Revenge of Video Professor

[Moonbox]

There is no way I can take your comment seriously that Harpers intent this past year was to save jobs.

Nobody cares what YOU think his intent was. YOUR economic background probably doesn't extend past high school math class. Regardless of what your murky and partisan financial accumen leads you to believe, tax cuts in 2008 and spending announcements in 2008 ARE making the recession easier on us.

What YOU are doing is criticizing the Conservative government for doing exactly what your party of choice is advocating. You're saying we'd be better off economically with massive Ignatieff deficits than with massive Harper deficits. To argue that Harper spending in 2008 was terrible but massive stimulus demanded by the Liberals in 2009 is okay is unbelievably flakey.

Companies can do as they like, the governments role is not to save jobs.

Harper said people he spoke with were not concerned about their jobs but their stocks.

Harper said he was not going to run a deficit, while he knowingly was running a deficit and now plans to have whopper Mulroney deficits.

He probably still believes government's job is not to bail out industry. Demands by the coalition have reversed his position. Leading up to the election, Harper said a lot of things. Politicians all do this. He was trying to prevent people from panicking before the election and voting him out. His opponents fanned the flames of panic to do the opposite. It was politics. Harper said he was not going to run a deficit in 2008. He probably could have avoided it if he wanted to.

The coalition, regardless of Harper's intentions, totally blew any possibility of a balanced budget out of the water.

The only thing clear so far, is that Harper will say anything to get elected.

Oh WoW! A politician who BS's. Why don't we go down the list of BS Obama flung around during the US election. Let's hear you criticize him for it! That's what an election is. It's promises and rhetoric aimed at a retarded electorate who generally knows nothing of the issues. You can chose to stay informed and get over this fact or you can flap your hands and cry about it. It's your choice but only one of them avoids bed wetting and tantrums.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Moonbox

[madmax]

Then you must really hate the Liberals for forcing this on the Conservatives.

The CPC are responsible for their budget.

[madmax]

Regardless of what your murky and partisan financial accumen leads you to believe, tax cuts in 2008 and spending announcements in 2008 ARE making the recession easier on us.

Nonsense.

What YOU are doing is criticizing the Conservative government for doing exactly what your party of choice is advocating.

No party I support is advocating an $40 Billion dollar deficit. However CPC apologists such as yourself are advocating $40 Billion dollar deficits.

To argue that Harper spending in 2008 was terrible

Is a fact.

He probably still believes government's job is not to bail out industry. Demands by the coalition have reversed his position.

The PRime Minister and his finance minister started running deficits prior to the September election. The Prime Minister began advocating for deficits in October, hours after receiving another minority mandate. At that time all other parties were talking of balanced budgets. An election Promise the CPC reneged upon within hours.

Leading up to the election, Harper said a lot of things. Politicians all do this. He was trying to prevent people from panicking before the election and voting him out. His opponents fanned the flames of panic to do the opposite. It was politics. Harper said he was not going to run a deficit in 2008. He probably could have avoided it if he wanted to.

Harper and his finance Minister want to run Deficits. Explaining to me that the Prime Minister is full of hot air is not a defence for fiscal incompetence.

It's (Prime Minister Harpers) promises and rhetoric aimed at a retarded electorate who generally knows nothing of the issues. You can chose to stay informed and get over this fact or you can flap your hands and cry about it. It's your choice but only one of them avoids bed wetting and tantrums.

Great Points. You are winning me over.....

$40 Billion dollar deficit..... Not fiscally responsible.

[Moonbox]

The CPC are responsible for their budget.

but why would you criticize them for doing what your party of choice is demanding/forcing them to do? That's foolishness.

[madmax]

but why would you criticize them for doing what your party of choice is demanding/forcing them to do? That's foolishness.

don't assume...

Btw, do you have a link to a party other then the CPC advocating a $40 Billion dollar deficit?

[Moonbox]

I make the assumption based on deductive logic. Because you clearly don't support the CPC, and because the other worthwhile parties are all promising huge stimulus, I conclude you support a party that supports stimulus.

I'll graciously apologize if you're a Green Party supporter, however, and have pity on you as well.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

There's a link on the left side of the article with the details. Easy find.

The coalition was threatening to bring down the government on the basis of not providing stimulus. Their plans were $30B worth of it. This does not include the deficit we'll run next year regardless. You do the math.

[madmax]

I make the assumption based on deductive logic. Because you clearly don't support the CPC, and because the other worthwhile parties are all promising huge stimulus, I conclude you support a party that supports stimulus.

I don't support a 40Billion dollar deficit.

I'll graciously apologize if you're a Green Party supporter, however, and have pity on you as well.

The Green Party support, Deficit spending and a stimulus package. Sounds like the CPC and GPC could have a pity party with you as the host.

The coalition was threatening to bring down the government on the basis of not providing stimulus. Their plans were $30B worth of it. This does not include the deficit we'll run next year regardless. You do the math.

The link you provided above is broken.

Here is a link before the coalition..... with the CPC plan to hide their fiscal incompetence

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2008/...7169241-cp.html

October 22, 2008

Tories brace for deficit, plan to share blame

By Alexander Panetta, THE CANADIAN PRESS

It was clear early in the Spring that the CPC had been in a deficit position, and the September election was to hide that fact. The October solution a mere 8 days after the election is to manuveur to blame the opposition.

A stimulus package, and a deficit are mutually exclusive.

From the information the CPC are running a deficit.

I just found this article..... Since it was the only party we didn't talk about... Here is there position...

By Ira Basen

Jack Layton hates deficits. He hates them so much that he would rather cut back on some of his cherished "kitchen table priorities" than risk not balancing the federal budget.

At a press conference following the release of his party's platform, Layton was asked what would happen if government revenues turned out to be less than he had anticipated. "Every initiative we have laid out, we have said that it will be subject to the state of the economy," the NDP leader replied, "because we believe in balanced budgets."

It's been more than a decade since Canada's party of the left could realistically be described as social democratic. What is striking about this current campaign is the realization that, in 2008, they are not even Keynesians.

Edited January 16, 2009 by madmax

[Martin Chriton]

A stimulus package, and a deficit are mutually exclusive.

I suggest you look into the definition of "mutually exclusive." P(deficit) increases when spending increases. Those aren't mutually exclusive events.

[madmax]

I suggest you look into the definition of "mutually exclusive." P(deficit) increases when spending increases. Those aren't mutually exclusive events.

If there is a situation where the deficit increases because of spending as the only variable, you are correct.

However the formula that results in calculating the deficit includes spending.

However, unlike in logic, of the two mutually exclusive observations, one does not necessarily have to be false. They both can be true, just not at the same time in the same category,

Which is probably not the best use of the phrase under the strict definition of the phrase.

It doesn't change the fact that you can increase spending without having a deficit.

You can decrease spending and have a deficit.

You can increase taxes and have a deficit.

You can decrease taxes and have a deficit.

The goal of government is to run balanced budgets.

Government can engage in any of those options and engage in surplus, deficits or balanced budgets.

This government is choosing to have spending, exceed revenue.

It is a $40 billion dollar choice I do not support.

Edited January 16, 2009 by madmax

[Moonbox]

I don't support a 40Billion dollar deficit.

The Green Party support, Deficit spending and a stimulus package. Sounds like the CPC and GPC could have a pity party with you as the host.

That doesn't even make sense. The LPC and NDP are all hooting and hollering about stimulus. Ignatieff made it clear he'll topple the government without a stimulus plan. Seeing as though we're already in the red, how does stimulus = non deficit?

Here's another attempt at that link you said was broken, btw...

Coalition 30B stimulus

Let me know if that works. It talks about Liberal ministers' stimulus spending for those of us who are debating that they wouldn't be spending a lot themselves.

A stimulus package, and a deficit are mutually exclusive.

A nonsense argument. Your explanation only helps underline how little you understand economics.

It doesn't change the fact that you can increase spending without having a deficit.

You can decrease spending and have a deficit.

You can increase taxes and have a deficit.

You can decrease taxes and have a deficit.

This means nothing. This doesn't change the fact that stimulus, under the present economic conditions, means nothing OTHER than deficit. The whole idea of stimulus is to pump money into the economy to help soften the fall. This means the government budget goes way out of wack. You can't increase taxes to provide stimulus because all you've done is taken more money out of the economy to just put it back in with bureaucratic government spending. The government is trying to turn an economic nosedive into something where we land on our feet and are able to start running from there.

The goal of government is to run balanced budgets.

Says madmax the economics guru. Hate to tell you this, but the role of government is to look after the electorate as they feel they want to be looked after. If most people are clamoring for stimulus to save their jobs, that's what the role of government is generally going to be.

For the record, I don't like a $40 B spending plan either. I would only criticize Harper, however, if there was an alternative who's not going to spend. We don't have one right now. I prefer Harper's planned tax cuts to the present philosophy, which seems to be throw even more money at the poor, unmotivated and uneducated and let the rest of us fend.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Moonbox