Galahad Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 Post Removed due to copyright infringment. But you can read Jim McNulty's article here: http://forums.advancode.com/index.php?showtopic=309 Quote
August1991 Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 It makes no difference whether the federal government pays off the debt or doesn't. IOW, it doesn't matter whether the federal government borrows or taxes. What matters is whether the federal government BUYS. How much does the federal government take from our economy? That's the question. (How it pays for its purchases - as long as it doesn't use new Bank of Canada money - is irrelevant.) This budget will raise the federal government take by estimated inflation and GDP growth. Huh? Martin doesn't get this in the least. He benefitted from the Clinton years, which were really the Volcker years of no inflation, and the Gates years of productivity. It was easy to do what Martin did as Finance Minister when the economy poured the tax money in. Martin thinks this will keep on working. Huh? Now it's time to reduce the government take. It's time. Quote
maplesyrup Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 Galahad.....I agree that Martin has stolen the Cons thunder. Liberals will only be giving up seats on their left. Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Dennis Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 This is a joke, right? Paul Martin delivered a budget which was a complete retreat from governing this country, because he's running scared as a result of AdScam, and he's somehow sticking it to the opposition? If Paul Martin is going to run in the next election on this budget then its Hello Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I just love it when people allow partisanship to make themselves look completely dumbfounded. Quote
Dennis Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 Galahad.....I agree that Martin has stolen the Cons thunder. Liberals will only be giving up seats on their left. How has he stolen their thunder? There is nothing about this budget that is conservative, except to a hard Leftist. Spending in this country is through the roof. So is taxation. You'd think the Left would be thrilled. Instead, they just want to spend even more of other people's money. Go figure... Quote
Galahad Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Posted March 25, 2004 Now it's time to reduce the government take. It's time. I disagree. Would you decide to take early retirement if you still owed half of your mortgage? The debts is there ... it ain't going away. And with our buddies down south having expectations that we will pull our weight militarily & our medical system becoming in crises mode, this is no time to cut revenues. The fact that he thinks he can pull it off without RAISING taxes is damned good news. That's called "budgeting". WE'll see how it works. And if you harbour some delusion that the new & improved PC's would cut taxes, you're dreaming in technicolor. Quote
Galahad Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Posted March 25, 2004 Galahad.....I agree that Martin has stolen the Cons thunder. Liberals will only be giving up seats on their left. Oh totally. The minute Manning started on about "accountability" & "fiscal responsibility" the Liberals, the Ontario Premier , the BC Premier etc etc..started stealing his thunder. Oh yeah...so did Harper. Quote
August1991 Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 Would you decide to take early retirement if you still owed half of your mortgage? Galahad, I'm sorry for the Layton connection below, but I sincerely hope you understand this idea too. Layton used your same analogy, and showed his ignorance of economics. (He really needs new advisors.) The federal government is not like you or I. Comparisons of its choices and your choices (and my choices) are totally different. Why? Because the federal government uses someone else's cheque book and credit card to make payments. You and I cannot do that. (Imagine if we could!) Please, someone, explain this to Layton. PS. Layton, by his ignorance, missed out on a really good argument. Quote
maplesyrup Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 Did anyone see Question Period today? I almost felt sorry for harper as Martin wiped the floor with him. Budget scraps shadowy national unity fund Quote An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't. Anatole France
Galahad Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Posted March 25, 2004 Would you decide to take early retirement if you still owed half of your mortgage? Galahad, I'm sorry for the Layton connection below, but I sincerely hope you understand this idea too. Layton used your same analogy, and showed his ignorance of economics. (He really needs new advisors.) The federal government is not like you or I. Comparisons of its choices and your choices (and my choices) are totally different. Why? Because the federal government uses someone else's cheque book and credit card to make payments. You and I cannot do that. (Imagine if we could!) Please, someone, explain this to Layton. PS. Layton, by his ignorance, missed out on a really good argument. Well I rarely will give Layton a kudo, but if he used my analogy ( god knows when.... he didn't want MORE money for social programs & union members??) he is correct. If you were using someone else's purse ... you'd retire. Who gives a damn what comes in ... not your worry. Martin is acting as if it is HIS purse & saying ... I can't afford to sit on a beach in Hawaii. This is called "responsibility" (thank you Preston!) Quote
August1991 Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 If you were using someone else's purse ... you'd retire. Who gives a damn what comes in ... not your worry. Exactly. But does it matter to the person whether you use the cheque book or the credit card? IOW, does it matter to you whether someone steals your credit card or your cheque book? The critical question is: What is the damage? Quote
Galahad Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Posted March 25, 2004 If you were using someone else's purse ... you'd retire. Who gives a damn what comes in ... not your worry. Exactly. But does it matter to the person whether you use the cheque book or the credit card? IOW, does it matter to you whether someone steals your credit card or your cheque book? The critical question is: What is the damage? It matters. Ask all of the people declaring bankruptcy. It wasn't because they used their chequebook too often. Quote
August1991 Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 1. The government uses other people's credit cards and bank accounts. What does bankruptcy mean in this case? I'll repeat: the government is not like you and I. (For populistic and demogagic reasons, Richard Nixon often made the same comparison as Jack Layton did: "How can American families balance their budget if America doesn't balance its budget?") Layton really needs better advisors. 2. If someone randomly chooses my cheque book or my credit card to make payments, it makes no difference to me. (I frequently do this myself.) I am no right wing fanatic, far from it. In fact I consider myself rather left wing, but I would prefer an informed discussion about government purchases - and how they are paid for. The key question is: how much does the federal government (Ottawa) take from Canada? How it gets this is not the question. This is the distinction that Martin, Layton - even Nixon - don't (didn't?) get. Quote
willy Posted March 25, 2004 Report Posted March 25, 2004 August 1991, This is twice in one day that I have to say I am in complete agreement. As one of the true right wing people posting on this site, my first priority would not be to cut taxes. I want our federal government to focus on its responsibilities. Set priorities based on that plan and only spend in those areas. Where the provinces have responsibility, the federal government should send the money along. I am not sure why they added $2 billion to a $2 billion contingency fund. After a year with SARS, BSE, Softwood, Storms, Fires and they had enough contengency. I don't want to know what they might expect to happen this year if it costs more. An added billion to education, and an extra billion to health care would have been wiser investments. It is like owning a car, if you don't buy new tires the old ones won’t work forever. They are budgeting on operating expenses and not reinvesting into aging infrastructure. And they keep growing there influence without finishing the job. Example, the low income loans program for education. For $300 million, fifteen years from now some underprivileged kid will be able to afford one text book. Money spent but not invested. And all the papers covered the new money for education. How about the new money for health care, the same money that has been announced 5 times. $2 billion for the country, I know the health budget in BC is $12 billion this year, so with our cut we can hire a couple of doctors and buy one new MRI. That should go along way to fixing the system. Not a good budget for anyone. We will see a slow decline, until we need massive spending to catch up. Quote
Galahad Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Posted March 25, 2004 1. The government uses other people's credit cards and bank accounts. What does bankruptcy mean in this case?I'll repeat: the government is not like you and I. (For populistic and demogagic reasons, Richard Nixon often made the same comparison as Jack Layton did: "How can American families balance their budget if America doesn't balance its budget?") Layton really needs better advisors. 2. If someone randomly chooses my cheque book or my credit card to make payments, it makes no difference to me. (I frequently do this myself.) I am no right wing fanatic, far from it. In fact I consider myself rather left wing, but I would prefer an informed discussion about government purchases - and how they are paid for. The key question is: how much does the federal government (Ottawa) take from Canada? How it gets this is not the question. This is the distinction that Martin, Layton - even Nixon - don't (didn't?) get. 1. The government uses other people's credit cards and bank accounts. What does bankruptcy mean in this case? No credit with other countries. Living in Zimbabwe waiting for international aid. 2. If someone randomly chooses my cheque book or my credit card to make payments, it makes no difference to me. (I frequently do this myself.) It makes one hell of a difference if you don't have anything in your bank & are kiting cheques & can't pay your credit card bill at the end of the month. The key question is: how much does the federal government (Ottawa) take from Canada? How it gets this is not the question.This is the distinction that Martin, Layton - even Nixon - don't (didn't?) get. Well August put me in the pile with Martin, Nixon & Layton. What in the hell are you talking about? Sorry will not be able to reply again after this for about a week...will see you then & pick up where we left off. Or not. Quote
Galahad Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Posted March 25, 2004 August 1991,This is twice in one day that I have to say I am in complete agreement. As one of the true right wing people posting on this site, my first priority would not be to cut taxes. Willy - We agree...no tax cuts at this moment. It's a matter of where the money goes...not cutting off the supply until you have this under control. Martin understands this. We understand this. Harper doesn't. Tax cuts can come later when they have a handle on where the money goes (sure looks like they haven't in years). See you later, alligator! Quote
willy Posted April 2, 2004 Report Posted April 2, 2004 Martin does not understand how to spend money. I was stating other priorities. Don’t use my quotes to support the scandal ridden Liberals. Example where did the money come from for the Toronto Subway? Another fund that looks very similar to the unity fund. Yes a slush fund. Look at where the contingency fund goes in the coming year. They doubled it. Does this allow them to pay off special interests with discretion and not account for it in the budget forecasts? Hey I firmly believe education and health need adequate money but I am talking about returning transfer payments back to responsible levels. If the Conservatives can do this by managing the money better and we have room for tax cuts great. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted April 2, 2004 Report Posted April 2, 2004 Will: Martin does not understand how to spend money. As someone who spent a good amount of his life in business, PM PM knows how to invest money. Chretien was a career politician who spent money. I was stating other priorities. Don’t use my quotes to support the scandal ridden Liberals.Example where did the money come from for the Toronto Subway? Another fund that looks very similar to the unity fund. Yes a slush fund. Look at where the contingency fund goes in the coming year. They doubled it. Does this allow them to pay off special interests with discretion and not account for it in the budget forecasts? Well, given the fact that we have two unpredictable theats that we weren't considering before - global epidemics, and terrorism - I think a disaster fund is called for, and furthermore is prudent. Hey I firmly believe education and health need adequate money but I am talking about returning transfer payments back to responsible levels. Good point. Transfer payments were cut to the provinces, then the provinces cut transfers to the communities, then the federal government gives transfer payments to the communities. This is nothing more than a political shell game. If the Conservatives can do this by managing the money better and we have room for tax cuts great. I'm looking forward to hearing what their plan is... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Galahad Posted April 2, 2004 Author Report Posted April 2, 2004 Well, given the fact that we have two unpredictable theats that we weren't considering before - global epidemics, and terrorism - I think a disaster fund is called for, and furthermore is prudent. I agree totally. One could disagree with WHAT the money in the slush fund is spent on...but not the fact that it EXISTS. Most of us have such a fund, I think .... and call it the "slush", "disaster", "contingency", "rainy day" fund etc.. I call mine the "stew" fund and that's because I use it mainly to buy extra pilsners when I stew over something, so as to get my body thoroughly stewed, along with my head. Such is the case today as I just found out that some turd went over Greg's head and took my Jim McNulty piece out again. SKOL! Quote
willy Posted April 3, 2004 Report Posted April 3, 2004 Galahad, and Michael, If you want to have funding for epidemics pay for a federal disease control center. One was proposed and it would have built on what they already have in BC. But the Liberals didn't come through. If you are worried about terrorism, one should manage the $8 billion that went to security already. If it is military concerns how about after the tax cut for military service people we have adequate funding for equipment and buy some of our own planes to get them in and out of harms way. Soon they will have to take turns wearing shoes. We had floods, fires, sars, BSE, softwood all last year and $2 billion was enough. Why then $4 billion? Do you know something I don't, should we be ready for the s@#t to fly? Quote
August1991 Posted April 3, 2004 Report Posted April 3, 2004 Well, given the fact that we have two unpredictable theats that we weren't considering before - global epidemics, and terrorism - I think a disaster fund is called for, and furthermore is prudent.And that explains perfectly why the fund was used for Toronto's TTC and Montreal's Metro.As someone who spent a good amount of his life in business, PM PM knows how to invest money.Rather, PM PM knows how to receive a "gift" from Paul Desmarais.Desmarais, like Robert Campeau, made his first million, the hardest, through government contacts. Neither were ever interested in "public power". PM PM, on the other hand, was only ever interested in the "big ideas" of public governance; that is, politics. PM PM at CSL is like Nixon at Mudge, Stern et al. (BTW, anyone know Maurice Strong? Another Desmarais protege and Martin's alter ego...) Quote
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.