Budget Raises Doubts Among Some Conservatives

[punked]

This budget is the last straw. It's totally unacceptable, and it's a complete betrayal of all that is conservative. Keynesian spending has never worked before, if anything it made the great depression worse and longer.

I think you are going to have to prove this one because for all intents and purposes when they cut spending the US during the depression (under republican pressure mind you) they went into a mini recession after 3 years of growth so where is your proof?

[Progressive Tory]

I don't think anything could ever get me to vote Liberal again. But if the rumblings I'm hearing about rebooting Reform are true, I'll be there in a heartbeat. In the meantime, Harper needs to be pushed out, he cannot be trusted any more.

Very well said. I was really hoping to hear from the old Calgary School, Class of 93, Reformer. The heart and the soul of this Party.

I was still voting PC, when the Reformers came on the scene, and while it wasn't a direction I would have gone, liked some of the fundamentals of the party. Also, for some reason when Preston Manning spoke, I felt compelled to listen. I guess that's his gift. I heard all the 'Right-Wing Nutjob' comments; a lot of that coming from Paul Martin's camp; but always told people that Canadians voted for them because of those beliefs, so had no problem with it.

From the other side, I never supported the merger either, so started voting NDP (I couldn't stand Paul Martin at the time). It wasn't until Michael Ignatieff took over the leadership that I'm now supporting the Liberal Party, because they're now closer to my Red Tory leanings. (I can't believe I'd ever have heard myself saying that)

As a PCer and Red Tory this budget is so against everything I ever believed in. People are suggesting it's a Liberal budget, but I think it's more NDP. It's an accident waiting to happen.

Thank you for sharing your views. I respect that.

[eyeball]

Punked, I think you misunderstand. The word "market" means "choice". (To me, the word "market" means more than choice - it also means that you are aware of the choices.)

If your choices are restricted, then what happens? I think that is the question of your post.

===

People who favour markets, favour choice.

How about we put this budget to a national referendum and let the people choose?

[Progressive Tory]

Oh please, please, please let them be true.

They're getting louder and clearer all the time. Don't go by sensational headlines, but what the grassroots are saying.

Another complaint I've hear a buzz about is the new cabinet. Many of the Party faithfuls have been overlooked again. Maurice Vellacott shut out, while Gail Shea, who won her riding by 76 votes, gets a Cabinet position. I think many of these guys are getting tired ot waiting for promises that are never going to come.

[Topaz]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National This is what Canadaians think of budget.

[Progressive Tory]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National This is what Canadaians think of budget.

Thanks for sharing that. I think it's an accurate summary of what I've been hearing. Michael Ignatieff really had no choice, but putting Harper on a short leash was prudent.

[capricorn]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National This is what Canadaians think of budget.

Thanks for the link Topaz. Well it looks like the majority of Canadians approve of the budget. Of course, the Liberals already knew that. Fifty-two percent of Canadians think the Prime Minister is best equipped to manage the economy. I wonder if the GG would take this into consideration should Iggy and the coalition want to try their luck.

Nonetheless, a majority say they are supportive of the document, with 62 per cent saying they have a positive impression, compared with 38 per cent who feel the opposite; 52 per cent say the budget gives them confidence in Mr. Harper's ability to manage the economy, compared with 48 per cent who feel otherwise. Conservative supporters – at 92 per cent – are significantly more likely to believe in the PM's economic management, while supporters of other parties are far less optimistic.

Canadians are also urging the opposition parties to back the budget, with a full two-thirds saying they should support it. Even 47 per cent of New Democratic voters feel that way. The NDP has said it will vote against the budget.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National

[madmax]

1. Why would they do that when they are making a profit here?

Americans have been purchasing some very profitable Canadian operations and closing them down for sometime in order to amalagamate the technology in existing operations in the US, or in New larger facility in Mexico or China. Some Canadian firms also sit on some very juicy contracts that American operations have been unable to secure because of price or quality issues. Purchasing a Company will get you the contracts, and if the contracts are more valueable then the company, close it down through bankruptcy if need be.

This has been one of the largest reasons for Plant Closures in Ontario. Obvisusly with US government incentive they are more likely to channel more of these purchases into US operations.

Edited February 1, 2009 by madmax

[madmax]

What is our unemployment rate again? The rate hasn't shot up, just certain regions are feeling the effects of 2 things the because of union bargining and high dollar value which made the canadian labour cost to high to bear in a global enviornment.

Unionization is larger in Alberta then Ontario. Ontario private sector Unionization is around 6% compared to nearly 31% in Alberta.

The possiblity of your statement bearing any truth is remote, however, wages are one variable in the big scheme of a global operation.

The High Dollar lasted for only a short period of time. Enough to cause some pain or panick, but not enough to change any operations long term plans. The same would be true if the dollar dropped back down to 70cents. If an operation is scheduled to be shut down, it will happen and the current economic circumstances will have no effect on the long term decision.

The High dollar was certainly a factor in some operations depending on their US contracts and how they are set up. It all depends on who pays. Sometimes with Branch Operations it has no effect, and allows greater purchasing power for newer technologies.

Energy costs had a huge impact.

It is not possible to pay Engineers, Bean Counters, Management staff the wages of Mexico or China. It is not possible to pay general labour the wages of Mexico or China.

As I see operations that have closed down in the past year and the wages are less then $1 over minimum wage, then wages cannot be the sole factor of an operations viability in Canada.

As for EI rates, wait for this next quarters figures. Ontario has done an excellent job masking the labour problems as parttime work has accounted for 70% of job growth and that appears to be drying up.

Also, the number of other enterprises downsizing or closing is now affecting regions with a more diversified economy.

I was shown a job posting for General Labour. $8.75 as per collective agreement, which is minimum wage. Somebody is paying dues for a minimum wage job.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/l...lfs-epa-eng.htm

Employment declined for the second consecutive month in December (-34,000), the result of a large drop in full-time work. With the decline in employment came a 0.3 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate, which hit 6.6% in December.

In December, full-time employment losses (-71,000) were partially offset by gains in part-time employment (+36,000). In 2008, all of the employment increases were in part-time work.

Regardless of cheap and possibly more affordable goods coming from offshore, is the problem that the purchasing power of many Canadians is in decline.

[M.Dancer]

Really? It is the PMO telling the caucus that party solidarity is absolute on the budget. They were talking about this on the political talk shows this evening.

Is this someothing new? is Dobby sugesting that the Libs hace given up on whips and wouldn't treat money bills as comfidence votes?

for someone to express mock outrage over this is truly funny yet sad and desparate...

[jdobbin]

If a federal government deficit is the measure of radical, then I'd say Harper is a conservative.

I guess that is up to other Conservatives to decide.

So-called Conservatives may have raised 'reducing government budget debt' to a fetish or shibboleth but modern economic theory hasn't.

That fetish is deeply rooted in western Canadian society and is at the heart of the Reform party. Harper knows this. He has used this to hammer the Liberals. There was no amount of deficit that he would accept from Liberals. There was never any amount of debt that was acceptable.

Now Harper has to live with the expectations he has put on his own performance.

In any normal society, some (young) people are in debt and some (older) people have savings. The older people have loans to younger people. Hence, any normal society will show a level of debt since older, rich people will be lending to younger, poor people. Such is life, in a civilized society.

You don't have to tell me this. You have to tell your Conservative friends.

However, if you are going to do it like Colby Cash and blame the Liberals, it is not likely going to work. Harper might whine that this isn't his budget but he can't really distance himself like that. He has to wear it.

Typically, any democratc government in such a society will have debt. It is obtuse to argue that such a government should aim to reduce its debt anymore than older and younger people in such a society should aim to reduce their debt, or their savings.

You are basically saying a large swath of your party is obtuse.

I am disheartened by such discussions. Individual behaviour is not the same as collective behaviour.

Go onto some of the blogging Tory sites and make the case. It isn't Liberals that are in angst about this. It is Conservatives. It is your people.

It is funny how some Tory commentators are hoping some in their party break ranks on this. It just isn't going to happen. There might not be love for Harper but there is just no one in the wings who has the brass to say no.

Edited February 1, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National This is what Canadaians think of budget.

Interesting premise. If true, then many of us are truly left with no choice of party to vote!

Consider, if it's true that Harper has brought out a 'wussy' Liberal style budget because Iggy has 'put a gun to his head' then what do we do?

Vote for Harper when he seems to have abandoned his principles or vote Liberal after Iggy FORCED such a budget to happen?

Either way, we don't get what we want.

So who DO we support?

The answer is still Harper, but as I've ranted about since I first joined this board, only by default! He may be a poor choice but the alternative is even worse.

It is ironic that we are witnessing a repeat of the 'Mulrony times' when millions of Canadians jumped for an alternative with Reform.

We just don't seem to have such an alternative. However, there is one important difference. This time around, we KNOW that we are taken for granted! We KNOW that the Tories believe that we have to stay with them for lack of any other choice!

This means that we can wait and bide our time, letting our resentment fester until we finally DO get a better choice!

Meanwhile, no need to get all hot and bothered. As the Klingons say, revenge is a dish best served cold!

[M.Dancer]

How about we put this budget to a national referendum and let the people choose?

How about we have a referendum to see if we want a referendum?

[eyeball]

How about we have a referendum to see if we want a referendum?

Better yet we should have a referendum on whether to incorporate more referenda into our decision making. I'd probably vote on most issues much the way your signature suggests.

[madmax]

Interesting premise. If true, then many of us are truly left with no choice of party to vote!

Consider, if it's true that Harper has brought out a 'wussy' Liberal style budget because Iggy has 'put a gun to his head' then what do we do?

Vote for Harper when he seems to have abandoned his principles or vote Liberal after Iggy FORCED such a budget to happen?

Either way, we don't get what we want.

So who DO we support?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotian/1104126.html

Deficits are evil only when leftish governments run them

Food for thought

I nominate for the Solid Brass Award the new Tory Senator Stephen Greene, who uses the spectre of deficits to flog Nova Scotia’s NDP. At a recent nomination meeting, Green reportedly compared Darrell Dexter to the communist rulers of North Korea and Cuba, and urged Tories to "remember the havoc under NDP Premier Bob Rae in Ontario."

Ah yes, Bob Rae, the Ogre of Ontario. As Rae took office in 1990, Ontario was already heading into recession and projecting a $700 million deficit. Rae tried to blunt the recession’s impact using even larger deficits. He failed. But if recession-fighting deficits were bad policy then, why are the federal Tories embracing them now?

And what about Manitoba’s NDP Premier Gary Doer, running 10 budget surpluses in a row while cutting taxes and improving social services? Anybody remember the balanced budgets of Allan Blakeney and Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan? And the looting of the Saskatchewan treasury by the Tories under Grant Devine, which sent the deficit to $1.2 billion and landed a dozen Tories in jail for fraud?

Canada’s greatest socialist, Tommy Douglas, held off implementing medicare for 15 years, until he was sure that Saskatchewan could afford it. Why? You can’t build social democracy, Douglas argued, if the bankers can stop you by calling your loans. That’s not a problem for right-wing governments — but it gives left-wing governments a lively allergy to deficits.

[Huston]

Here is a question let's say you have a peanut.....no wait a meat factory. It is poorly kept and cause the meat to poison people and they die. Is that "clearly defined criminal behaviour"?

Negligence.

Ok you have a toy factory and the toys are painted with toxic paint and a bunch of kids die. Is that "clearly defined criminal behaviour"?

Negligence.

How about you have a power company and they don't kept their lines intact and the wind knocks out power to an area for a day on the coldest winter and an old many freezes to death is that "clearly defined criminal behaviour"?

Negligence.

And so on and so on.

Regulation is about the criminal behaviour which is not clearly defined and no magic hand of the market will change those things. It just wont.

No regulation is about standardizing, so the government can get a bit of the cut. That is the problem of corpocracy. Despite what people think, the US was heavily regulated. That is why health care cost so much, and their industrial base move over seas, because it costs too much. Regulation creates bureaucracy, and you need to pay for those jobs. That would be the job creation politicians talk about. No wonder things stagnate.

[Huston]

No I picked government over "magic hand of the market"

There is no magic hand of the market.. unless you are primitive and don't know that lightning is not caused by god, but by other reasons. The market is determined by the countless people who buy goods. I guess consumers or producers are magical.

Funny thing is the government people always want my vote and thus care if someone does or doesn't die.

One would think, but obviously such people have never heard of a boycott. A company is still vulnerable to individuals. Try boycotting a government. Strategically voting for a party you agree with that will never see a single seat ever. Oh yes. Looks like I have more power over Coca-Cola than a government. Because you have no choice, individually boycotting a government, they will go after you, because, well, they own the money, and they want their cut.

Oh, well go to another country..

Edited February 1, 2009 by Huston

[punked]

Better yet we should have a referendum on whether to incorporate more referenda into our decision making. I'd probably vote on most issues much the way your signature suggests.

There have only ever been 3 in our whole history as a country. It wont be used more. Also if you look at the History Quebec would hate them they are ALWAYS on the losing side of these things.

Edited February 2, 2009 by punked

[punked]

There is no magic hand of the market.. unless you are primitive and don't know that lightning is not caused by god, but by other reasons. The market is determined by the countless people who buy goods. I guess consumers or producers are magical.

One would think, but obviously such people have never heard of a boycott. A company is still vulnerable to individuals. Try boycotting a government. Strategically voting for a party you agree with that will never see a single seat ever. Oh yes. Looks like I have more power over Coca-Cola than a government. Because you have no choice, individually boycotting a government, they will go after you, because, well, they own the money, and they want their cut.

Oh, well go to another country..

History proves you wrong. It is really hard to boycott a company which is un sanitary and ends up killing people with contaminate food until someone dies. This is the stupid idea of the market. People think well if they do a bad job people wont buy from they will do a good job. Then we look to China to see what an under regulated market looks like and we see poisonous milk. Great no one buy that milk too bad 100 babies just died. I like to be pro active. Rules, and Regulations which are enforced are needed. Sorry to tell you, but you live in a dream world that would never fly in Canada.

[KingIggy]

There isn't much wrong with the new CON budget. It is generally a culmination/manifestation of Liberal political ideas and policies.

[Progressive Tory]

Thanks for the link Topaz. Well it looks like the majority of Canadians approve of the budget. Of course, the Liberals already knew that. Fifty-two percent of Canadians think the Prime Minister is best equipped to manage the economy.

It's rather interesting that an article headed 'Budget fails to quell criticisms of PM: poll', translates into 'Fifty-two percent of Canadians think the Prime Minister is best equipped to manage the economy'.

The only positive for the PM in the article is this one line: "52 per cent say the budget gives them confidence in Mr. Harper's ability to manage the economy." It doesn't say that he is best equipped for anything. Also remember that 48 per cent feel otherwise. That's a very large number especially if the Cons are considering another election anytime soon.

What's key is that the vast majority of Canadians feel that Harper would not have acted on the economic crisis had it not been for the Opposition. These are key numbers for the Conservatives, because it shows that Canadians have recognized that he is no longer the strong leader he claimed to be.

This was not about whether or not Canadians liked the budget. The majority, myself included, are sick of the drama and just want to get on with it. Harper on a short leash is wonderful.

[Progressive Tory]

There isn't much wrong with the new CON budget. It is generally a culmination/manifestation of Liberal political ideas and policies.

It's more NDP than Liberal. Spend then worry about how to pay for it later. Ignatieff called for a modest deficit and targetted tax cuts. He is on record as saying that the budget is fundamentally flawed, but knows that we have to at least start somewhere. Recent polls suggest that he did the right thing.

The term 'Keynesian' has become part of our venacular, based on one portion of John Keynes economic principles. Getting out of a recession by increased spending on infastructure and lowering taxes. However, as most economic theories go, the entire plan must be adhered to before it can really work.

He also says that we must raise taxes to pay for war. He says that during an economic bubble, governments must raise taxes to avoid inflation. We are entering recession mode after already lowering taxes during the bubble and paying for war from exisiting revenue. What he refers to as a 'war paid for through poverty'.

I'm not an economist and frankly, would only read his The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money as a cure for insomnia. But we went from using one half of Art Laffer's Curve, lowering taxes (he says it only works if you also reduce spending), to massive spending, permanent tax cuts and huge debt. I still think it's an accident waiting to happen.

[madmax]

There isn't much wrong with the new CON budget. It is generally a culmination/manifestation of Liberal political ideas and policies.

It is a CPC/LPC budget.

Similar to the Mulroney/Trudeau vision of peeing in the lake to see if the water rises.

However, the difference is Mulroney gave us the largest single tax hike in History (GST) which Chretian then used to pay down the deficit, combined with massive cuts to the Provinces.

This time the budget has CPC/LPC tax cuts along with CPC/LPC spending increases. Thus this isn't a budget that Manning or Martin (As finance Minister) might have come up with, it is a budget that is purely Harper/Flaherty and Ignatief.

It is a budget that makes no sense to any political party, but 2 parties are supporting it. Thus someone has to take responsibility for it, and that will be in the vote.

This will be a budget created by the CPC and Amended and FULLY supported by the LPC.

So, King Iggy, I disagree with you regarding the benefits of the budget.

[madmax]

I'm not an economist and frankly, would only read his The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money as a cure for insomnia. But we went from using one half of Art Laffer's Curve, lowering taxes (he says it only works if you also reduce spending), to massive spending, permanent tax cuts and huge debt. I still think it's an accident waiting to happen.

This is a CPC budget that is fully endorsed by the Liberal Leader. His vote will be a stamp of approval for an accident waiting to happen.

[madmax]

Back to the headline.

I went to a townhall budget meeting put on by the CPC government.

There were no details. Anything you have read in the papers was all that was presented to those in attendance. Virtually everyone who chose to attend were CPC backers and many were interested in getting their hands on the money. Same for the city councillors.

After the 5 minute introduction the meeting was open to questions, none of which could be answered. That's right, not one question received an answer, beyond, I will have to look into that, or I will get back to you, or your absolutely right we should do it that way, but I don't know. You can count on us, trust us, etc.

I didn't hear the "fiscal" Conservative voice at this meeting who might go on a tirade about balanced budgets or excessive spending.

I knew then that there was no point in me asking any questions and it became apparent to the group in attendance that the meeting was premature.

The media were disappointed as there was no story, good or bad to report.

It turned into a social gathering, make the best of it, and have another meeting when there are some answers.

Just my observations in one riding.