New Liberal... err I mean Conservative budget!?!?!

[munkless]

Anyone else notice that? Holy crap this budget is a turn around from the ideology the Conservatives have espoused in the past. Money for housing? Reduced income tax for folks under 80k a year! Man, I have a feeling the conservatives would sell their mothers to get into power. Under Harper they've always been bullies and and had the 'if you aren't with me, we'll crush you' mentality. I wonder how long this will last. It's a little spooky. At least when the Conservatives wore their ideology on their sleeves you knew where they stood. Now, they could turn at any moment, I suppose, when the time is right, they'll strike. Be afraid, be very afraid. Next they'll be giving single mothers and the homeless free housing.

[Barts]

Reduced income tax for folks under 80k a year!

For the record, the tax cuts apply to everyone, not just folks earning less than $80,000 per year. Folks earning more than $80,000 pay less tax on their income below $80,000 and the same rate on income above $80,000. As usual, people at the higher end will get a bigger cut--in actual dollars--than the people at the lower end of the income scale.

With these new and permanent tax cuts, how do you see the government raising the funds necessary to pay off the deficit? If taxes aren't raised, there will need to be massive budget cuts, which will depress the economy.

As usual, the Conservatives have let ideology override good economics.

[Progressive Tory]

The Liberals certainly have the power right now. The Conservatives even admitted that it was being written to please Ignatieff and all talk is 'Will Ignatieff accept it'. Rather ironic that Harper's power trip has left him so powerless.

"While nobody has been reprimanded for the November difficulties, it now appears clear the government wants to send a message that it has learned its lesson. Shifting responsibility for the budget may serve to demonstrate to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who must decide whether to keep the government alive, that the Conservatives are serious about changing their approach." January 26, 2009 Globe and Mail

[munkless]

For the record, the tax cuts apply to everyone, not just folks earning less than $80,000 per year. Folks earning more than $80,000 pay less tax on their income below $80,000 and the same rate on income above $80,000. As usual, people at the higher end will get a bigger cut--in actual dollars--than the people at the lower end of the income scale.

With these new and permanent tax cuts, how do you see the government raising the funds necessary to pay off the deficit? If taxes aren't raised, there will need to be massive budget cuts, which will depress the economy.

As usual, the Conservatives have let ideology override good economics.

Whoa! I wasn't criticizing the economics of the whole thing, I didn't even hear the whole budget, I'm just shocked at the ideological 180 that the Conservatives have taken. Frankly, I feel we were in an economic bubble and it was due to burst. Most people were spending beyond thier budget and this is the result.

I don't have the answer on how to solve this other than let the dead hit the ground and everyone balance thier own household budget and make the best of the situation. Perhaps taking the focus of the manufacturing industry from cars to windmills and solar panels. I dunno.

[Progressive Tory]

Whoa! I wasn't criticizing the economics of the whole thing, I didn't even hear the whole budget, I'm just shocked at the ideological 180 that the Conservatives have taken.

You don't have to whoa on anyone's account here. It is interesting that the media focus is on Ignatieff, and it clearly is a Liberal budget.

From the Montreal Gazette just a few minutes ago:

Liberals ponder 'calmly' on budget - OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is expected to offer support for the budget Wednesday, although he said it would be "a tough call" as he came under pressure from the New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois to defeat the minority Conservative government. "There are some positive elements in this budget that would have been unthinkable before Christmas. That is to say, the government has responded to the combined pressure of the opposition parties, and those results are positive," Ignatieff told reporters in the House of Commons foyer shortly after the budget was tabled.

Nevertheless, he raised several concerns, such as whether the government's deficit projections are accurate, "The government did not make the right choices when times were good; now that times are hard, times are tough, it is up to this party to decide whether the choices they have made today are the right ones," Ignatieff told the Commons. "The House should know this is going to be a close call. This is going to be a tough call. But we will make that choice calmly and serenely."

I think he'll pass it but he's going to make them sweat.

[Smallc]

it clearly is a Liberal budget.

It must be, because I certainly like it for the most part (of course, that could have something to do with my love of infrastructure spending and the money for the coast guard).

[M.Dancer]

Folks earning more than $80,000 pay less tax on their income below $80,000 and the same rate on income above $80,000.

Do you want a chance to rethink that statement?

Never the less....

The government also proposes raising the upper limits on the two lowest income-tax brackets. The upper limit for the 15 per cent bracket would go to $40,726, while the upper income limit for the 22 per cent bracket would rise to $81,452.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/27/...ersonalfin.html

[Progressive Tory]

Do you want a chance to rethink that statement?

Never the less....

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/27/...ersonalfin.html

He does say "This tax relief will help low- and middle-income Canadians, and it will stimulate consumer spending,"

Whether it will stimulate consumer spending or not is questionable. With more people now concerned about the jobs (More people in Alberta than the rest of Canada, which was kind of a surprise), the cuts could be saved or used to pay down debts. It's a gamble.

[M.Dancer]

He does say "This tax relief will help low- and middle-income Canadians, and it will stimulate consumer spending,"

Whether it will stimulate consumer spending or not is questionable. With more people now concerned about the jobs (More people in Alberta than the rest of Canada, which was kind of a surprise), the cuts could be saved or used to pay down debts. It's a gamble.

Either or, with an extra $200 of our own $$$ in our pocket, it will be our choice...

[capricorn]

"While nobody has been reprimanded for the November difficulties, it now appears clear the government wants to send a message that it has learned its lesson. Shifting responsibility for the budget may serve to demonstrate to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who must decide whether to keep the government alive, that the Conservatives are serious about changing their approach." January 26, 2009 Globe and Mail

PC, would it be possible for you to provide a link to what you quote you provide in your posts? It's not to be critical and I don't doubt your source but it would be nice to see in which context the opinion or comment was made. If it's not too much trouble.

[Progressive Tory]

PC, would it be possible for you to provide a link to what you quote you provide in your posts? It's not to be critical and I don't doubt your source but it would be nice to see in which context the opinion or comment was made. If it's not too much trouble.

Actually, I was doing that but got a message from the moderator to stop (or not so much). I will link to these articles though.

Promise of no more juvenile games:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...budget2009/home

Ignatieff Ponders Budget:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Entertainme...4081/story.html

Is that what you meant?

[Argus]

It must be, because I certainly like it for the most part (of course, that could have something to do with my love of infrastructure spending and the money for the coast guard).

Aren't you guys going to have a little more trouble complaining a little ways down the road about how Harper led us into deficit with a straight face after praising this kind of a budget?

[Argus]

As usual, the Conservatives have let ideology override good economics.

Yes, they're acting like Liberals.

The only hint of ideology is a ludicrous effort "to save money" by cutting back on public service wage increases, and capping travel and other spending at last year's levels. This is like desperately trying to plug a tiny hole in the back of the boat when the entire front half just fell off.

[Smallc]

I'm not complaining about the deficit. I don't like it, but I realize that we have to do it because a set of circumstances have led us here (some the governments fault, some not). If in six years however, we're still in deficit.....

Edited January 28, 2009 by Smallc

[Progressive Tory]

Aren't you guys going to have a little more trouble complaining a little ways down the road about how Harper led us into deficit with a straight face after praising this kind of a budget?

On many levels I agree with you. I've had more time to reflect and do a lot of reading since the Parliamentary crisis began. PhD economists really question lowering taxes while increasing spending. This is not good. As a grandmother I worry about the long term affects of this temporary euphoria.

Like a Christmas Party where everyone's happy opening their gifts, until the credit card bills start coming in.

[Progressive Tory]

Yes, they're acting like Liberals.

The only hint of ideology is a ludicrous effort "to save money" by cutting back on public service wage increases, and capping travel and other spending at last year's levels.

And let's not forget those cost cutting measures of adding more Cabinet Posts, with those extra salaries ($50,000 above their MP wages), limos and drivers. Or 18 additional senators with expense accounts. Boy does he know to cut corners. It's no wonder we're broke.

[Argus]

And let's not forget those cost cutting measures of adding more Cabinet Posts, with those extra salaries ($50,000 above their MP wages), limos and drivers. Or 18 additional senators with expense accounts. Boy does he know to cut corners. It's no wonder we're broke.

That's window dressing. We're not broke because of that. We're broke because they gave billions and billions extra to the whiny provinces - chiefly Quebec, which got 4.5 billion extra per year, and because they did nothing to reign in spending prior to this current unfolding economic problem. They've thrown money at anyone and everything in an effort to increase their popularity.

[madmax]

Aren't you guys going to have a little more trouble complaining a little ways down the road about how Harper led us into deficit with a straight face after praising this kind of a budget?

It sucks.

Edited January 28, 2009 by madmax

[Progressive Tory]

That's window dressing. We're not broke because of that. We're broke because they gave billions and billions extra to the whiny provinces - chiefly Quebec, which got 4.5 billion extra per year, and because they did nothing to reign in spending prior to this current unfolding economic problem. They've thrown money at anyone and everything in an effort to increase their popularity.

I didn't mean we were broke because of that, just used it as an example of his version of 'cost cutting' measures.

The trouble with money for the provinces, was that he campaigned on that issue and was still trying to gain support in Quebec. I'm all for more provincial autonomy, but this was political.

I saw an interview with Art Laffer and while he did say his economic theory supports tax cuts, he said the only way it works is if you also reduce spending. They did one and not the other. If we still had that 13 billion dollar surplus we'd be in a much better position now. However we're starting at zero, or sub-zero; depending on who you believe.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Chris in KW]

I saw an interview with Art Laffer and while he did say his economic theory supports tax cuts, he said the only way it works is if you also reduce spending. They did one and not the other. If we still had that 13 billion dollar surplus we'd be in a much better position now. However we're starting at zero, or sub-zero; depending on who you believe.

Right - ironically, while this is perceived as an attempt to "please liberals", at least the Liberals balanced the budget in the last few terms.

This budget (big spending + tax cuts) is a huge mistake. It's neither fish nor fowl (liberal nor conservative), and it fails miserably when examined under either ideology.

Either tax and spend, or lower taxes and lower spending. But don't lower taxes and raise spending!!!

I really feel like Harper is not merely trying to grab popularity (as Argus said) - he's actually cutting off the country's nose to spite it's face.

BTW, check out "Cut off your nose to spite your face" on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_t..._spite_the_face

[Alta4ever]

Right - ironically, while this is perceived as an attempt to "please liberals", at least the Liberals balanced the budget in the last few terms.

At the expense of EI........

[waldo]

The end of Canadian conservatism - How Harper sold out to save himself

The Right in Full Retreat - Andrew Coyne no less!

[Molly]

At the expense of all sorts of things.

Paying off stale bills and old debts like the ones Mulroney ran up is no easy thing. That's exactly why we aren't perfectly thrilled with a big fat deficit this time either.... at some point, the piper must be paid.

[Alta4ever]

At the expense of all sorts of things.

Paying off stale bills and old debts like the ones Mulroney ran up is no easy thing. That's exactly why we aren't perfectly thrilled with a big fat deficit this time either.... at some point, the piper must be paid.

I'm no fan of Mulrooney, but come on if you are going to talk ran up deficits, don't forget Trudeau, he ran up quite a tally as well.

[Molly]

Yep.. Trudeau ran deficits, and Mulroney -- who ran on cutting them-- ran up even bigger ones, and left us financially belly up for when the 90's hit, so by the end of his administration we had 4X the debt Trudeau left us with, and were darned near bankrupt (to the degree that nations can be).

Deja vu.

Harper and Mulroney are peas in a pod, attempting to govern from a nearly identical ideological position and trying to co-ordinate exactly the same voter support base. A fair case can already be made that Mulroney is the more fiscally responsible of the two, because even though he didn't cut spending, he at least didn't cut revenue either, and left in place some of the means to actually pay the bills he was running up.

(I'm no fan of Mulroney either, but he was right about both NAFTA and the GST.)