Ignatieff says stimulus, "Not working..."

[Moonbox]

This was from the Globe and Mail, I read it on the Saturday hard copy:

"It has been precisely 11 days since Finance Minister Jim Flaherty unleashed his whopper of a budget, weighing in at 343 pages, for an average of $117-million in stimulus spending per page. Mr. Ignatieff this week declared the plan was not working.

He's right, clever fellow. It's not working. But then, it's not law yet, either, since it's still in the early stages of working its way through the House. The billions of dollars set aside for infrastructure have not been paid out, Mr. Ignatieff pointed out, quite accurately presumably because one still needs the approval of Parliament before one pays out the billions of dollars one has set aside for infrastructure."

(I don't have a link sorry that's directly taken from the Saturday paper Globe and Mail)

I thought this was just kind of funny. Iggy's already said the budget isn't working before it's even been enacted.

With that said, What do people think of massive stimulus? Personally, I already think it's enough, perhaps too much, but there doesn't seem to be ANYONE out there forwarding that as an option.

Harper says there will be no more stimulus after this, but then Flaherty contradicts him and says there could be. Iggy and the Liberals are clamoring for more and good 'ol Jack is saying that CPC policies are directly responsible for 325,000 lost jobs.

I remember jdobbin and I arguing about how big the deficits would be over the next few years prior to the election and it seems both he and I were like 20-30 billion dollars off our estimates.

What my question to everyone here is what on EARTH are people looking for in the budget? People right now are criticizing the CPC budget from one direction, saying that they're overspending and the massive deficits are going to be completely their fault, but then from the other direction they're supporting various parties that demanded it in the first place and in many cases are demanding even more spending.

Disregard the fact that Harper increased the federal budget slightly and overspent on social programs over the last two years. How much did that REALLY affect us considering the deficits for the next 2 years will be in the area of $60 billion? The effects were marginal. Clearly Harper is a flip-flopping hypocrite and said what he needed to get elected in October, but if we're going to attack his policies, could someone PLEASE clarify how the alternatives are better? Is more spending and bigger deficits better, or is it just CPC deficits that are evil?

Edited February 9, 2009 by Moonbox

[capricorn]

I saw that article too Moonbox. Here's the link.

http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servle...LOET07/TPStory/

I'll have to read your observations more closely before commenting.

[noahbody]

Harper publicly asked the national party leaders for their input. So if Ignatieff wants to take the position that he could do better, I would first like to know why he chose to hold back his better and likely brilliant ideas. IMO, it would have been much better if he was chosen at a convention instead of appointed. As it is, he seems to be a puppet for those who put him in power. And what's best for the Liberal Party will take precedence over what's best for Canada.

That said, given the choice between a puppet and Dion, I'd take the puppet any day.

Edited February 9, 2009 by noahbody

[Alta4ever]

And what's best for the Liberal Party will take precedence over what's best for Canada.

That said, given the choice between a puppet and Dion, I'd take the puppet any day.

When has that ever been different?

[jdobbin]

Harper publicly asked the national party leaders for their input.

So if Ignatieff wants to take the position that he could do better, I would first like to know he chose to hold back his better and likely brilliant ideas.

Ignatieff gave Harper three thing they needed to put in act on the budget. Those points were included in the bill presented.

Harper himself once said it is not the job of the Opposition to prop the government.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/...hen_harper.html

We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians.

In other words, the Opposition is to provide criticism and have the people and ideas in place to become an alternative government. The Opposition is not there to provide the government with all the ideas for the budget. The role of the government is govern. Consult, yes, but if they are rudderless and have none of their own principles and ideas, they shouldn't be governing.

The Opposition doesn't have to come up with a full document of what they would do in a budget. Harper never did. I didn't hear Tory supporters here saying that Harper was holding back all his good idea and yet they seem to think the Liberals should lay out their whole strategy.

IMO, it would have been much better if he was chosen at a convention instead of appointed. As it is, he seems to be a puppet for those who put him in power. And what's best for the Liberal Party will take precedence over what's best for Canada.

It probably would have worked that way if it did not seem highly likely that Harper would call an election before May.

That said, given the choice between a puppet and Dion, I'd take the puppet any day.

And Ignatieff can throw brickbats all he wants. There is plenty the government can do even without the budget being made law just yet.

Wasn't Flaherty himself saying two months ago that they had all the stimulus they needed?

Edited February 9, 2009 by jdobbin

[Alta4ever]

Liberals should lay out their whole strategy.

I have yet to see any ideas.

[Moonbox]

And Ignatieff can throw brickbats all he wants. There is plenty the government can do even without the budget being made law just yet.

What sort of meaningful things can the government do without the budget right now?

Wasn't Flaherty himself saying two months ago that they had all the stimulus they needed?

I'm not sure that's what he said. As I recall he said they were going to wait to present the budget before they did anything.

[jdobbin]

I have yet to see any ideas.

The only time a party needs to provide them is during an election. Harper didn't provide a lot of detail when he was in Opposition. That is not the job of the Opposition to supply the government with all their ideas.

[Huston]

With that said, What do people think of massive stimulus?

No stimulus will actually stimulate anything; only make the matter worse further down the line.

good 'ol Jack is saying that CPC policies are directly responsible for 325,000 lost jobs.

He is, as always, a fool. The collapse of neo-liberalism (globalism) caused it.

What my question to everyone here is what on EARTH are people looking for in the budget?

I am looking for less spending and deregulation (or re-regulating) certain laws that make it hard for people to be less reliant on the failed corporate structure through neo-liberalism, also known as corporate protectionism. Guaranteeing them money for their flaky products. Ah, the wonders of a service based economy.

[Moonbox]

The only time a party needs to provide them is during an election. Harper didn't provide a lot of detail when he was in Opposition. That is not the job of the Opposition to supply the government with all their ideas.

Surely you can't be saying that it's not the job of MP's to help decide how to govern the country??? You couldn't possibly mean that MP's in the opposition should keep their mouths shut if the current government is doing harm to the country, could you?

While I agree that Opposition isn't normally prepared to disclose their election platform to the current government, when the country is facing its worst recession in probably 80 years, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the opposition shouldn't be trying to mitigate it as much as possible.

[jdobbin]

What sort of meaningful things can the government do without the budget right now?

Reducing the size of cabinet.

Introducing disclosure rules on top 50 executive compensation packages for all publicly listed companies.

Tax reform.

Cancelling the sub program.

Reducing or ending ethanol supports.

Phasing out regional development agencies in favour of a national infrastructure strategy.

Extending appropriations a year or more to save money.

Offer unpaid furlough programs to many in the federal workforce.

Offer more job sharing to federal workforce to reduce overall employment.

Offer municipalities a limited offer of a portion of the gas tax to be be applied to infrastructure spending.

I'm not sure that's what he said. As I recall he said they were going to wait to present the budget before they did anything.

He said that Canada already had a stimulus program in place with the GST cuts and spending program. The only other spending they said they might look at was the auto industry.

[Moonbox]

No stimulus will actually stimulate anything; only make the matter worse further down the line.

Can you rephrase that? I don't understand.

He is, as always, a fool. The collapse of neo-liberalism (globalism) caused it.

I think you need to be a little more specific. In some ways I agree with you, but you're speaking mostly cliché and I don't really know exactly what you're talking about. If you're saying that insatiable corporate greed, corruption and the inept regulation of the financial markets, then I think you're on the right track. Above it all, however, you have to hold the stupidity of the average consumer.

[jdobbin]

Surely you can't be saying that it's not the job of MP's to help decide how to govern the country???

It isn't. There can only be one government at a time. Are you suggesting that the Opposition MPs form their own budget in a minority and let Parliament vote on it?

You couldn't possibly mean that MP's in the opposition should keep their mouths shut if the current government is doing harm to the country, could you?

They don't keep their mouths shut. The criticize and oppose the government in the adversarial system we have set up in place. If they do have an idea that must have in a budget, they can proffer an amendment. It is up to the government to accept it or not. In a minority, not accepting it means an election.

The Opposition doesn't and shouldn't supply the government with all of the ideas for governing. It makes for a weak government.

While I agree that Opposition isn't normally prepared to disclose their election platform to the current government, when the country is facing its worst recession in probably 80 years, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the opposition shouldn't be trying to mitigate it as much as possible.

The Opposition is doing its job. As I said, if the government accepts everything the Opposition suggests, it is a weak government.

[Moonbox]

Reducing the size of cabinet.

Introducing disclosure rules on top 50 executive compensation packages for all publicly listed companies.

Tax reform.

Cancelling the sub program.

Agreed on everything...

Reducing or ending ethanol supports.

There's something I would DIE to see. This is one of my biggest beefs nowadays.

Phasing out regional development agencies in favour of a national infrastructure strategy.

Extending appropriations a year or more to save money.

Offer unpaid furlough programs to many in the federal workforce.

Offer more job sharing to federal workforce to reduce overall employment.

Offer municipalities a limited offer of a portion of the gas tax to be be applied to infrastructure spending.

Again, I agree on everything.

These are all things that can and should happen. The problem is that none of them are going to stimulate the economy right now and none of the current parties are really offering any of that anyways. These are things that nobody is going to worry about for a couple of years right now. You and I are therefore left with just complaining about them. If we want something done we should try and get into politics.

Failing that we can continue to both argue for the same measures from opposite teams.

He said that Canada already had a stimulus program in place with the GST cuts and spending program. The only other spending they said they might look at was the auto industry.

Okay I couldn't remember. Now that we know that they were either full of balogna or forced to reverse their position, who do we go to if the current budget doesn't suit us?

[Moonbox]

...There can only be one government at a time....They don't keep their mouths shut. The criticize and oppose the government in the adversarial system we have set up in place. If they do have an idea that must have in a budget, they can proffer an amendment... Are you suggesting that the Opposition MPs form their own budget in a minority and let Parliament vote on it?

I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that if the Liberals think the budget is a terrible idea and isn't going to help Canada, they SHOULD push for amendments or they should vote it down. Since they pretty much passed it as is, it's stupid to take the position that they think it's a terrible plan.

The Opposition is doing its job. As I said, if the government accepts everything the Opposition suggests, it is a weak government.

Right now the official opposition is supporting the budget. That says one of two things. Either they support what the government's doing, or they're a weak opposition. I'll let you decide.

[jdobbin]

I'm not suggesting that. What I'm suggesting is that if the Liberals think the budget is a terrible idea and isn't going to help Canada, they SHOULD push for amendments or they should vote it down. Since they pretty much passed it as is, it's stupid to take the position that they think it's a terrible plan.

They did push through an amendment: to report back to Parliament and face confidence on the performance of the budget.

Ignatieff said in his passing of the budget that it had to be measured in terms of an election or a coalition. Canadians didn't seem to want either. However, by the polls reckoning, they did want the Opposition to hold the government to account.

The Opposition is perfectly right to say they oppose the budget and give the reasons. They also perfectly to right to let it pass with confidence conditions. People want the government to govern and the Opposition to hold their feet to the fire. You seem to think that can't oppose anymore since they let the budget pass.

Right now the official opposition is supporting the budget. That says one of two things. Either they support what the government's doing, or they're a weak opposition. I'll let you decide.

I think Ignatieff was clear: The Liberals do support the budget but have expressed doubts about it and have set tripwires for an election based on the budget performance.

[Moonbox]

They did push through an amendment: to report back to Parliament and face confidence on the performance of the budget.

This sort of amendment is more to keep up appearances of resistance than anything. When the first 'report card' is evaluated, we'll be back EXACTLY where we were last week. The CPC will present whatever theyre going to present, and the LPC will either swallow it or force some ACTUAL amendments. The amount of pussy-footing being done here is titanic. If Ignatieff thinks there are big problems with the budget, amend them NOW rather than wait for the actual damage to be done and say, "I told you so!" No Iggy, you didn't. You had the chance to force amendments and you didn't do it. Either you think the budget is fine or you're politicking. It's something Canadians loathe right now. You'll notice the lack of CPC attack adds recently. Harper's reigned it in for a reason.

I think Ignatieff was clear: The Liberals do support the budget but have expressed doubts about it and have set tripwires for an election based on the budget performance.

Like I said it's a wishy-washy pussy-foot position. He's taking the easy way here. It's a no risk approach where he can say anything he wants after the fact and it's purely because he's in an extremely weak position. A coalition would ruin the Liberals and they can't afford an election. It's Dion all over again with better English.

Harper can and WILL make it clear that Ignatieff could have had the budget amended at every turn.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

This sort of amendment is more to keep up appearances of resistance than anything. When the first 'report card' is evaluated, we'll be back EXACTLY where we were last week. The CPC will present whatever theyre going to present, and the LPC will either swallow it or force some ACTUAL amendments.

I've never thought confidence votes were all about appearance. They are about facing Parliament. If Harper is floundering around at any one of these performance votes, we'll be into an election.

The amount of pussy-footing being done here is titanic. If Ignatieff thinks there are big problems with the budget, amend them NOW rather than wait for the actual damage to be done and say, "I told you so!" No Iggy, you didn't. You had the chance to force amendments and you didn't do it. Either you think the budget is fine or you're politicking. It's something Canadians loathe right now. You'll notice the lack of CPC attack adds recently. Harper's reigned it in for a reason.

So what you are saying is that when Harper let the 19 confidence motions pass when he was in Opposition, he was politicking and should have actually got amendments in place if he really didn't like the budgets?

Like I said it's a wishy-washy pussy-foot position. He's taking the easy way here. It's a no risk approach where he can say anything he wants after the fact and it's purely because he's in an extremely weak position. A coalition would ruin the Liberals and they can't afford an election. It's Dion all over again with better English.

If he is in a weak position, I am sure Harper will make sure to call an election to take advantage of it before spring.

[Moonbox]

So what you are saying is that when Harper let the 19 confidence motions pass when he was in Opposition, he was politicking and should have actually got amendments in place if he really didn't like the budgets?

Probably. Either that or he agreed with the majority of the budget. The situation was drastically different anyways. The country wasn't in its worst recession in probably 80 years, and we hadn't had 3 elections in the last 5-6 years. Harper's party also wasn't completely broke and they weren't in nearly the same position of weakness.

If he is in a weak position, I am sure Harper will make sure to call an election to take advantage of it before spring.

They're both walking a fine line. Harper's majority gamble failed in October and if he triggered another election soon even I wouldn't vote for him. If people like me wouldn't, a good number of others wouldn't either. He knows that. We're in a recession. That's what's important.

Harper is not calling an election in spring either. He may force none-confidence on a big issue, but that's a little different than what he did in October.

[Huston]

Can you rephrase that? I don't understand.

Switch clauses.. oops. I meant the stimulus will not stimulate anything.

I think you need to be a little more specific. In some ways I agree with you, but you're speaking mostly cliché and I don't really know exactly what you're talking about. If you're saying that insatiable corporate greed, corruption and the inept regulation of the financial markets, then I think you're on the right track.

Neo-liberalism is a political tool for a global consumerism. Providing products through cheap labour. Central banks made cheap money with artificially low interest rate levels. this is not corporate greed, it is state corruption. It is big, inefficient, ideaological. Fiat money is a terribly flaw concept. It is debt, and certainly does not trickle down. giving tax breaks achieves nothing, especially when there is a silly little home renovation rebate. So let met get this straight you take out a loan to do a home reno, you know have to start paying that off, and you get a small amount form the government. this sounds like the Bush stimulus, where people got 500-700 dollar checks, nd it achieved nothing. However, this is worse than that, and I don't know the details of the US stimulus under Obama, but it will also achieve nothing.

The government is only capable of threough money around. It's education system fails at creating ideas, that is why everyone is dependant on the state or their corporate tentacles, which has been privatized in most countries, not sure of the extent in this country, but it is still the same flawed structure that made the welfare state go broke that lead up to neo-liberalism.

Above it all, however, you have to hold the stupidity of the average consumer.

The fault should never be pinned on the average consumer. How about big projects not back by much like the ROM building, or fancy expensive post-secondary institutions, and other constructions projects backed by municipal, provincial and federal levels.

[capricorn]

I thought this was just kind of funny. Iggy's already said the budget isn't working before it's even been enacted.

At least it’s consistent with his message that the budget is riddled with deficiencies. I can’t see him giving good grades whatever comes out of implementing the budget’s measures.

With that said, What do people think of massive stimulus? Personally, I already think it's enough, perhaps too much, but there doesn't seem to be ANYONE out there forwarding that as an option.

The budget shoots in so many directions something’s bound to hit a few right targets. Why don’t the opposition just wait for the impact of the budgetary measures here and measures in the rest of the world's economies before calling for more spending? Of course if they did, they’d miss good media opportunities to blast the government.

Harper says there will be no more stimulus after this, but then Flaherty contradicts him and says there could be.

It certainly looks like they’re not on the same page.

I think what prompted the Liberals to ask for more is a result of a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Pressure for more stimulus followed a new report from Canada's parliamentary budget watchdog Thursday. It warned MPs that Ottawa's projections for climbing out of deficit within half a decade may be too rosy and cautioned that Ottawa's stimulus package may have a smaller and less effective impact than advertised.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/politics/

The Budget Officer’s messages are quite interesting. He says no way the deficit will be eliminated as scheduled by the government. Then, he says the stimulus package is not large enough.

Parliamentary budget officer stepping on PM's toes

Keith Page's forecasts and cost estimates surrounding the nation's finances have been considerably better than those of the government

http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDi...E%20SUN%20TIMES

I bet the PM wishes he could un-appoint Mr. Page.

Iggy and the Liberals are clamoring for more and good 'ol Jack is saying that CPC policies are directly responsible for 325,000 lost jobs.

Look at all the media coverage they’re getting out of it. Prime time for Jack.

What my question to everyone here is what on EARTH are people looking for in the budget?

Magic, that’s what everyone wants. And if that magic hits them with a few bucks from the Treasury, all the better.

People right now are criticizing the CPC budget from one direction, saying that they're overspending and the massive deficits are going to be completely their fault, but then from the other direction they're supporting various parties that demanded it in the first place and in many cases are demanding even more spending.

If the opposition manages to squeeze more money out of Harper, that will result in an even bigger deficit. The bigger the deficit, the bigger the hammer with which to hit the Conservatives on the head with in a future election.

[Smallc]

The Budget Officer’s messages are quite interesting. He says no way the deficit will be eliminated as scheduled by the government. Then, he says the stimulus package is not large enough.

No, what he really said is that they are lying about the size of the stimulus and about the time frame of return to balanced budgets.

[Alta4ever]

The great and noble leader

“I felt that it was not appropriate at a time of great economic uncertainty to add political uncertainty on top of it,” he said. “As a politician I want my party to win, but you do have to think of the country from time to time.” - Ignatieff

http://www.orilliapacket.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1425800

Edited February 9, 2009 by Alta4ever

[waldo]

The great and noble leader

“I felt that it was not appropriate at a time of great economic uncertainty to add political uncertainty on top of it,” he said. “As a politician I want my party to win, but you do have to think of the country from time to time.” - Ignatieff

http://www.orilliapacket.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1425800

this is a very fine non-partisan comment for you to make - thank you for appreciating one of Ignatieff's rationales for providing budget support and allowing a semblance of political certainty to form... subject to the periodic reviews to substantiate the effectiveness of the budget.

[Alta4ever]

Sacasm just doesn't work over the internet.

The point I was tring to make with the quote was that He thinks that Canadians only trump the party from time to time. So in other words the party is almost always more important then the average canadian. He is showing that he is just like any other liberal getting back into power is the number 1 priority.