Ignatieff won't speculate on acceptable size of deficit...

[Moonbox]

Ignatieff won't comment on deficits...

He's being a little wishy-washy I think. He's obviously making sure nobody can pin him down on his position for the deficit. He'll make sure that whatever Harper does he'll be in a position to criticize the budget even though he'll likely vote to support it. It's not like Harper wouldn't do the same thing, but it's interesting nonetheless.

He's as big of a tool as the rest of them.

[85RZ500]

Yep, wishy-washy it is and typical too.

I still believe that Harper made a mistake in trying to save the status quo. We are in a financial mess that will take a while to get out of.

Whoever is in power will be branded as doing nothing right. Better it be the three stooges whining and sniping at each other.

Then an election with a majority gubment, LOL, economist Stevie saves the day.

Edited January 20, 2009 by 85RZ500

[Mr.Canada]

Yep, wishy-washy it is and typical too.

I still believe that Harper made a mistake in trying to save the status quo. We are in a financial mess that will take a while to get out of.

Whoever is in power will be branded as doing nothing right. Better it be the three stooges whining and sniping at each other.

Then an election with a majority gubment, LOL, economist Stevie saves the day.

The prorogue of government was done for the good of Canada. Canadians didn't want the PMO falling into the hands of the separatist Bloc, this was unacceptable in Dec and it's unacceptable now. PM Harper knew that and saved Canada from separatist Bloc owning the PMO. PM Harper is dedicated to the Canadian economy and the Tories will be responsible for renewing the Canadian economy. God Bless Canada!

[Moonbox]

I have trouble agreeing with this. I think Harper will be doomed next election. He'll be blamed for the crisis and the deficit resulting form it.

We'll end up with another 8 years of Liberal majorities.

[Smallc]

He's being a little wishy-washy I think. He's obviously making sure nobody can pin him down on his position for the deficit.

I think he's also making sure that he can pass the budget without too much trouble. He can't set a target, have the target missed, and then say oh well.

[Mr.Canada]

I have trouble agreeing with this. I think Harper will be doomed next election. He'll be blamed for the crisis and the deficit resulting form it.

We'll end up with another 8 years of Liberal majorities.

I doubt that very much. That would take the seats in Quebec and rural Ontario to vote in Liberal MP's which isn't likely to happen.

PM Harper cannot be blamed for a worldwide crisis but he'll be blamed for turning the Canadian economy around, he'll be then swept into a massive majority.

[Moonbox]

I think he's also making sure that he can pass the budget without too much trouble. He can't set a target, have the target missed, and then say oh well.

He should pick a real target. As a potential PM he should be able to decide how much is too much. If Harper goes beyond that he should vote the budget down. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Harper. I might swing to Iggy if he can prove himself a real Canadian and competent (as in not a wishy-washy tool like Dion). I'm watching him closely.

I doubt that very much. That would take the seats in Quebec and rural Ontario to vote in Liberal MP's which isn't likely to happen.

There were a LOT of close ridings in Ontario. When Ontarions and Quebecquers are losing their jobs I wonder if they'll start voting differently.

PM Harper cannot be blamed for a worldwide crisis but he'll be blamed for turning the Canadian economy around, he'll be then swept into a massive majority.

This is yet to be seen.

[Progressive Tory]

Ignatieff won't comment on deficits...

He's being a little wishy-washy I think. He's obviously making sure nobody can pin him down on his position for the deficit. He'll make sure that whatever Harper does he'll be in a position to criticize the budget even though he'll likely vote to support it. It's not like Harper wouldn't do the same thing, but it's interesting nonetheless.

He's as big of a tool as the rest of them.

I find this whole thing a little mind boggling; everyone looking for a spin. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Why would he, and how could he set a dollar amount of an acceptable deficit. "I take a view of the ensemble of this budget. Does it protect the vulnerable? Does it save jobs today? Does it create jobs tomorrow? Those are three things I’m looking for.

“I’ve also made it clear that I’m very concerned about the size of the federal deficit that’s projected because I do not want to burden your children and mine with repayment," Ignatieff said.

I'd feel much better if we could get Flaherty and Harper to be honest with us about the state of the books.

October 7, 2008 - "Canada PM says will not run deficit if re-elected: Canada's minority Conservative government would rule out running a deficit if it is re-elected, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Tuesday. "Our position in this election is we're not going to run deficits," Harper told reporters after the Conservative Party platform was released. "I think it would dangerous to sort of fly off in that direction now."

October 8, 2008 - "Facing accusations he is running a deficit already, Conservative leader Stephen Harper denies the charge "No. That's absolutely not the case". Yet to date this year the Harper government has racked up more than $20 billion in new public debt, an amount far larger than during any similar time frame or period during the last 8 years. What is Stephen Harper hiding?" We know from Flaherty's brief economic update that the only way we have a surplus at all is with the projected sale of assets.

November 20, 2008 (before update) - "The report by Kevin Page, the new Parliamentary Budget Officer, concludes that the federal Conservatives are likely to run budget deficits "in the near term," possibly beginning this year, and that the fault lies as much with Flaherty as it does with the weak economy. The report projects a budget deficit of $3.9 billion in 2009-10. But it adds that, if the economic downturn proves worse than expected, next year's federal deficit could hit $14 billion" This is before the projected stimulus package.

Dec. 18, 2008 - "Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his government will rack up a deficit of up to $30 billion during the next fiscal year in order to jolt the country's struggling economy back to life. The spending is a stunning policy shift for Harper, who has railed against deficits in the past, and would mark the country's first deficit since 1996" This after telling Peter Mainsbridge that a. "He won't allow a deficit" and b. "I won't be pressured into allowing a deficit."

I realize that this doesn't mean that Harper is being wishy-washy. An out and out liar best fits the description.

The Liberals, like many economists, are very concerned about the true position of our books, and sometimes I really want the Coalition to take power so that we can see them. This is vital. How can we possibly trust a man who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. 'Our economy is sound... I won't run a deficit... I won't consider bailouts... I won't tax Income Trusts ... let me make myself clear' I wish he would.

[Moonbox]

Yes dude, we understand Harper flip flopped on the deficit. I knew he was full of crap but I voted for him anyways in preference to the alternative (Dion).

They are all full of BS. As voters we get to pick what type of BS we're going to go with.

Like I've said before, these politicians are generally being elected by absolute morons. As such they'll take full advantage of how stupid people really are. As a voter, I'm well aware of this. I'm prepared to sift through the excrement and look at what has actually been done and why rather than choosing to blindly follow one party over the other. When the Liberals can prove to me they are going to outdo Harper's less than stellar record, they'll have my vote.

Nothing over the last two years has indicated they're anything but clowns.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Moonbox

[85RZ500]

Last two years???, How about ten +.

Liars and thieves Liberals are, seems now to my dismay, ingrained in the party.

Now, we have Mr. Drop-In, the Canuck by convenience, taking a job that nobody of value wanted.

Harper may not be perfect, but he is the lessor of evils.

[Progressive Tory]

Last two years???, How about ten +.

Liars and thieves Liberals are, seems now to my dismay, ingrained in the party.

Now, we have Mr. Drop-In, the Canuck by convenience, taking a job that nobody of value wanted.

Harper may not be perfect, but he is the lessor of evils.

The Liberals left them with a 13 billion dollar surplus which they blew DURING GOOD TIMES. They racked up an additonal 20 billion dollars in debt DURING GOOD TIMES. They are also already in at least a 2 1/2 billion dollar deficit based on Flaherty's Nov. economic statement (though experts say it's actually much higher. Just trying to get Harper to make himself clear) RACKED UP DURING GOOD TIMES.

How could I possibly trust them to handle our economy DURING BAD TIMES????!!!!!!!

You know, I respect the fact that Harper is a self-proclaimed Evangelist, but question why as a man who is supposed to be for good and honour, would bring so many crooks into his government. This is classic Mike Harris. Flaherty learned from the best.

[noahbody]

Why would he, and how could he set a dollar amount of an acceptable deficit. "I take a view of the ensemble of this budget. Does it protect the vulnerable? Does it save jobs today? Does it create jobs tomorrow? Those are three things I’m looking for.

“I’ve also made it clear that I’m very concerned about the size of the federal deficit that’s projected because I do not want to burden your children and mine with repayment," Ignatieff said.

This is called playing to the crowd. The dollar amount will be acceptable to Ignatieff because he, more than anyone, has has had the opportunity to influence it.

[Progressive Tory]

This is called playing to the crowd. The dollar amount will be acceptable to Ignatieff because he, more than anyone, has has had the opportunity to influence it.

Indeed he is playing to the crowd. Don't know a single politician who doesn't. That's why they make speeches. Ignatieff is playing his cards very close to the chest, being careful not to engage in combat, where the Tories excel.

He is in a very good position right now, but does not have the advantage of Harper and Flaherty, because he, like many Canadians, have no clue what our actual financial picture is. I've read the book "The Joy of Cooking: A guide to Hiding a Deficit" by Jim Flaherty. He dedicates it to Mike Harris, the man who taught him everything he knows.

Besides, as Leader of the Opposition, it's not his job to predict deficits. He can only agree or disagree with the current sitting government. I know a party on life support needs good spin doctor, but he's not taking the bait. A brilliant man.

If they want to know about deficits ask Stephen Harper. ''I will never allow a deficit...I will not be forced into a deficit.... We will have a 12 billion dollar deficit...we could have a 30 billion dollar deficit.... we may be heading for a depresssion.' Pick any answer. They're all nonsense.

[Moonbox]

The Liberals left them with a 13 billion dollar surplus which they blew DURING GOOD TIMES.

Again you're making up and playing with numbers. The tories were not left with a $13B surplus. The previous government, during the strongest economy Canada's seen in 50 years, enjoyed that. You act as if corporate and personal income can't change over time and that only spending and taxes can affect budget surpluses/deficits.

News flash: The economy is the single biggest factor in determining budget success.

News flash: A $13B surplus is actually puny compared to the federal budget. Stop acting like this is some sort of enormous cushion.

They racked up an additonal 20 billion dollars in debt DURING GOOD TIMES.

No they didn't. The good times ended in the summer by almost everyone's standards and actually before that in reality. Are you telling me that Harper had a $20B deficit back in 2007/early 2008? I'm just throwing it out there, but maybe you're just vomiting numbers out of your back end with no evidence to support them in the interest of partisanship?

They are also already in at least a 2 1/2 billion dollar deficit based on Flaherty's Nov. economic statement (though experts say it's actually much higher. Just trying to get Harper to make himself clear) RACKED UP DURING GOOD TIMES.

Cite your experts please, and clarify 'the good times'. Harper announced last January a dicey economy was up ahead. That was a year ago. The mortgage bubble popped in the US in or even before Oct/Nov 2007. Maybe you were blissfully unaware of what was going on in the world, but most world governments weren't. Sorry. The whole of last year was not 'GOOD TIMES'.

You know, I respect the fact that Harper is a self-proclaimed Evangelist, but question why as a man who is supposed to be for good and honour, would bring so many crooks into his government. This is classic Mike Harris. Flaherty learned from the best.

God bless Mike Harris for reversing the fiasco that was Bob Rae's disastrous government. While the selling off of the 407 was a shame, Harris AT LEAST played tough with public service unions and welfare recipients who were literally sucking us dry.

If we're going to run deficits, AT LEAST let it be because of tax decreases. Like I said, I'm not thrilled with Harper's over spending over the last 2 years, but nothing has me convinced Ignatieff is going to do any better. Put money in my wallet and in health care or F off.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

Whoever is in power will be branded as doing nothing right. Better it be the three stooges whining and sniping at each other.

Then an election with a majority gubment, LOL, economist Stevie saves the day.

And now Ignatieff can let Harper take the heat and then ride in majestically on a white horse, shining in his nobility and bursting with ideas for Canada's greatness for centuries to come.

[Moonbox]

That's about how it's going to go down.

Harper or Ignatieff, I couldn't really care less to be honest. I prefer Harper for the simple reason that I can't stand guys like Bob Rae and Dion but at least Ignatieff doesn't seem to be a total dink.

[Martin Chriton]

At this point in time it would've better for Ignatieff if he wasn't already in place as the Liberal leader. If he votes for the budget he shares just as much responsibility for it as Harper.

Anyone trying to blame Harper for "causing" a deficit and not also equally blaming anyone else who votes for it is a partisan hack.

[madmax]

Anyone trying to blame Harper for "causing" a deficit and not also equally blaming anyone else who votes for it is a partisan hack.

The Only party to blame for the current $14 Billion deficit is the CPC.

The CPC want to run a $40 Billion deficit, that is their choice.

If the LPC want to take responsibility for the Budget of the CPC, perhaps they engage in a coalition and share it

Seriously,

The only reason that Iggy won't state the "acceptable" size of the deficit is because it is traditional LPC tactics to be non committal on every issue and float with the wind.

Make no mistake, if Harper doesn't want to run a deficit. he doesn't have to. He can take it to the electorate and say, I don't want to run a deficit.

Problem is , Harper is going to run a deficit, because he was running a deficit before the last election and telling the people and media they weren't.

[Progressive Tory]

At this point in time it would've better for Ignatieff if he wasn't already in place as the Liberal leader. If he votes for the budget he shares just as much responsibility for it as Harper.

Anyone trying to blame Harper for "causing" a deficit and not also equally blaming anyone else who votes for it is a partisan hack.

But you see if you read the actual statements made by Ignatieff, he is very clever. The National Post tried to 'spin' his position on tax cuts as being a flip-flop; but his position has never changed. He always said 'Targetted tax Cuts' "helping the 'Most Vulnerable' Like Obama, when he refers to middle class he means as stated 'Lower to Middle' incomes'. Obama refers to middle class as 'workers' earning 'Less that 50,000.00 a year'. They are indeed the most vulnerable, because they are the most at risk of losing their jobs, and those job losses in turn affect others at both ends of the scale.

Harper supporters will try to say that he is being forced to go into a deficit, and he is currently predicting that it will be 40 billion. However, we were already in a deficit, and to borrow from 'We Are One'. This is what he said. This is what Michael Ignatieff said: "the Liberals would support a "modest" temporary deficit to stimulate the economy, but has refused to specify exactly what "modest" means." Well played but not what Harper thinks he's being 'forced into': "Ignatieff has warned against the perils of some of the stimulative measures expected in next Tuesday's budget, including broad-based tax cuts and a $40-billion deficit -- a figure projected by officials close to the prime minister."

He is neither forcing nor supporting such a massive deficit, and rightfully states that broad base tax cuts will only extend the deficit when the recession is over. Brilliant man. He wins either way.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[Martin Chriton]

He is neither forcing nor supporting such a massive deficit,

Not yet. We'll see if he votes for the budget. If he does vote for it he supports it.

Brilliant man.

Politicians have done this since the beginning of time. I'd have much more respect for someone that actually says *something* and stands by it. Spewing hot air isn't impressive (at least to me but maybe to you).

Edited January 20, 2009 by Martin Chriton

[Progressive Tory]

Not yet. We'll see if he votes for the budget. If he does vote for it he supports it.

Politicians have done this since the beginning of time. I'd have much more respect for someone that actually says *something* and stands by it. Spewing hot air isn't impressive (at least to me but maybe to you).

Hardly hot air. His statements are direct, concise and to the point. We all understand the term 'modest'. He isn't going to give anything away but clearly states that 40 billion dollars is not modest. Again clearly states that broad based tax cuts will only extend the deficit.

Harper needs to look at what Canadians are saying. No to tax cuts - yes to infastructure spending. It makes sense. If we're going to borrow on our children's future, we must make sure that our children will at least get to reap the rewards. Roads, bridges, etc.

Recent Nanos poll shows that Candians are still pretty luke warm to Harper's handling of the economy. He'd better start listening to the Canadian people.

http://www.nupge.ca/files/images/pdf/20090...Tabulations.pdf

http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/01/13/the-cas...-city-spending/

http://www.publicvalues.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=00257

Sure Ignatieff could huff and puff and wave his hands around, but he didn't get to teach at schools like Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, by being stupid. He chooses his words carefully. This budget is the Conservative's responsibility, and if they can't get it done, then they need to step down. He's not taking the bait. If a 40 billion dollar deficit with broad based tax cuts is presented, it will be voted down.

[Martin Chriton]

Hardly hot air. His statements are direct, concise and to the point. We all understand the term 'modest'. He isn't going to give anything away but clearly states that 40 billion dollars is not modest. Again clearly states that broad based tax cuts will only extend the deficit.

He is being vague. Not once has he ever given a specific. He mentioned he wants money for middle class, never mentions how much. He mentions he wants money on infrastructure projects, again doesn't give numbers or specifics (e.g.: what projects, my preference would be on forward looking nuclear power plants).

All hot air.

This budget is the Conservative's responsibility, and if they can't get it done, then they need to step down. He's not taking the bait. If a 40 billion dollar deficit with broad based tax cuts is presented, it will be voted down.

We'll have to wait and see if he disagrees when it's time to vote. My gut sense is that he'll support it.

[mjp]

iggy is a conservative in liberal clothing, nothing more, nothing less..

[Mr.Canada]

iggy is a conservative in liberal clothing, nothing more, nothing less..

Now, how can Harper get him to cross the floor, leaving the Liberals rudderless, demoralized and ripe for the complete and utter destruction of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[madmax]

I have trouble agreeing with this. I think Harper will be doomed next election. He'll be blamed for the crisis and the deficit resulting form it.

I found it interesting that the Conservatives are running radio adds telling the public to tell the opposition to support the Budget.

If the Conservatives are telling Canadians that this is their baby, they are going to own it. I do believe he will get blamed for that resulting deficit, but I think he should be blamed for the current deficit as well.

We'll end up with another 8 years of Liberal majorities.

I don't think that will happen.