punked Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Remember a few years ago the Liberals were in power and the Cons accused them of under projecting to get surpluses? That was when the Cons demanded a new Job be created an outside body to project the surpluses. This job was to be the PBO. Well he now has a new job under a new government no longer does he have to project the surpluses his job is now to project the deficits with out the Cons spinning it. He says that over the next 5 years we can expect a $46 billion and $105 billion in new debt. This is before BTW the new stimulus package of 40 billion so more like 80-150 billion. Welcome to a new era for the PBO. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090121/..._economy_budget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Remember a few years ago the Liberals were in power and the Cons accused them of under projecting to get surpluses? That was when the Cons demanded a new Job be created an outside body to project the surpluses. This job was to be the PBO. Well he now has a new job under a new government no longer does he have to project the surpluses his job is now to project the deficits with out the Cons spinning it. He says that over the next 5 years we can expect a $46 billion and $105 billion in new debt. This is before BTW the new stimulus package of 40 billion so more like 80-150 billion. Welcome to a new era for the PBO. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090121/..._economy_budget Yet the left was screaming and pulling their hair out in the election about the gov't not wanting to do anything or enough. Be carefull for what you wish for... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yet the left was screaming and pulling their hair out in the election about the gov't not wanting to do anything or enough. Be carefull for what you wish for... And Harper was telling us he would never accept a deficit. So let me get this straight you are saying the left was right and Haprer lied. Welcome to the new left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yet the left was screaming and pulling their hair out in the election about the gov't not wanting to do anything or enough. Be carefull for what you wish for... What? They owe any stability to Paul Martin. The fact that Flaherty is now admitting he lied doesn't boost his credibility and for an economist Harper's as dumb as a post. Talk about flip flop. From our economy's fine to 45 billion dollar deficit BEFORE stimulus! And those morons want to reduce taxes. I am so angry. Not even I could have guessed they'd screw up this bad. People have been saying for awhile that somebody better get in there and look at those books. We left it too late. Leaving Diamond Jim in charge of our finances was like leaving Fat Albert alone in a donut shop. He should be arrested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 And Harper was telling us he would never accept a deficit. So let me get this straight you are saying the left was right and Haprer lied. Welcome to the new left. It's called being a politician. They tend to look at these things called polls and make judgements about what people want. Successful politicians in Canada really tend to look at the polls. Polls say Canadians want the gov't to do something to stimulate the economy. Surprise surprise the gov't did something. Do you think a cheapskate like Harper likes doing that? No of course not, but he's a politician with an election to win. I'm saying I'm in agreement with Aug. 1991 on this issue. Slash taxes and slash spending. I'm saying Harper was wrong, he didn't think the gong show economy would do so bad as to garner a deficit when he made his prediction a year ago. However Harper has made preperations to soften the blow as best as we can. Those preparations were enough, no we have simpletons running around pulling their hair out saying we need the gov't to open the taps. This may come as a shock to you, but public opinion is a big part in determining public policy. This seperates Harper from say GWB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 It's called being a politician. They tend to look at these things called polls and make judgements about what people want. Successful politicians in Canada really tend to look at the polls. Polls say Canadians want the gov't to do something to stimulate the economy. Surprise surprise the gov't did something. Do you think a cheapskate like Harper likes doing that? No of course not, but he's a politician with an election to win. I'm saying I'm in agreement with Aug. 1991 on this issue. Slash taxes and slash spending. I'm saying Harper was wrong, he didn't think the gong show economy would do so bad as to garner a deficit when he made his prediction a year ago. However Harper has made preperations to soften the blow as best as we can. Those preparations were enough, no we have simpletons running around pulling their hair out saying we need the gov't to open the taps. This may come as a shock to you, but public opinion is a big part in determining public policy. This seperates Harper from say GWB. Recent polls show that Canadians do not want tax cuts but prefer infastructure spending. As an economist Harper makes a good shoe salesman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 What? They owe any stability to Paul Martin. The fact that Flaherty is now admitting he lied doesn't boost his credibility and for an economist Harper's as dumb as a post. Talk about flip flop. From our economy's fine to 45 billion dollar deficit BEFORE stimulus! And those morons want to reduce taxes. I am so angry. Not even I could have guessed they'd screw up this bad.People have been saying for awhile that somebody better get in there and look at those books. We left it too late. Leaving Diamond Jim in charge of our finances was like leaving Fat Albert alone in a donut shop. He should be arrested. Reducing taxes are a great thing. If you think the gov't can spend money better than yourself, donate your paycheck to the gov't of Canada. Aug. 1991 is right, should we be throwing money around for the sake of throwing it around? Our biggest customer can't afford to pay for our products, what do you think was going to happen to our economy? BTW our economy is not as bad as some other places in the world. PMPM's election campaign was all about bribing Canadians with their tax money. Gov't spending would have went through the roof, and the country and businesses would be a lot poorer because of it. PMPM's spending policies would have been disasterous if he were PM for any longer in this economic environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Recent polls show that Canadians do not want tax cuts but prefer infastructure spending. As an economist Harper makes a good shoe salesman. No shit sherlock, that's why the gov't is planning on opening the floodgates for spending. What the people want, the people get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Reducing taxes are a great thing. If you think the gov't can spend money better than yourself, donate your paycheck to the gov't of Canada. Aug. 1991 is right, should we be throwing money around for the sake of throwing it around? Our biggest customer can't afford to pay for our products, what do you think was going to happen to our economy? BTW our economy is not as bad as some other places in the world. PMPM's election campaign was all about bribing Canadians with their tax money. Gov't spending would have went through the roof, and the country and businesses would be a lot poorer because of it. PMPM's spending policies would have been disasterous if he were PM for any longer in this economic environment. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1692027,00.html http://www.nea.org/home/18009.htm http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0120-06.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1692027,00.htmlhttp://www.nea.org/home/18009.htm http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0120-06.htm Oh boy, two partisan tinfoil hat hackjob sites and a time magaizine article stating the obvious that the gov't won't collect as much tax dollars as it did if it kept taxes higher (Brilliant deduction!!) Why the hell does the gov't need to be wallowing in cash? That's not only nonsense, that's evil. Tax cuts aren't supposed to boost gov't revenues, they are supposed to make every individual a little wealthier as the gov't does not forcibly take as much money. Tell me, how am I better off with PMPM's ponzi spending scheme than with Harper's tax cuts? Edited January 21, 2009 by blueblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Oh boy, two partisan tinfoil hat hackjob sites and a time magaizine article stating the obvious that the gov't won't collect as much tax dollars as it did if it kept taxes higher (Brilliant deduction!!)Why the hell does the gov't need to be wallowing in cash? That's not only nonsense, that's evil. Tax cuts aren't supposed to boost gov't revenues, they are supposed to make every individual a little wealthier as the gov't does not forcibly take as much money. Tell me, how am I better off with PMPM's ponzi spending scheme than with Harper's tax cuts? You are right surpluses are way worse then deficits. I love the Cons logic. Still targeting Paul Martin after all these years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 You are right surpluses are way worse then deficits. I love the Cons logic. Still targeting Paul Martin after all these years. You should love Con logic because what I'm saying is that both massive surpluses and massive deficits are complete nonsense. A lot of Canadians see it that way too. That's why Harper kept very tiny surpluses and would have kept doing so if the economy in the states wouldn't have tanked. I love the lefts logic, the gov't knows how to spend my money better than I do. Hell if Mulroney can be targeted, PMPM is fair game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 You should love Con logic because what I'm saying is that both massive surpluses and massive deficits are complete nonsense. I would say that massive surpluses would be a good thing until we get the debt paid off.....of course, that won't be for a while now....or maybe ever at this rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I would say that massive surpluses would be a good thing until we get the debt paid off.....of course, that won't be for a while now....or maybe ever at this rate. The gov't of Canada like a corporation is in a sense immortal. They have from now until judgement day to pay off the debt. There is no late fees, only interest to worry about. That means as long as the interest and even 1 or 2 billion dollars extra goes to servicing the debt, that is a good thing because the debt is not growing yet slowly being paid off, and there is more money flowing around in the economy. Blame your hero Trudeau for this debt nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 The gov't of Canada like a corporation is in a sense immortal. They have from now until judgement day to pay off the debt. Ah, but the sooner we pay it off, the less interest we have to pay. That means we can have lower taxes and higher spending at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFCaper Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Oh boy, two partisan tinfoil hat hackjob sites and a time magaizine article stating the obvious that the gov't won't collect as much tax dollars as it did if it kept taxes higher (Brilliant deduction!!)Why the hell does the gov't need to be wallowing in cash? That's not only nonsense, that's evil. Tax cuts aren't supposed to boost gov't revenues, they are supposed to make every individual a little wealthier as the gov't does not forcibly take as much money. Tell me, how am I better off with PMPM's ponzi spending scheme than with Harper's tax cuts? Being better than Paul Martin doesn't make you any good at all... PMPM is probably the only guy besides Dion who could have lost to Harper. And he was supposed to be by far the best man for the job just months earlier. If Harper is just blowing the cash because of polls, he even a worst LEADER than I thought. Maybe I know understand why you think he is as competent as the worst waffler Paul Martin. :angry: I think that they shouldn't run such huge deficits, but take money from there bloated bureaucracy and divert it to infrastructure, and I don't mean fixing the non-broken roads. New Infrastructure. I do think a tax break would help me maybe get to where I want to be financially so I'll start spending more again. That and some auto industry or manufacturing recovery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Ah, but the sooner we pay it off, the less interest we have to pay. That means we can have lower taxes and higher spending at the same time. How soon do we pay it off? How much should we hinder growth/personal wealth to achieve this lofty goal in a short amount of time? There has to be a balance of paying off the debt and not gouging ordinary Canadians. Remember that every dollar that is paid on top of the interest in servicing the debt results in smaller and smaller interest payments. Being that the gov't will not die means that we can afford to pay off the debt over a long period of time and at the same time keep taxes low so that the general population and the economy as a whole is a lot wealthier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Being better than Paul Martin doesn't make you any good at all... PMPM is probably the only guy besides Dion who could have lost to Harper. And he was supposed to be by far the best man for the job just months earlier.If Harper is just blowing the cash because of polls, he even a worst LEADER than I thought. Maybe I know understand why you think he is as competent as the worst waffler Paul Martin. :angry: I think that they shouldn't run such huge deficits, but take money from there bloated bureaucracy and divert it to infrastructure, and I don't mean fixing the non-broken roads. New Infrastructure. I do think a tax break would help me maybe get to where I want to be financially so I'll start spending more again. That and some auto industry or manufacturing recovery. A leader in this country can only do so much until the people reign him in. GWB in the US did not have to worry about this because after 8 years he is done. A second term president can be a very powerful person. Harper does not enjoy this power because he in theory always has an election to fight and has to deal with party brass. Canadian leaders, unfortunately have to keep their eyes on the polls. If they don't, it's curtains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Canadians weren't drowning under the Liberals. Small tax cuts over time along with moderate spending increases would have insured continued fiscal stability. Now, we're going to add another $50 - 100B to the debt. We're erasing almost everything we've achieved in that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 You should love Con logic because what I'm saying is that both massive surpluses and massive deficits are complete nonsense. A lot of Canadians see it that way too. That's why Harper kept very tiny surpluses and would have kept doing so if the economy in the states wouldn't have tanked. I love Con logic, especially when the prospect of a tax cut edges closer to implementation. It seems there is a $6B structural surplus that could help negate going into a structural deficit if permanent tax cuts are introduced in the budget. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on Wednesday promised Canadians tax relief in next week's federal budget, hours after an independent parliamentary research group said that Canada can, indeed, afford some permanent tax cuts."There will be some tax measures in the budget, and we are conscious of the need to use the tax system, to the extent possible, to create further stimulus in the economy," Flaherty told reporters after a Parliament Hill meeting of the Conservative caucus. As the caucus met, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) released a briefing note that said Canada may have a structural surplus of about $6 billion, which means Flaherty could introduce some tax measures worth at least that much without harming the country's long-term fiscal capacity. In concluding that Canada afford permanent tax cuts, the independent, non-partisan office may help bridge the political divide that has emerged in the last week between Conservatives and Liberals over what role, if any, tax measures ought to have in the economic stimulus package that will be part Flaherty's budget. The Liberals had warned against deep tax cuts, saying they would prevent Ottawa from ever raising enough money to get out of deficits down the road. ----- "If the government were to aim for a surplus position within the next five years, it would likely require contractionary measures in the outer years, while the economy is still expected to be below its potential capacity," the office wrote. That said, it notes that the government has what it calls a "structural surplus" of about $6 billion. By that, it means that in normal economic times, with Canada's GDP growing at an average rate, the government would collect $6 billion more in revenue than it would spend. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his senior advisers have told reporters over the last week that the federal budget will contain some "permanent" measures" to reduce this "structural surplus." A permanent measure might be something like an income-tax cut aimed at the middle classes. Will this be enough for Iggy to drop his opposition to broad based tax cuts? Will he dare kill the euphoria felt by Canadians when they realize they can get a tax cut PLUS massive government spending? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Canadians weren't drowning under the Liberals. Small tax cuts over time along with moderate spending increases would have insured continued fiscal stability. Now, we're going to add another $50 - 100B to the debt. We're erasing almost everything we've achieved in that regard. Canadians weren't as successful as they could have been as well. Under the tory gov't I have saved thousands of dollars in taxes. Have you read PMPM's platform? That would have been disasterous as he was planning on throwing the taps wide open on crazy spending programs. How much would we have added to the debt if he was in charge now??? Spending should be capped and should be justified for the good of the economy. Tax cuts like it or not help the economy. Canadians know how to spend their money better than gov'ts do. Believe it or not we have a good fiscal situation. Canadians can save 5000 tax free every year and can access that at any time. That is a great way of stimulating the economy. We could be like England, we could be like the US. Harper has done an alright job with managing the economy, and would have done better if he wouldn't spend so much (that's what happens when you have to face elections all the time, increased spending). And who knows the debt gets paid off in 200 years instead of 100 with this economic problem. The wealth of individual Canadians and the economy is far more important than the wealth of the gov't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Sorry, but the majority of economists on BNN today would have disagreed with you. People don't know what to do with money for the most part and they certainly don't know how to stimulate the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Sorry, but the majority of economists on BNN today would have disagreed with you. People don't know what to do with money for the most part and they certainly don't know how to stimulate the economy. So your advocating communism now!??! Are you saying I don't know how to spend my own money??? Does the government know how to spend your money better than you do??? Dobbin is right in this regard, people, businesses, and banks are right now in a state of panic and hoarding money. When the panic subsides, the economy will pick up again. People and business's spending money is what stimulates the economy, not gov'ts and banks hoarding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Dobbin is right in this regard, people, businesses, and banks are right now in a state of panic and hoarding money. Yes, in other words, they don't know what to do with their money right now. They can't be counted on to stimulate the system. Because of that, the government has to try. Our economy can't wait until people just decide to start spending again. I wasn't advocating communism. What I was trying to say is that people don't always know what to do with extra money...especially now. That's why many economists don't like the idea of tax cuts or rebates right now. Edited January 22, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yes, in other words, they don't know what to do with their money right now. They can't be counted on to stimulate the system. Because of that, the government has to try. Our economy can't wait until people just decide to start spending again.I wasn't advocating communism. What I was trying to say is that people don't always know what to do with extra money...especially now. That's why many economists don't like the idea of tax cuts or rebates right now. People are always looking out for themselves. People will always stimulate the system when the price is right. This leads to deflation, as you notice looking at gas prices. However, the gov't is trying to prevent this. I don't agree with that because people will start buying again when there are bargains to be had. This is happening in the Grains sector. The bottom I think has been reached and people are buying grains. Yes the economy can wait, it's some people can't afford to wait. In times of deflation, the gov't has a problem on its hands, does it ride out the storm and do business as usual taking casualties along the way, or is it going to pump money into the system that future generations are going to pay the price for? People know what to do with money. When people save money they put it in the bank, the bank eventually will get enough money to begin lending again. The people don't lose (in canada that is) by putting money in the bank, even with low interest rates, people are still getting a return on their bank investment. What some on the left don't realize is that these things take time and its a painful process. I know from experience that gov't stimulus in the form of firehose spending does not work. Bailouts accomplish nothing except jack up everyone's tax bill. If the gov't wants to do spending, it should spend on something that it will get a decent return on investment for. Such as hydro projects. Throwing money at car manufacturers is complete lunacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.