over. Asuming that is 5 people per family, that leaves 6M families. 6M x $2000 = $12B in fiscal capacity removed from the government. Also, spending has increased by about 20 - 25% since Harper took over according to estmates I have seen. That isn't all his doing, but he certainly isn't innocent.

We could have stayed out of deficit, but the thing is, we never really tried to. Yes, it is partly because of the world situation that we're in, but its also because of large tax cuts in conjunction with large increases in spending. I thought Harper knew better. I was wrong.

[gordiecanuk]

The Conservatives cut taxes and paid down a substantial amount of the debt, and it's only now that we're going into the red.

Paul Martin believed in having a small contingency fund of about $3 billion to ensure a balanced budget each year. However, does anyone really believe that that would be sufficient to deal with the current global economic crisis? That wouldn't even cover the auto sector. Given the severity of the problem, we would be in the red regardless.

Quebec should not receive special treatment, but I do agree with increased spending on the military.

Martin's forecasting was typically very conservative...he'd underestimate revenue and overestimate expeditures, that's why we got used to seeing surpluses far in excess of the 3 Billion contingency.

Flaherty on the other hand seems to favour 'best case scenario' forecasting...which is a recipe for a deficit, in good times or bad.

I do however think you're right about us being in deficit regardless, given the economic climate. I just don't think it would be 30-40 Billion if Martin was still running the nation's finances.

[trooper]

Quick question: How much is the total revenues the federal government receives from taxes, 'fees' etc. ?

$40 billion looks like a steep figure.

[Riverwind]

Quick question: How much is the total revenues the federal government receives from taxes, 'fees' etc. ?

$40 billion looks like a steep figure.

The federal budget >$210 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_spending,_2004

[blueblood]

So other than his out of control spending on Quebec, do you think he has behaved like a fiscal conservative?

Compared to PMPM's and Dion's platform, I say yes indeedy.

Your frustration should be levelled at urban Canadians who are all about gov't spending. Harper is a politician and has to cater to them. If you can't understand simple logic then your a lost cause.

[jdobbin]

Your frustration should be levelled at urban Canadians who are all about gov't spending.

Your insistence that rural people don't receive nearly as much government spending lack a citation.

[blueblood]

Your insistence that rural people don't receive nearly as much government spending lack a citation.

It's not a matter of receiving, it's a matter of wanting. By rural areas voting tory, they are in essence voting for a gov't whose idealogy is for reduced spending. Urban areas tend to support parties that are in favor of more spending, the tories have to realize that people like gov't spending and are playing to that, much to yours and mine disapproval.

[jdobbin]

It's not a matter of receiving, it's a matter of wanting. By rural areas voting tory, they are in essence voting for a gov't whose idealogy is for reduced spending.

But does not practice it.

Urban areas tend to support parties that are in favor of more spending, the tories have to realize that people like gov't spending and are playing to that, much to yours and mine disapproval.

It was urban areas that voted for a Liberal government that controlled spending. Go figure.

[August1991]

The federal budget >$210 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_spending,_2004

Thanks for this connection to reality, Riverwind. The US federal government is looking at a $1 trillion deficit which, in per capita terms, would be over twice a $40 billion Canadian federal deficit.

Dobbin, you missed the key paragraph in the CTV article:

Harper is now saying a prolonged economic downturn will require massive government spending -- for possibly as long as three to five years.

IOW, Harper is going to borrow money in my name and spend it on stuff I don't want. How does that help me?

If Harper borrowed money in my name and then gave it to me (by cutting my taxes) at least I'd have the money. In the US, Obama at least is saying that tax cuts will be a major part of his fiscal stimulus package. Economists even argue that a tax cut offers a faster and stronger stimulus than government spending. (I happen to think that the monetary stimulus of the Fed will likely be more than enough. I fear that the inflation genie may be out of the bottle in 2010... )

-----

As to this Ignatieff debate, my take is that Harper wrecked himself in Quebec in the 2008 election. Ignatieff will support Harper when parliament reconvenes but this government won't last long. We'll have a federal election in 2009 and Ignatieff - the flake - has a good chance of forming a minority government.

It's not a matter of receiving, it's a matter of wanting. By rural areas voting tory, they are in essence voting for a gov't whose idealogy is for reduced spending. Urban areas tend to support parties that are in favor of more spending, the tories have to realize that people like gov't spending and are playing to that, much to yours and mine disapproval.

This thread is all over the map but FYI, rural residents receive more government spending/subsidies than urban residents. Modern democracies transfer money in different ways but one constant is from cities to rural areas. If a "fiscal deficit" exists, this is one example among others.

The conundrum is why urban/rural voters vote as they do. Then again, maybe what we think of left and right is not what it appears.

Edited January 12, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

If Harper borrowed money in my name and then gave it to me (by cutting my taxes) at least I'd have the money.

Not if you don't have a job anymore.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, you missed the key paragraph in the CTV article:

Why do you insist I missed something when we have been told by moderators to only post a small extract and let the reader follow the link?

IOW, Harper is going to borrow money in my name and spend it on stuff I don't want. How does that help me?

If Harper borrowed money in my name and then gave it to me (by cutting my taxes) at least I'd have the money. In the US, Obama at least is saying that tax cuts will be a major part of his fiscal stimulus package. Economists even argue that a tax cut offers a faster and stronger stimulus than government spending. (I happen to think that the monetary stimulus of the Fed will likely be more than enough. I fear that the inflation genie may be out of the bottle in 2010... )

Economists also say that if no one is spending that governments are often the only one to jumpstart things.

Economists like Thomas Friedman say the problem is people sitting on cash. The Paradox of Thrift.

Edited January 12, 2009 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

But does not practice it.

It was urban areas that voted for a Liberal government that controlled spending. Go figure.

And it was rural areas that voted in Preston Manning that berated the Liberals into doing so. Go figure.

[blueblood]

Thanks for this connection to reality, Riverwind. The US federal government is looking at a $1 trillion deficit which, in per capita terms, would be over twice a $40 billion Canadian federal deficit.

Dobbin, you missed the key paragraph in the CTV article:

IOW, Harper is going to borrow money in my name and spend it on stuff I don't want. How does that help me?

If Harper borrowed money in my name and then gave it to me (by cutting my taxes) at least I'd have the money. In the US, Obama at least is saying that tax cuts will be a major part of his fiscal stimulus package. Economists even argue that a tax cut offers a faster and stronger stimulus than government spending. (I happen to think that the monetary stimulus of the Fed will likely be more than enough. I fear that the inflation genie may be out of the bottle in 2010... )

-----

As to this Ignatieff debate, my take is that Harper wrecked himself in Quebec in the 2008 election. Ignatieff will support Harper when parliament reconvenes but this government won't last long. We'll have a federal election in 2009 and Ignatieff - the flake - has a good chance of forming a minority government.

This thread is all over the map but FYI, rural residents receive more government spending/subsidies than urban residents. Modern democracies transfer money in different ways but one constant is from cities to rural areas. If a "fiscal deficit" exists, this is one example among others.

The conundrum is why urban/rural voters vote as they do. Then again, maybe what we think of left and right is not what it appears.

That would depend on your definition of rural and the type of things that the tax money is spent on. Rural people like lower taxes and business subsidies of all stripes, and slash everything else. Urban people like gouging business with taxes, slash business subsidies, and open the books on everything else, provided the budget is balanced, resulting in higher than average taxes and crappy programs.

[August1991]

Not if you don't have a job anymore.

Canada's unemployment rate is under 7%. And of those 7%, many will be without a job for at most a month or so. Many shops have signs "Hiring Now". We are entering a "recession" where 15 year old kids have jobs earning $10/hour.

IOW, this is nothing like the 1930s.

Edited January 12, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

And it was rural areas that voted in Preston Manning that berated the Liberals into doing so. Go figure.

It was the Liberals with their large majorities who went ahead with it even when the Opposition was split into three pieces. Go figure.

[Smallc]

IOW, this is nothing like the 1930s.

I never said it was. We can help to make sure it doesn't become the 1930s by keeping people working at meaningful jobs.

[August1991]

Economists also say that if no one is spending that governments are often the only one to jumpstart things.

Economists like Thomas Friedman say the problem is people sitting on cash. The Paradox of Thrift.

We can talk about the Keynesian Paradox of Thrift when men are selling apples in the street or travelling across the country on the tops of rail cars.

Canada's economy does not lack aggregate demand. Americans - particularly American financial institutions - lack confidence. IMHO, you don't jumpstart confidence by using my credit card to buy stuff that I don't want.

----

But Dobbin, why does money going from me to Harper and then to some government contractor who is as likely to spend as save make for a "good policy"? Is the government contractor more likely to spend than I am?

If Harper wants, he can use my (very low interest) credit card for a cash advance. Then at least I'll get the money. IMV, that's better than using the money to buy stuff (some government contractor) that I don't want.