Massive Conservative $85 Billion Dollar Deficit

[Argus]

I suppose the difference is negligible but how does this make Harper a conservative? Sure, he's an Evangelical Christian anti-libertarian social conservative but aren't Conservatives also supposed to stand for fiscal conservatism?

I think his new religion is pragmatism. He'll do whatever he thinks he needs to do and say whatever he thinks will help win votes. In that respect, he could be a Liberal.

[jdobbin]

Why do you keep saying this? It's inane. Simple inflation combined with the steady growth in the population would mean that, all things being exactly equal, the govenrment will always spend more money every year than it did the year before.

Harper went over the target each year. If he simply raised spending at the rate of inflation and population, I would say he met his promise. The problem is he went over it and not just by a little.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin the difference is negligible. I'm not defending the spending increases, I'm saying that Martin did no better.

The difference is not negligible. The CTF and other financial analysts don't believe it is negligible. It is 14% above Martin's number which is huge growth.

It's never been my mission to convince you that Harper was a frugal PM. He's not. It's been my mission to dispel the myth that somehow Liberals are naturally more prudent financial managers.

And you haven't done that. The cuts in overall size of government happened under the Liberals.

Granted, Chretien turned around the disastrous policies Pierre Trudeau started and Mulroney never fixed, but you can't cling to that still as evidence that current Liberals are also good at managing budgets. I have tried to show you that Paul Martin's spending policies were just as bad as Harper's. 14.0% is only 0.8% better than 14.8%. It's a meaningless difference.

That is 14% above Martin's numbers and it doesn't include the numbers from 2008 which Statscan are still calculating from the last quarter.

Given that Martin was spending at almost the exact same rate that Harper did, it's foolish for you to imply that under a Liberal government we would have somehow avoided the deficit we're facing today. The previous Liberal government spent just as much money as the current Conservative government and the election dialogue in October indicated that this was a policy set to continue.

He was spending what Martin spent plus 14%. That is what the CTF has an issue with.

When the Liberals threaten to bring down the government for not doing enough (spending) to stimulate the economy and then they sign on to a $30B stimulus package, the only way you're going to convince anyone the Liberals could have or would have avoided a deficit is if you live in Magical Fantasy Land.

The Magical Fantasy Land scenario is if Conservatives think they will be able to blame the Liberals for the deficit.

If you're serious about wanting to avoid a deficit you DO NOT sign a $30B stimulus package. You're dubious opinion seems somehow to be that the Liberals WANTED stimulus spending, but not $30B of it, although they're totally fine signing for it????

If you are serious about not running a deficit, perhaps it would be better not to cut taxes while increasing spending.

[Argus]

And you haven't done that. The cuts in overall size of government happened under the Liberals.

What cut are you talking about? The size of the Civil Service under Martin was larger than it was when the Liberals started.

The Magical Fantasy Land scenario is if Conservatives think they will be able to blame the Liberals for the deficit.

The Conservatives will certainly wear responsibility - and despite your squirming and greasy sneak weaselling attempts at dodging responsibliity, so will you guys.

[jdobbin]

What cut are you talking about? The size of the Civil Service under Martin was larger than it was when the Liberals started.

The CTF has already shown that the civil service was smaller than what it was in 1992 and it has been shown here a few times. They expressed alarm that Martin had let increases happen again but they were still below the level they had started at. Since Harper has been elected, the civil service has continued to grow and that has been posted here too.

The Conservatives will certainly wear responsibility - and despite your squirming and greasy sneak weaselling attempts at dodging responsibliity, so will you guys.

I'm sure your whiny and angry accusation to try and direct responsibility to the Liberals will continue but as they say, the buck stops somewhere. Even some on the right are putting that buck on Harper's desk.

Edited March 20, 2009 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

The CTF has already shown that the civil service was smaller than what it was in 1992 and it has been shown here a few times. They expressed alarm that Martin had let increases happen again but they were still below the level they had started at. Since Harper has been elected, the civil service has continued to grow and that has been posted here too.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. All I've been saying is Martin was just as bad as Harper for spending increases. The numbers, the CTF and everyone else agrees with this. The CTF's criticism of Harper was that he continued with spending increases after he took over from Martin, when he said he'd do the opposite. It's fair. It's also fair to say that Martin was no better. Right there is about where the Liberals lost their credibility as prudent financial managers.

I'm sure your whiny and angry accusation to try and direct responsibility to the Liberals will continue but as they say, the buck stops somewhere. Even some on the right are putting that buck on Harper's desk.

And they should lay it on Harper's desk. He's PM. He's running the government. Anyone who lays the blame on the Liberals without also blaming the CPC is stupid. The point I'm trying to make is that there is ALSO blame to be laid on the Liberals themselves for demanding stimulus spending and signing on for the budget. They had the deciding vote and they DECIDED on $30B of stimulus spending AND a deficit.

Jdobbin I'm perfectly willing to admit that Harper hasn't done a great job managing our budget. A lot of your criticism for him is bang on. The problem with a lot of your posts is that your criticisms are so heavily flavored with pro-Liberal bias that those of us who aren't impressed with current-day Liberals feel the need to correct you and bring up comparisons.

You quite obviously spend a great deal of effort unearthing anything anti-CPC and your dislike for them seems to come from an emotional level. If it wasn't emotional you'd acknowledge that the LPC has no leg to stand on criticizing the CPC on the $30B stimulus. They could have stopped it. They didn't. The CPC has not had carte-blanche since 2006.

If you weren't a partisan Liberal, you'd acknowledge that Martin increased spending at almost the exact same rate Harper has been. That's a fact. I showed you the numbers. This dispels the myth that Liberals are somehow financial gurus because they balanced the budget 12 years ago. That really has no bearing on today, especially considering their 2008 election platform.

The fact that you wouldn't acknowledge in October that the Green Shift was a thinly disguised equalization scheme and absolutely refused to go over any numbers pertaining to it is more evidence that rather than looking at things PRAGMATICALLY, you're perfectly happy to plug your ears to anything other than: CPC bAaad! CPC BAAad!

I am not a hardcore Conservative. The fact that you'll label me as such because I offer comparisons to your beloved Liberals when you criticize the CPC speaks volumes of how reasonable your arguments generally are.

The bulk of the arguments between you and I have usually been about fiscal policy and Harper's spending. Both of us would like to see a PM who spends less, pays down the debt and keeps us in the black. I would vote for a government that does that. Stephen Harper hasn't delivered that, but the Liberals seem pretty unlikely to either. They didn't control spending under Martin. Their election platform in October was to increase spending, they demanded spending in December and they voted for the $30B stimulus plan.

Where in all of that do you see any indication of fiscal conservatism? It's not there and to cling to the Chretien years is just fooling yourself.

As far as money is concerned right now, neither party is showing any aptitude. I've stuck with the CPC thus far because I agree with a lot of other changes they've made. I like how they've changed immigration rules. I like that are sending money back to the provinces. Too much money goes to Ottawa when most of the services are paid for by the provinces. I also like that they've party fundraising more of a grass roots thing rather than a big corporate lobby machine like the Liberals had running. Big business had way too much influence on the government the Liberals ran.

If the LPC were to campaign on reducing federal spending, I'd vote for them in a flash. This, unfortunately for you, has not been their platform for about a decade. All they've offered since the Martin days are increased spending and idiotic ideas like the Green Shift.

I've said before I voted for Martin in his first election. I'll vote for the Liberals again if they come to the table without clowns like Bob Rae and Dion in the forefront. I don't hate the Liberals and I don't love the CPC. I dislike them both and I choose one over the other. My posting is a direct reflection of my pragmatism towards voting. I only care about what I feel benefits myself and my family and I'm not going to wet the bed like some people we know here just because the wrong color of snakes is running the government.

Don't give me that rubbish that I'm hard core CPC. I'm not the one who's made it a mission to link every piece of party-friendly media available on the web for us to read every day.

[jdobbin]

I don't know how to make it any clearer. All I've been saying is Martin was just as bad as Harper for spending increases. The numbers, the CTF and everyone else agrees with this. The CTF's criticism of Harper was that he continued with spending increases after he took over from Martin, when he said he'd do the opposite. It's fair. It's also fair to say that Martin was no better. Right there is about where the Liberals lost their credibility as prudent financial managers.

Actually what the CTF said that Harper had done worse in both spending and tax decrease than Martin did. They didn't say "the same." They said "worse" and I have posted that often here.

Some Tories argue that Martin would have been worse but that is neither here nor there. He certainly made a lot of spending announcements just before losing but is speculative to say that it would have been worse than Harper did.

In the end, you can only go by the numbers and those numbers following Martin don't look good.

And they should lay it on Harper's desk. He's PM. He's running the government. Anyone who lays the blame on the Liberals without also blaming the CPC is stupid. The point I'm trying to make is that there is ALSO blame to be laid on the Liberals themselves for demanding stimulus spending and signing on for the budget. They had the deciding vote and they DECIDED on $30B of stimulus spending AND a deficit.

The Tories are sneaking out the back door of Parliament and running around to the front door and shouting "Throw the bums out!"

It is a strategy the Republicans tried to use in the last U.S. election but none to successfully.

Jdobbin I'm perfectly willing to admit that Harper hasn't done a great job managing our budget. A lot of your criticism for him is bang on. The problem with a lot of your posts is that your criticisms are so heavily flavored with pro-Liberal bias that those of us who aren't impressed with current-day Liberals feel the need to correct you and bring up comparisons.

If you have read my posts from over the last number of years, I've had plenty of criticisms of Liberals and Liberal policy. I certainly wasn't predicting Liberal victory since 2006.

I have been critical of Tory spending since 2006 and said it would be Harper's undoing. It has been.

You quite obviously spend a great deal of effort unearthing anything anti-CPC and your dislike for them seems to come from an emotional level. If it wasn't emotional you'd acknowledge that the LPC has no leg to stand on criticizing the CPC on the $30B stimulus. They could have stopped it. They didn't. The CPC has not had carte-blanche since 2006.

Please. I have posted news stories about public policy issues. It Tory supporters who believe any exposure of something they do is anti-Conservative.

As far as the Tories not having carte blanche, have you forgotten how Dion was pushed around like a puppy trying to get a bone but no match for the bigger dogs. The Liberals couldn't have been weaker and certainly no one was forcing them to do anything budget-wise.

If you weren't a partisan Liberal, you'd acknowledge that Martin increased spending at almost the exact same rate Harper has been. That's a fact. I showed you the numbers. This dispels the myth that Liberals are somehow financial gurus because they balanced the budget 12 years ago. That really has no bearing on today, especially considering their 2008 election platform.

And I showed you the same numbers showed Harper had increased government growth 14% above Martin. I haven't even included 2008 and now 2009 numbers. I can't even fathom how bad it has gotten now.

The fact that you wouldn't acknowledge in October that the Green Shift was a thinly disguised equalization scheme and absolutely refused to go over any numbers pertaining to it is more evidence that rather than looking at things PRAGMATICALLY, you're perfectly happy to plug your ears to anything other than: CPC bAaad! CPC BAAad!

My argument then as it is now that if you believe that carbon causes warming, it is better to tax it than have a cap and trade. I said the Tory policy was going to be more expensive and more complicated.

Now with Obama pushing toward a global warning policy, Harper is likely to find just how expensive his policy is going to be.

I am not a hardcore Conservative. The fact that you'll label me as such because I offer comparisons to your beloved Liberals when you criticize the CPC speaks volumes of how reasonable your arguments generally are.

I think I called you Tory supporter. Sometimes you can even be hyperpartisan about it. I certainly don't make any claims to be non-partisan. I have criticized the Liberals and haven't made irrational claims that they would win an election since 2006 (although Harper should be looking over his shoulder now that Ignatieff is in place).

I have looked at the same numbers you have and I'm afraid that the CTF numbers along others don't show Harper just spending a bit above Martin but a great deal more.

Tory supporters argue with this by saying that Martin would have done worse as if this is a justification for it or have even be proven.

The bulk of the arguments between you and I have usually been about fiscal policy and Harper's spending. Both of us would like to see a PM who spends less, pays down the debt and keeps us in the black. I would vote for a government that does that. Stephen Harper hasn't delivered that, but the Liberals seem pretty unlikely to either. They didn't control spending under Martin. Their election platform in October was to increase spending, they demanded spending in December and they voted for the $30B stimulus plan.

Dion's spending announcements were ridiculous and I said so at the time. I also said he wasn't going to win.

Having said that, Harper's spending in actual spending and it is ridiculous and anyone who is a fiscal conservative is probably casting about now.

The Liberals have a proven record in the past of controlling spending. If Ignatieff can tap into that desire for responsibility, he will be more than nipping at Harper's heels.

Where in all of that do you see any indication of fiscal conservatism? It's not there and to cling to the Chretien years is just fooling yourself.

Yet you cling to the Tories who you say do not adhere to fiscal conservatism. Even now, you speculate the Liberals will spend more as justification for supporting Harper.

The evidence is that the Liberals have a record of cutting spending, not running deficits and cutting taxes. The Tories only have a record in one of those areas now.

As far as money is concerned right now, neither party is showing any aptitude. I've stuck with the CPC thus far because I agree with a lot of other changes they've made. I like how they've changed immigration rules. I like that are sending money back to the provinces. Too much money goes to Ottawa when most of the services are paid for by the provinces. I also like that they've party fundraising more of a grass roots thing rather than a big corporate lobby machine like the Liberals had running. Big business had way too much influence on the government the Liberals ran.

Think you forgot who made those changes to how parties fundraised in the first place.

As far an immigration goes, more immigrants are coming in now than under ever. Is that the policy you wanted?

And Harper increased transfers. Not too many Conservatives like that.

If the LPC were to campaign on reducing federal spending, I'd vote for them in a flash. This, unfortunately for you, has not been their platform for about a decade. All they've offered since the Martin days are increased spending and idiotic ideas like the Green Shift.

And you support the more expensive cap and trade?

I've said before I voted for Martin in his first election. I'll vote for the Liberals again if they come to the table without clowns like Bob Rae and Dion in the forefront. I don't hate the Liberals and I don't love the CPC. I dislike them both and I choose one over the other. My posting is a direct reflection of my pragmatism towards voting. I only care about what I feel benefits myself and my family and I'm not going to wet the bed like some people we know here just because the wrong color of snakes is running the government.

By all means vote for the party you think is best. It is how many people...if they vote..

Don't give me that rubbish that I'm hard core CPC. I'm not the one who's made it a mission to link every piece of party-friendly media available on the web for us to read every day.

I think I have said you are a partisan supporter. You might think you are objective but your defence of them as a party is a partisan one.

I post links to stories on a variety of issues. I'm not non-partisan but the stories are generally news rather opinion pieces. I know many Conservatives believe that all media is Liberal friendly but I think the claim is a dubious one since I can't think of news company that have endorsed the Liberals in many years except the Star.

[Argus]

If you have read my posts from over the last number of years, I've had plenty of criticisms of Liberals and Liberal policy. I certainly wasn't predicting Liberal victory since 2006.

This is a wildly inaccurate statement regarding your posting history. In fact, you are willing to concede past misdeeds at times, but I cannot recall you having a single, solitary thing bad to say about the present Liberal regime. Nor were you ever much of a critic of the Martin government at the time. And your defense of Dion was pretty strong as well, right up until the end. You average nearly 20 posts a day here, and have for years, virtually all of them blindly partisan.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Argus

[jdobbin]

This is a wildly inaccurate statement regarding your posting history.

I think your memory in this area is quite selective. I had plenty of criticism of Dion. I have been critical of Martin as well.

[Moonbox]

Actually what the CTF said that Harper had done worse in both spending and tax decrease than Martin did. They didn't say "the same." They said "worse" and I have posted that often here.

Find us that link because I don't think there was ever a favorable comparison made for Martin vs Harper. At worst Harper continued bad policies and did nothing to fix them. Sure he's spending MORE, but THE NUMBERS indicate barely so.

In the end, you can only go by the numbers and those numbers following Martin don't look good.

No but they looked just as bad when Martin was running things under the Liberal name. Go by the NUMBERS please Jdobbin. I gave you that CTF link comparing program expenditures vs revenue. The difference is NEGLIGIBLE. To argue that Martin was better than Harper on spending is like saying it's better for you to eat 99 chocolate bars than 100. They both spent like crazy at almost the exact same effective rate. For the Liberals, this is forgettable because Chretien balanced the budget 13 years ago. For Harper, it's a catastrophe?

If you have read my posts from over the last number of years, I've had plenty of criticisms of Liberals and Liberal policy. I certainly wasn't predicting Liberal victory since 2006.

Your criticisms for the Liberals are fairly limited and even then filled with party bias. Please see above.

I have been critical of Tory spending since 2006 and said it would be Harper's undoing. It has been.

No argument. It was the Liberal's undoing in the 80's, it was the PC's undoing, Martin's undoing, and now it's Harper's.

Please. I have posted news stories about public policy issues. It Tory supporters who believe any exposure of something they do is anti-Conservative.

Your posting of news stories is almost exclusively anti-Conservative. Sometimes the news is so trivial it appears certain you're actually spending a lot of time digging up anything you can that somehow makes the CPC look bad. Interestingly enough, we see no such material regarding the many and various Liberal gaffs and disasters.

What I'm saying is that your interpretation of federal political events, budget numbers and party platforms is EXTREMELY skewed by what appears to be a very personal dislike of the Conservative label and a deep affection for the LPC and what they did....13 years ago under Chretien...during incredibly good economic times.

As far as the Tories not having carte blanche, have you forgotten how Dion was pushed around like a puppy trying to get a bone but no match for the bigger dogs. The Liberals couldn't have been weaker and certainly no one was forcing them to do anything budget-wise.

What I'm saying is that for 2 years the Liberals meekly passed these budgets with hardly a peep and in 2008, instead of criticizing the spending increases, promised additional spending rate increases surpassing those of the previous two years. If the Liberals were against the spending, they would have protested it and promised to reduce it in 2008. ALMOST EVERY indications shows a platform based strongly on spending increases similar or surpassing Harper's since 2004.

And I showed you the same numbers showed Harper had increased government growth 14% above Martin. I haven't even included 2008 and now 2009 numbers. I can't even fathom how bad it has gotten now.

You've cherry picked another number that looks good on the LPC. The fact that the bureaucracy grew faster under Harper doesn't mean that the TOTAL spending increased that much. Martin's program spending vs revenue ratio was over 83%. Harper's was 84%. Those are the numbers that count.

My argument then as it is now that if you believe that carbon causes warming, it is better to tax it than have a cap and trade. I said the Tory policy was going to be more expensive and more complicated.

Yes but as I recall you refuted that the Green Shift was also income redistribution, which numbers prove it was. You defended the Green Shift vs the cap and trade when to call it an 'environmental plan' was in itself a giant lie. It was a social engineering project with an environmental plan attached to it.

In any event, I'm still waiting for Harper to make any moves on the environment, which he made pretty clear was not a priority. Obama won't do anything anytime soon either. Dion on the other hand based his campaign on it and wanted to implement it immediately DURING a recession.

The Liberals have a proven record in the past of controlling spending. If Ignatieff can tap into that desire for responsibility, he will be more than nipping at Harper's heels.

No. In fact the Liberals have the dubious legacy of selling out the country to finance Pierre Trudeau's legend. When he quintopled our national debt over 10 years and ran giant OPERATING deficitis virtually every year (good times or bad) he ran the government, he LED us to the deficit we face today. For most of Mulroney's term he ran fairly big operating SURPLUSES but Trudeau's debt charges forced us deep in the red. We are STILL to this day paying Trudeau's debt.

When you say the Liberals have a proven track record you chose a very specific 8 years where Chretien slashed spending across the board and paupered the provinces. The Liberals before and SINCE Chretien were/are big spenders and EVERY indication is that this will continue. THE ONLY argument you have to support this claim is 1995-1996. Keep clinging to those days but you have NOTHING to back up the Liberals today.

Even now, you speculate the Liberals will spend more as justification for supporting Harper.

I'm not speculating. I'm basing my opinion on what the LIBERALS THEMSELVES are saying and doing. When they are promising more spending and DEMANDING more spending and VOTING IN FAVOR of spending increases that they DEMANDED, I rationally assume they want to SPEND.

Think you forgot who made those changes to how parties fundraised in the first place.

Originally Trudeau. Then Chretien. Now Harper, who was the one who cut off the corporate lobby avenue the LPC milked.

As far an immigration goes, more immigrants are coming in now than under ever. Is that the policy you wanted?

I don't have a problem with immigrants. I like and have befriended/dated numerous immigrants. The CPC has tried to make it easier to accept skilled and educated workers. They're being allowed to bypass the queue of millions in favor of the horde of non-english, unskilled and un-educated immigrants who clog our welfare systems and who the Liberals depend on to maintain their GTA stranglehold. The whole idea of 'family reunification' at the Canadian Taxpayer's expense is an absolute joke. This is one of THE most impressive things Harper has done in my books.

And Harper increased transfers. Not too many Conservatives like that.

You're mistaken. Most conservatives don't like the FORMULA developed in the Trudeau years. Most conservatives are all for the decentralization of spending, just not if it's being collected federally and dished out unfairly. Once again, however, that will likely take constitutional amendments to change at the risk of totally alienating the teat sucking provinces like Manitoba/PEI etc.

And you support the more expensive cap and trade?

Nope. I just supported on the basis that it wasn't an equalization formula like the Green Shift was and that it was highly unlikely to be implemented anyways. Pragmatism!

I think I have said you are a partisan supporter. You might think you are objective but your defence of them as a party is a partisan one.

I didn't say I was objective. I said I was pragmatic. Right we have two parties who've both proven themselves to be bad spenders. Either of them is going to burn a hole in my wallet. One of them isn't entrenched into the bureaucracy after 11 years of croniesm and complacency and one of them is shaking up immigration and election laws in ways that I approve.

You can call me partisan, but I've no loyalty to either party. I've voted both ways provincially and federally within the last 6 years and will continue to do so. I'll admit I vote from the right and I'm partisan in that regard, but not for any particular party.

I know many Conservatives believe that all media is Liberal friendly but I think the claim is a dubious one since I can't think of news company that have endorsed the Liberals in many years except the Star.

I don't make that claim. I make the claim that you cherry pick the news ONLY for what supports your party.

My issue with the Star is that it's not a national newspaper and enjoys a symbiotic relationship with Toronto and the Liberal Party. To simplify: The LPC lets Toronto sit on its face. Toronto in turn loves the Liberals. Because Toronto loves the Liberals, the Star sells to mostly Liberal readers and has adopted a VERY pro-Liberal stance.

I'm well aware of pro-CPC newspapers, but using the STAR as a reliable source for CPC bashing is about as smart as using the Calgary Herald for LPC bashing, as I've said on many occasions.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Moonbox

[normanchateau]

I think his new religion is pragmatism. He'll do whatever he thinks he needs to do and say whatever he thinks will help win votes.

Not the best strategy for Harper. It won't turn Liberal or NDP voters into Conservative voters and it merely demoralizes principled Conservative voters. Of course I have no objections to this strategy...

[jdobbin]

Find us that link because I don't think there was ever a favorable comparison made for Martin vs Harper. At worst Harper continued bad policies and did nothing to fix them. Sure he's spending MORE, but THE NUMBERS indicate barely so.

Harper has increased government spending 14% above what Martin spent. You think that is negligible?

As Lorne Gunter says, Harper is spending real money compared to what Martin promised but what was never spent.

http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/col...11-ca550096b5f7

According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), the Tories have announced nearly $3 billion in new spending just since Parliament rose last month. "That is roughly $100 million a day or more than $4 million every hour," says John Williamson, the CTF's outgoing federal director.

It is also double the total amount of new spending for the entire year projected in the most recent budget. When he stood before Parliament in February, Flaherty estimated "total new budget 2008 initiatives" at $1.497 billion. The spending announced in the past three weeks alone is more than twice that sum.

The Tories aren't even close to the pace of spending promises made by the Liberal government of Paul Martin in the run-up to the 2006 election -- $23 billion in 25 days, nearly a billion dollars a day. But the Tories are spending real money. The Liberals back then were mostly just making promises for spending they'd undertake if they won. Since they lost, much of the $23 billion was never spent.

And from the CTF:

"Mr. Martin's fiscal recklessness grew the size of government by 14 per cent over two years," he says. After the Tories' first two years in office, "Ottawa had grown another 14.8 per cent. This is higher than Mr. Martin's appalling record, making Mr. Harper a bigger- spending Conservative."

Another 14.8%. That over Martin. That's not small. That's huge and the CTF says so.

No but they looked just as bad when Martin was running things under the Liberal name. Go by the NUMBERS please Jdobbin. I gave you that CTF link comparing program expenditures vs revenue. The difference is NEGLIGIBLE. To argue that Martin was better than Harper on spending is like saying it's better for you to eat 99 chocolate bars than 100. They both spent like crazy at almost the exact same effective rate. For the Liberals, this is forgettable because Chretien balanced the budget 13 years ago. For Harper, it's a catastrophe?

It is a disaster since he is now taking Canada back into deficit and even if he didn't spend a penny in stimulus, he would still be there. That is the numbers. That is what Harper's appointee of Parliamentary Budget Officer says.

I'll bet Harper wishes he never created the position. He can't even call the guy a Liberal. The best he can do is ignore him.

Your criticisms for the Liberals are fairly limited and even then filled with party bias. Please see above.

Your observations are fairly limited. See above.

No argument. It was the Liberal's undoing in the 80's, it was the PC's undoing, Martin's undoing, and now it's Harper's

.

And the only argument is that the Liberals would be worse doesn't cut it when people will place the buck firmly where it belongs: Harper's desk.

Your posting of news stories is almost exclusively anti-Conservative. Sometimes the news is so trivial it appears certain you're actually spending a lot of time digging up anything you can that somehow makes the CPC look bad. Interestingly enough, we see no such material regarding the many and various Liberal gaffs and disasters.

Really? Look harder.

What I'm saying is that your interpretation of federal political events, budget numbers and party platforms is EXTREMELY skewed by what appears to be a very personal dislike of the Conservative label and a deep affection for the LPC and what they did....13 years ago under Chretien...during incredibly good economic times.

I am partisan. You are partisan. Please don't act like you aren't. If you have an opinion, you are partisan for it.

What I'm saying is that for 2 years the Liberals meekly passed these budgets with hardly a peep and in 2008, instead of criticizing the spending increases, promised additional spending rate increases surpassing those of the previous two years. If the Liberals were against the spending, they would have protested it and promised to reduce it in 2008. ALMOST EVERY indications shows a platform based strongly on spending increases similar or surpassing Harper's since 2004.

The Liberals lost. They lost in part because people didn't believe in their economic platform. The Tories won and now spending actual money.

You chose that party. Blaming the Liberals for the present situation because they are a bad Opposition is probably not the best strategy for the Tories.

You've cherry picked another number that looks good on the LPC. The fact that the bureaucracy grew faster under Harper doesn't mean that the TOTAL spending increased that much. Martin's program spending vs revenue ratio was over 83%. Harper's was 84%. Those are the numbers that count.

I don't know how many times I have to show the double digit increase. And that was in 2008 when we were not doing too badly in the first quarters.

Yes but as I recall you refuted that the Green Shift was also income redistribution, which numbers prove it was. You defended the Green Shift vs the cap and trade when to call it an 'environmental plan' was in itself a giant lie. It was a social engineering project with an environmental plan attached to it.

It was an environment plan and one supported by such lefties as the Economist and others over cap and trade based on overall costs and effectiveness.

You supported the more expensive plan.

In any event, I'm still waiting for Harper to make any moves on the environment, which he made pretty clear was not a priority. Obama won't do anything anytime soon either. Dion on the other hand based his campaign on it and wanted to implement it immediately DURING a recession.

And Dion lost.

For Harper, not having a plan has costs too. It probably keeps him from getting majority support since the environment is not a priority for him in any such way.

No. In fact the Liberals have the dubious legacy of selling out the country to finance Pierre Trudeau's legend. When he quintopled our national debt over 10 years and ran giant OPERATING deficitis virtually every year (good times or bad) he ran the government, he LED us to the deficit we face today. For most of Mulroney's term he ran fairly big operating SURPLUSES but Trudeau's debt charges forced us deep in the red. We are STILL to this day paying Trudeau's debt.

Please. Temper your Mulroney support by remembering he increased taxes 19 times and still spent heavily.

When you say the Liberals have a proven track record you chose a very specific 8 years where Chretien slashed spending across the board and paupered the provinces. The Liberals before and SINCE Chretien were/are big spenders and EVERY indication is that this will continue. THE ONLY argument you have to support this claim is 1995-1996. Keep clinging to those days but you have NOTHING to back up the Liberals today.

The provinces also paupered themselves by cutting taxes and passing costs on to the municipalities who passed on costs to the consumer by cutting or delaying services.

Harper has blown past what Martin spent and continues to blow past it.

You might try to blame this present deficit on the Liberals but Harper will have to wear it.

I'm not speculating. I'm basing my opinion on what the LIBERALS THEMSELVES are saying and doing. When they are promising more spending and DEMANDING more spending and VOTING IN FAVOR of spending increases that they DEMANDED, I rationally assume they want to SPEND.

Assuming is speculating.

Originally Trudeau. Then Chretien. Now Harper, who was the one who cut off the corporate lobby avenue the LPC milked.

And now he faces a Liberal leader who is raising money in small numbers.

I don't have a problem with immigrants. I like and have befriended/dated numerous immigrants. The CPC has tried to make it easier to accept skilled and educated workers. They're being allowed to bypass the queue of millions in favor of the horde of non-english, unskilled and un-educated immigrants who clog our welfare systems and who the Liberals depend on to maintain their GTA stranglehold. The whole idea of 'family reunification' at the Canadian Taxpayer's expense is an absolute joke. This is one of THE most impressive things Harper has done in my books.

Some still have a problem with immigrants within the Tory party. It is on overall numbers. Period.

You're mistaken. Most conservatives don't like the FORMULA developed in the Trudeau years. Most conservatives are all for the decentralization of spending, just not if it's being collected federally and dished out unfairly. Once again, however, that will likely take constitutional amendments to change at the risk of totally alienating the teat sucking provinces like Manitoba/PEI etc.

Find someone other than Harper. He increased transfers. And I'm not mistaken. Manitoba has done better under Harper for transfers.

Nope. I just supported on the basis that it wasn't an equalization formula like the Green Shift was and that it was highly unlikely to be implemented anyways. Pragmatism!

It will be implemented and I'll remind you of this conversation.

I didn't say I was objective. I said I was pragmatic. Right we have two parties who've both proven themselves to be bad spenders. Either of them is going to burn a hole in my wallet. One of them isn't entrenched into the bureaucracy after 11 years of croniesm and complacency and one of them is shaking up immigration and election laws in ways that I approve.

I think you better take a deeper look at what is happening in immigration before celebrating.

As for election laws, what has really changed?

You can call me partisan, but I've no loyalty to either party. I've voted both ways provincially and federally within the last 6 years and will continue to do so. I'll admit I vote from the right and I'm partisan in that regard, but not for any particular party.

Didn't say for a party except maybe against the Liberals.

I don't make that claim. I make the claim that you cherry pick the news ONLY for what supports your party.

You should look more carefully then.

My issue with the Star is that it's not a national newspaper and enjoys a symbiotic relationship with Toronto and the Liberal Party. To simplify: The LPC lets Toronto sit on its face. Toronto in turn loves the Liberals. Because Toronto loves the Liberals, the Star sells to mostly Liberal readers and has adopted a VERY pro-Liberal stance.

I don't think Toronto claims to be a national newspaper.

There is plenty of media that endorses the Tories. I don't know that some on the right will ever be happy unless they have all papers endorse them.

I'm well aware of pro-CPC newspapers, but using the STAR as a reliable source for CPC bashing is about as smart as using the Calgary Herald for LPC bashing, as I've said on many occasions.

Good thing I rarely quote from the Star.

[Moonbox]

Harper has increased government spending 14% above what Martin spent. You think that is negligible?

Look at the NUMBERS. PLEASE. Stop merely repeating snippits of commentary supporting your position. Look at the NUMBERS from the CTF showing program expenditure increases. I've already acknowledged your 14% figure. What I'm saying is it's a less meaningful figure than OVERALL spending. OVERALL Martin increased spending from $153B to $175B in TWO YEARS. Harper increased it from $175B to 206B in THREE years. The figures you're providing are almost certainly in regards to the size of the bureaucracy and the actual GOVERNMENT. ACTUAL spending is what MATTERS. It's what affects our wallets.

If you look at ACTUAL OVERALL spending Martin didn't do any better than Harper. There's virtually no difference. Look at the NUMBERS.

Another 14.8%. That over Martin. That's not small. That's huge and the CTF says so.

The CTF protests spending increases. Big surprise. What I'm talking about is the RATE of SPENDING INCREASES. Martin's rate was 14% over two years in increases. Harper's was 14.8% over two years. That's less than a 6% increase. Again, you're interpreting numbers in a way that suits your position. I'm interpreting them realistically.

It is a disaster since he is now taking Canada back into deficit and even if he didn't spend a penny in stimulus, he would still be there. That is the numbers. That is what Harper's appointee of Parliamentary Budget Officer says.

Spending is one way the budget is affected. When the budget was made last year they didn't account for revenue falling out from underneath them. Poor planning? Sure. Were the spending increases bad? Sure. Would the Liberals have done better? Well they promised to increase spending also so I think it's safe to say no.

And the only argument is that the Liberals would be worse doesn't cut it when people will place the buck firmly where it belongs: Harper's desk.

I think you're intentionally ignoring everything I'm writing. Harper's 100% to blame for his own mess. What I'm saying is that the Liberals were in on it all the way and it's an absolute joke for them, and anyone else, to take any stock in LPC criticism of Harper spending. You can pretend it's not the case all you want, but they overspent before Harper, promised to increase spending in the 08 election, DEMANDED spending in December and then signed on to $30B worth of stimulus after demanding the stimulus in the first place.

Really? Look harder.

You've made fun of Dion like everyone else and you acknowledge that the LPC are in no shape for an election. That's as far as I've seen it go. I've almost never seen you acknowledge their glaring policy shortfalls.

I am partisan. You are partisan. Please don't act like you aren't. If you have an opinion, you are partisan for it.

Partisan can imply different things. When your opinions deliberately ignore relevant facts to the discussions your partisanship starts to look more rabid and personal. Like I said, I can't and won't try to say that Harper's been a sound fiscal manager. We have a two year record showing he wasn't. On the same note, however, we have Martin's equally dismal record to go on prior to that and then an impotent Liberal opposition showing the EXACT SAME penchant for spending. I'm not speculating in this. This is right off the Liberal platform and their December stimulus demands. You've decided to pull the wool over your own eyes and pretend that because the budget was balanced 13 years ago that means that the more recent past and present don't matter.

The Liberals lost. They lost in part because people didn't believe in their economic platform. The Tories won and now spending actual money.

Okay what are you getting at??? The party with the even worse economic platform lost...great. They still don't have a superior economic platform. I'd be more than happy to start a thread with you on the general incompetence of Parliament Hill in terms of the economy since Chretien. They're all brutal. I'm waiting for a fiscally conservative government. If that's a new Reform, a non Harper CPC or an LPC that abandons social engineering I'm all over that.

You chose that party. Blaming the Liberals for the present situation because they are a bad Opposition is probably not the best strategy for the Tories.

Put your glasses on. I can't even count how many times I've had to say this. I'm not blaming the LPC. I'm blaming the CPC and saying the LPC was in on it all the way.

I don't know how many times I have to show the double digit increase. And that was in 2008 when we were not doing too badly in the first quarters.

You're fixated on a small portion of the overall federal budget because you found someone who said something anti-CPC. You've now implicitly refused several times to look at the OVERALL spending figures, which I'll repeat once again are the ones that actually MATTER to taxpayers. I've brought the numbers up like 5 times now and you've yet to acknowledge them. This is what I mean when I call you hack partisan. You won't even respond to FACTS that don't support your position. It's like they don't exist.

It was an environment plan and one supported by such lefties as the Economist and others over cap and trade based on overall costs and effectiveness.

You supported the more expensive plan.

Again, you're ignoring what I'm saying and refusing to acknowledge VERY CRITICAL points in my argument. Harper made up an environmental plan for the sake of having one. You can't say in an election: We have no position on the environment. I agree that cap and trade is stupid. Carbon taxes are better. The Green Shift was not. As you can see, Harper has not moved on the cap and trade and I fully expect that not to change. You and I can revisit this but I can bet you there'll be no changes until we're out of the recession. It's a moot point. Regardless, the LPC was fully prepared in October to move forward with aggressive new income redistribution/environmental taxes in the beginning of a big recession. That was a catastrophe in waiting.

For Harper, not having a plan has costs too. It probably keeps him from getting majority support since the environment is not a priority for him in any such way.

WELL. I must apologize! YOU DID LISTEN! At any rate the environment is DEFINETLY not what's keeping him from a majority. It's the alienation of Quebec and the Martimes. As far as the environment is concerned, my worries are based more on ground and water polution. Tailing ponds and such need to be cleaned up considerably. As for carbon emissions and global warming, I'm really not convinced and I think it could wait for the economy to recover.

Please. Temper your Mulroney support by remembering he increased taxes 19 times and still spent heavily.

He did. I don't support Mulroney. I think he was a crook. At the same time he did not run CONSISTENT OPERATING DEFICITS for many years at a time like Trudeau did. Do you know what that even means? What it mean is that other than the first three years he ran nominally balanced budgets. In 1988, for example, he ran an operating budget of $2B. Unfortunately, the cost of supporting the $157B debt (~$130B of which was Trudeau's) was about $31B. Trudeau ballooned our debt to the point where supporting it cost 33% of revenue we collected each year. Realistically, 90% of our debt is Trudeau's fault alone. That's why the Liberals have not broken ground in the West for 30 years.

The provinces also paupered themselves by cutting taxes and passing costs on to the municipalities who passed on costs to the consumer by cutting or delaying services.

Sh** goes downhill.

Some still have a problem with immigrants within the Tory party. It is on overall numbers. Period.

I could care less. We need immigrants. If the productive ones are being expedited into the country, I'm happy. Period.

Find someone other than Harper. He increased transfers. And I'm not mistaken. Manitoba has done better under Harper for transfers.

Everyone has...except apparently NFLD lol. Hopefully Ontario stops getting a raw deal. We'll see.

I think you better take a deeper look at what is happening in immigration before celebrating.

Enlighten me.

As for election laws, what has really changed?

Donation limits.

Didn't say for a party except maybe against the Liberals.

I don't hate the Liberals. I voted for Chretien and Martin in 2004 and I voted for Mcguinty in 2007 Ontario election. My partisanship against the Liberals ended when Chretien proved he was the fiscal OPPOSITE to Pierre Turdeau. When you see me here on the forums arguing against the Liberals it's generally against silly, biased and irrational foot-stomping of hardcore Liberals like you and PT. I similarly called Mr. Canada out for the partisan hack that he was.

I thought it was a joke how much the CPC was getting criticized for calling the election in 08. I thought Dion and the Green Shift was a joke. I thought December was a joke. You have to admit the LPC has been a travelling clown show over the last year and coincidentally that's how long I've been posting here.

Good thing I rarely quote from the Star.

'

Then why have you and I had that discussion so many times already?

Edited March 26, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

Look at the NUMBERS. PLEASE. Stop merely repeating snippits of commentary supporting your position. Look at the NUMBERS from the CTF showing program expenditure increases. I've already acknowledged your 14% figure. What I'm saying is it's a less meaningful figure than OVERALL spending. OVERALL Martin increased spending from $153B to $175B in TWO YEARS. Harper increased it from $175B to 206B in THREE years. The figures you're providing are almost certainly in regards to the size of the bureaucracy and the actual GOVERNMENT. ACTUAL spending is what MATTERS. It's what affects our wallets.

Um, it was not in three years. That was two years for Harper. Everyone including the Parliamentary Budget Officer is looking for the accurate three year numbers. Harper is withholding quite a few documents under minister's privilege.

I have responded to overall number. I have also indicated that the true number of Harper's spending increase over three years have not yet been calculated. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday that it is likely much higher than what the government has indicated.

We have already seen the revised numbers of employment and growth from 2008 and they were all worse that previously stated.

If you look at ACTUAL OVERALL spending Martin didn't do any better than Harper. There's virtually no difference. Look at the NUMBERS.

I am. And they don't look good and they are getting worse. The Harper government has never hit a budget target and they overspent every budget. And now we are headed for a $38 billion deficit.

The CTF protests spending increases. Big surprise. What I'm talking about is the RATE of SPENDING INCREASES. Martin's rate was 14% over two years in increases. Harper's was 14.8% over two years. That's less than a 6% increase. Again, you're interpreting numbers in a way that suits your position. I'm interpreting them realistically.

The realistic view is that spending is on top of Martin's spending and we have been told the spending in the third year was even greater.

Spending is one way the budget is affected. When the budget was made last year they didn't account for revenue falling out from underneath them. Poor planning? Sure. Were the spending increases bad? Sure. Would the Liberals have done better? Well they promised to increase spending also so I think it's safe to say no.

Harper has been spending real dollars all these years. The Liberals were not the party in power. As has been pointed out here many times, Harper was able to push the Liberals any way they wanted. Where they pushed was to higher spending.

The Tories kept saying the Liberal would do worse and they were not elected. However, Harper is the one doing the spending right now and at some point, his party's argument that the Liberals would do worse is not going to resonate anymore. In fact, some people in his own party are casting about for fiscal responsibility.

I think you're intentionally ignoring everything I'm writing. Harper's 100% to blame for his own mess. What I'm saying is that the Liberals were in on it all the way and it's an absolute joke for them, and anyone else, to take any stock in LPC criticism of Harper spending. You can pretend it's not the case all you want, but they overspent before Harper, promised to increase spending in the 08 election, DEMANDED spending in December and then signed on to $30B worth of stimulus after demanding the stimulus in the first place.

I'm afraid this is the blame the Liberals strategy that will not work. Just because the Liberals support the government doesn't mean they support every aspect of Tory policy. The public gave a mandate to the Tories to govern and to the Liberals to oppose. When the Liberals considered bringing down the government for its direction, there was a backlash. The Liberals backed down. They wanted the the Tories to continue governing and the Liberals to continue opposing.

Let's not pretend that this is a coalition where the Liberals have positions in the government from which to direct policy. These budgets are Tory budgets and it is Tory spending.

Harper was in Opposition when Martin was spending and let many confidence motions pass. His criticism of spending then was invalid since he supported the government?

There's nothing to look for. Find me the last time you posted an unfriendly Liberal news link...unless it was an anti-Dion link because even you saw him for the trollop he was.

If you are not even going to bother backing up your claim...

Partisan can imply different things. When your opinions deliberately ignore relevant facts to the discussions your partisanship starts to look more rabid and personal. Like I said, I can't and won't try to say that Harper's been a sound fiscal manager. We have a two year record showing he wasn't. On the same note, however, we have Martin's equally dismal record to go on prior to that and then an impotent Liberal opposition showing the EXACT SAME penchant for spending. I'm not speculating in this. This is right off the Liberal platform and their December stimulus demands. You've decided to pull the wool over your own eyes and pretend that because the budget was balanced 13 years ago that means that the more recent past and present don't matter.

You say I am ignoring numbers. I say I am not.

I've said that the Liberals were defeated in part because of Martin's performance and the spending. I am saying Harper has done worse and you say it isn't much of a difference and I disagree. I'm not the only one and many of those critics come from generally supportive groups of Tory policy.

Please give me a break about saying that the past doesn't matter when you try to mention Trudeau so often.

The Liberal record in government when the deficit ended does matter. It matters just as much as when the deficit was widened in the Trudeau era.

Okay what are you getting at??? The party with the even worse economic platform lost...great. They still don't have a superior economic platform. I'd be more than happy to start a thread with you on the general incompetence of Parliament Hill in terms of the economy since Chretien. They're all brutal. I'm waiting for a fiscally conservative government. If that's a new Reform, a non Harper CPC or an LPC that abandons social engineering I'm all over that.

My view is that you will probably not change from the present Conservative party. The record in government that you say is not important as what the present policy is will suddenly be important even if the Liberals come up with a superior policy.

Put your glasses on. I can't even count how many times I've had to say this. I'm not blaming the LPC. I'm blaming the CPC and saying the LPC was in on it all the way.

However, you voted for the Tories in 2006 even though they were in on it all the way on spending from 2004 to 2006?

You're fixated on a small portion of the overall federal budget because you found someone who said something anti-CPC. You've now implicitly refused several times to look at the OVERALL spending figures, which I'll repeat once again are the ones that actually MATTER to taxpayers. I've brought the numbers up like 5 times now and you've yet to acknowledge them. This is what I mean when I call you hack partisan. You won't even respond to FACTS that don't support your position. It's like they don't exist.

I've looked at those numbers and I am still waiting for the revised numbers for 2008 and like the Parliamentary Budget Officer still not getting them. I think we'd all be rather horrified by those numbers. It is why I think you have blinders and earplugs on.

Again, you're ignoring what I'm saying and refusing to acknowledge VERY CRITICAL points in my argument. Harper made up an environmental plan for the sake of having one. You can't say in an election: We have no position on the environment. I agree that cap and trade is stupid. Carbon taxes are better. The Green Shift was not. As you can see, Harper has not moved on the cap and trade and I fully expect that not to change. You and I can revisit this but I can bet you there'll be no changes until we're out of the recession. It's a moot point. Regardless, the LPC was fully prepared in October to move forward with aggressive new income redistribution/environmental taxes in the beginning of a big recession. That was a catastrophe in waiting.

And the Liberals were defeated for making that the issue rather than the Tory performance in government which was fiscally and socially different than what a lot of Canadians wanted.

WELL. I must apologize! YOU DID LISTEN! At any rate the environment is DEFINETLY not what's keeping him from a majority. It's the alienation of Quebec and the Martimes. As far as the environment is concerned, my worries are based more on ground and water polution. Tailing ponds and such need to be cleaned up considerably. As for carbon emissions and global warming, I'm really not convinced and I think it could wait for the economy to recover.

The environment even with a downturn in the economy remains a high priority for the electorate. It hurts Harper in cities and this prevents him from making inroads in those areas. Contrast that to Mulroney's very strong environmental record which won over a good portion of the the electorate.

He did. I don't support Mulroney. I think he was a crook. At the same time he did not run CONSISTENT OPERATING DEFICITS for many years at a time like Trudeau did. Do you know what that even means? What it mean is that other than the first three years he ran nominally balanced budgets. In 1988, for example, he ran an operating budget of $2B. Unfortunately, the cost of supporting the $157B debt (~$130B of which was Trudeau's) was about $31B. Trudeau ballooned our debt to the point where supporting it cost 33% of revenue we collected each year. Realistically, 90% of our debt is Trudeau's fault alone. That's why the Liberals have not broken ground in the West for 30 years.

Harper did start running surpluses. I have said so a few times. I also said he increased taxes 19 times and didn't decrease spending in a meaningful way even when the economy started performing better.

The Liberals did break real ground in the west save for Alberta in the 1990s. They did it because Mulroney shattered the Tory party by alienating the west and when his Quebec nationalists abandoned his party.

Chretien's governing policy style and a building of Reform's support saw the Liberals lose seats in traditionally Conservative areas. However, the majority of Canadians preferred the Liberal's focus on ending the deficit and reducing government.

Sh** goes downhill.

When provinces chose to cut taxes rather than fund programs they always said was in their domain, it really emphasized how much the provinces talk out of both sides of their mouths.

I could care less. We need immigrants. If the productive ones are being expedited into the country, I'm happy. Period.

And the evidence that this is happening remains elusive.

Everyone has...except apparently NFLD lol. Hopefully Ontario stops getting a raw deal. We'll see.

Ontario will be a recipient of money shortly.

Enlighten me.

Continued backlogs and evidence that targeted immigrant often have problems getting certified in their professions when they arrive. More work needs to be done with the provinces in this area.

At the moment, many immigrants are losing their jobs and not eligible for benefits.

Harper is likely to cut the numbers substantially.

Meanwhile, in terms of refugees (always a bone of contention for many Conservatives), Harper is increasing those numbers.

Donation limits.

Brought into place by the Liberals under Chretien.

I don't hate the Liberals. I voted for Chretien and Martin in 2004 and I voted for Mcguinty in 2007 Ontario election. My partisanship against the Liberals ended when Chretien proved he was the fiscal OPPOSITE to Pierre Turdeau. When you see me here on the forums arguing against the Liberals it's generally against silly, biased and irrational foot-stomping of hardcore Liberals like you and PT. I similarly called Mr. Canada out for the partisan hack that he was.

I have been critical of the Liberals even if you don't believe it. It is certainly is many threads here. However, I argue that Harper has been worse fiscally than the Liberals were in government. And the evidence is that they are. You say it is minuscule or that the Liberals are on board for the whole thing and have no right to criticize. I'd say that is a pretty partisan argument to make.

I thought it was a joke how much the CPC was getting criticized for calling the election in 08. I thought Dion and the Green Shift was a joke. I thought December was a joke. You have to admit the LPC has been a travelling clown show over the last year and coincidentally that's how long I've been posting here.

I argued back in 2006 that the Tories would call the election themselves and was told up and down by Tory supporters that they would not vote for the man if he broke the promise of fixed elections.

Then why have you and I had that discussion so many times already?

How many times? Two or three? Some of the stories I have linked from there were Canadian Press stories which are carried in every paper. You oppose Canadian Press?

I think I have posted a Star newstory maybe a dozen times. It probably ranks as one of the lowest sources of material that I show a link to. I have posted more from the Sun chain in all likelihood.

This argument that the Toronto Star ranks as a prime source for material for me is bogus and you know it. I find it too focused on just Toronto or Ontario issues.

Edited March 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[Average Joe]

Not all governments are going into deficit. Harper didn't have to let this happen but he couldn't control his spending. He didn't think to have a reserve fund.

And if he didn't we would be back to the polls AGAIN wasting more money.

Are you seriously suggesting that Harper should have had a "reserve fund" of thirty or forty billion dollars each year just in case he might need it for something?

Like, oh, this massive stimulous budget which your party threatened to overthrow the government if it didn't bring in? Which your party was pulling its hair out, screaming and gnashing its teeth and running around in circles screaming in angushin for?

You guys are such flaming bloody hypocrites. You started this thing in Afghanistan, and as soon as you were in opposition you started pompously demanding the Conservatives end it. You demanded, absolutely demanded a huge stimulous package, and right away you're already snivelling about it and weasling out of responsibility and blaming it on the Tories.

Of course, that was the plan all along. If things turn around they can take credit that it was LCP's input to force the spending to make everything better and if it didn't they just say 'don't look at me it's his fault', they are running the joint. Liberals are sitting in the catbird seat politically, either way they win.

All this blaming of the Liberals for everything gone wrong is so laughable that it defies belief and it is probably why the latest poll yesterday has the Liberals a point ahead of the Tories.

I don't blame them at all, someone is spinning this and it is working pretty good for them.

Last I remember the Liberals left things pretty good for the incoming government.

:lol: On the backs of the provinces, reducing transfer payments. That's OK that Mike guy in Ont will take the heat for us.

I wish I could just reduce the amount I owe on a whim. Sure would make my books look a lot better just telling anyone I owe to take what I give you and be happy about it.

I can't the Liberals wanting a deficit. I think people will remember they are the party of balanced budgets.

Selective memory again. Pierre loved to borrow, that's what got us in this mess long ago.

Jdobbin the difference is negligible. I'm not defending the spending increases, I'm saying that Martin did no better.

It's never been my mission to convince you that Harper was a frugal PM. He's not. It's been my mission to dispel the myth that somehow Liberals are naturally more prudent financial managers.

Granted, Chretien turned around the disastrous policies Pierre Trudeau started and Mulroney never fixed, but you can't cling to that still as evidence that current Liberals are also good at managing budgets. I have tried to show you that Paul Martin's spending policies were just as bad as Harper's. 14.0% is only 0.8% better than 14.8%. It's a meaningless difference.

Given that Martin was spending at almost the exact same rate that Harper did, it's foolish for you to imply that under a Liberal government we would have somehow avoided the deficit we're facing today. The previous Liberal government spent just as much money as the current Conservative government and the election dialogue in October indicated that this was a policy set to continue.

When the Liberals threaten to bring down the government for not doing enough (spending) to stimulate the economy and then they sign on to a $30B stimulus package, the only way you're going to convince anyone the Liberals could have or would have avoided a deficit is if you live in Magical Fantasy Land.

If you're serious about wanting to avoid a deficit you DO NOT sign a $30B stimulus package. You're dubious opinion seems somehow to be that the Liberals WANTED stimulus spending, but not $30B of it, although they're totally fine signing for it????

You are banging your head against a wall, their need to sugar coat everything is unreal. Harper is far from great but all these people seem to think the LPC can do no wrong at anytime in history. That is what drives me nuts. If your guy isn't that great don't fall all over yourself twisting things to make them seem great. No one is perfect but you wouldn't know it around here.

[jdobbin]

And if he didn't we would be back to the polls AGAIN wasting more money.

If he didn't spent like crazy we'd be having an election? Is that what you are saying?

Of course, that was the plan all along. If things turn around they can take credit that it was LCP's input to force the spending to make everything better and if it didn't they just say 'don't look at me it's his fault', they are running the joint. Liberals are sitting in the catbird seat politically, either way they win.

If the economy picks up, it is the Tories that will benefit. The only problem for them is the deficits that seem to stretch to several years according to the Finance department.

I don't blame them at all, someone is spinning this and it is working pretty good for them.

We see blame for all this falling on the Liberals from people here and all over Tory blogs.

:lol: On the backs of the provinces, reducing transfer payments. That's OK that Mike guy in Ont will take the heat for us.

Certainly it was to the provinces. And what did they do? Reduce taxes and pass it on to the municipalities.

I wish I could just reduce the amount I owe on a whim. Sure would make my books look a lot better just telling anyone I owe to take what I give you and be happy about it.

You can do that now. Just declare bankruptcy.

Selective memory again. Pierre loved to borrow, that's what got us in this mess long ago.

Harper loves to borrow too.

You are banging your head against a wall, their need to sugar coat everything is unreal. Harper is far from great but all these people seem to think the LPC can do no wrong at anytime in history. That is what drives me nuts. If your guy isn't that great don't fall all over yourself twisting things to make them seem great. No one is perfect but you wouldn't know it around here.

Harper has been spending like crazy since 2006 even when there was no sign of recession or downturn. He broke every promise he made to be fiscally conservative. He had a surplus coming into office. The one thing people will remember when he leaves is that he left a deficit.

[Average Joe]

If he didn't spent like crazy we'd be having an election? Is that what you are saying?

If the economy picks up, it is the Tories that will benefit. The only problem for them is the deficits that seem to stretch to several years according to the Finance department.

We see blame for all this falling on the Liberals from people here and all over Tory blogs.

Certainly it was to the provinces. And what did they do? Reduce taxes and pass it on to the municipalities.

You can do that now. Just declare bankruptcy.

Harper loves to borrow too.

Harper has been spending like crazy since 2006 even when there was no sign of recession or downturn. He broke every promise he made to be fiscally conservative. He had a surplus coming into office. The one thing people will remember when he leaves is that he left a deficit.

- Ya that's what I'm saying. He was threatened to spend or else look for another job. But I think they were all scared to try it, seeing we just had an election. An amazing game of chicken between Harper and Iggy. Harper blinked.

-I really don't think Harper will benefit if things turn around. He's had his chance, hasn't done a good job and needs to take his golden pension and walk into the sunset. Let someone else give her a try.

-I blame Liberals and Tories for screwing up this country for as long as I can remember. Each blaming the other for the sorry state we are in, neither taking a bold step to fix anything that is wrong. Both always just tinker with problems, they make some minor changes to placate us and it is business as usual. The welfare of this country is never at the top of their agenda's, staying in power at all costs or getting there is. Why else would one party just appoint a leader without a convention and the other call an election because the pollsters say now's a good time and your best chance.They are the main parties and they know it. Jack was an idiot in Toronto and now he has a national soap box to make a bigger fool of himself. Green party? Please! BQ should be shot for treason, until they run people in the majority of ridings across this country and not look out for just one province.

-So by just lowering transfer payments and keeping the money to balance his own books you think John Boy did a great job? No matter how you shake the stick my life was not improved by his actions because all he did was shift the anger of higher taxes from government to government. In the end my taxes for the house went up and so did my provincial taxes but John Boy got to stand up and say look at "our" books they are balanced and I'm suppose to be happy about that? It's just a big shell game and in your eyes they were to be praised. How about fixing the problem and not unloading it onto someone else but that is the way we are these days. If you have a problem start looking around for someone else to blame because the poor thing's are not responsible for what ill's them.

-It would take a tough person to put the welfare of the country ahead of their own goals to fix things. Too many people sucking the teet of the nanny state would be upset and damn it they watch those poll's and try to make people happy. Good luck finding one in today's Politically Correct world.

-As many have already stated Harper has not done a good job but you seem to think the Fiberials can do no wrong and that blind fanaticism is scary. I've voted for both in the past and I can't be that fanatic about one party. What kind of alcohol is in that kool-aid anyway?

[jdobbin]

- Ya that's what I'm saying. He was threatened to spend or else look for another job. But I think they were all scared to try it, seeing we just had an election. An amazing game of chicken between Harper and Iggy. Harper blinked.

Some say Ignatieff blinked.

Harper was looking to go to an election before May on some pretense and tried to make sure that those that opposed him were crippled. What he didn't count on was the Opposition telling him no and saying the focus should be on the economy.

Harper fought for the job, made the Opposition blink and now he is probably wondering if it was worth it.

-I really don't think Harper will benefit if things turn around. He's had his chance, hasn't done a good job and needs to take his golden pension and walk into the sunset. Let someone else give her a try.

But who? A few on the right have said there might not be anyone to hold the present Tories together after he is gone.

-I blame Liberals and Tories for screwing up this country for as long as I can remember. Each blaming the other for the sorry state we are in, neither taking a bold step to fix anything that is wrong. Both always just tinker with problems, they make some minor changes to placate us and it is business as usual. The welfare of this country is never at the top of their agenda's, staying in power at all costs or getting there is. Why else would one party just appoint a leader without a convention and the other call an election because the pollsters say now's a good time and your best chance.They are the main parties and they know it. Jack was an idiot in Toronto and now he has a national soap box to make a bigger fool of himself. Green party? Please! BQ should be shot for treason, until they run people in the majority of ridings across this country and not look out for just one province.

You could always runs yourself.

-So by just lowering transfer payments and keeping the money to balance his own books you think John Boy did a great job?

The provinces were not compelled to lower taxes and cut services themselves. They wanted the Feds to pay all the bills?

-It would take a tough person to put the welfare of the country ahead of their own goals to fix things. Too many people sucking the teet of the nanny state would be upset and damn it they watch those poll's and try to make people happy. Good luck finding one in today's Politically Correct world.

I often hear this same refrain that all politicians suck. It often follows with a rant against everyone at some point.

If you are the best person for the job, step up and run.

-As many have already stated Harper has not done a good job but you seem to think the Fiberials can do no wrong and that blind fanaticism is scary. I've voted for both in the past and I can't be that fanatic about one party. What kind of alcohol is in that kool-aid anyway?

Please remember the rules of this forum and avoid calling any of the namecalling for parties or individuals. It just degenerates a thread.

As far as the Liberals go, I have indicated where I think they have gone wrong. I still believe that Harper will drive us deeper into deficit with his spending.

[Average Joe]

Some say Ignatieff blinked.

Harper was looking to go to an election before May on some pretense and tried to make sure that those that opposed him were crippled. What he didn't count on was the Opposition telling him no and saying the focus should be on the economy.

Harper fought for the job, made the Opposition blink and now he is probably wondering if it was worth

But who? A few on the right have said there might not be anyone to hold the present Tories together after he is gone.

You could always runs yourself.

The provinces were not compelled to lower taxes and cut services themselves. They wanted the Feds to pay all the bills?

I often hear this same refrain that all politicians suck. It often follows with a rant against everyone at some point.

If you are the best person for the job, step up and run.

Please remember the rules of this forum and avoid calling any of the namecalling for parties or individuals. It just degenerates a thread.

As far as the Liberals go, I have indicated where I think they have gone wrong. I still believe that Harper will drive us deeper into deficit with his spending.

-Interesting way to look at the game of chicken thing. I'm not sure about that but it is something to chew on.

- Who takes over the Tories? Good question, everyone seems to be a carbon copy of each other. No one stands out.

- I can't run myself, it would be too hard for me to keep all the lies straight. I couldn't run by saying I will not raise taxes and then turn around call it something else while keeping a straight face like my premier in Ont. He only got one vote outta me after that one.

-Yes the provinces needed to cut down as well as cities but Johnny didn't cut anything he just kept money for the feds. I would have had more respect for him if they cut back as well but he had to play the shell game and he did a great job of it. He had everyone screaming at Harris in Ont for all their problems. He did a great snow job, I guess that and some of those government extra's for his little piece of Quebec kept him in office all those years. Good for him, he played the game well.

- Not all politican's suck, the problem is the good ones are outnumbered by the self serving ones. Again I am far from the best person for the job but If I could get elected twice I'd be set for life. Maybe I should think about it and join the crowd at the trough. May be I'm waiting for our own rock & roll pop culture Obama like guy or gal to appear on Opra and claim our nation in a couple of years and take us to the promused land just like it has happened down there .

-Harper, Iggy or Dion would have driven us into deep deficits in this recession. Jack would have killed us. People are screaming for them to do something. Doing something is spending money you don't have. Everyone should have asked the Honourable Bob Rae (which party is he with this week?) how it worked for him in the 90's?

- The whole name calling thing was an accident, honest! The F and L are so close on the keyboard I must have hit the wrong one.

Was that good enough to be a politican or should I keep my day job?

[Moonbox]

As far as the Liberals go, I have indicated where I think they have gone wrong. I still believe that Harper will drive us deeper into deficit with his spending.

Oh please. You've got yourself so confused and fooled up over the Liberals it's not even funny. According to you, $23B spending increases over two years under Martin, a 2008 election platform based on spending increases, December's demand for stimulus spending and then being the ONLY opposition party to vote in favor of $30B in stimulus all add up to mean the Liberals want to reduce spending....

Wait...none of that matters because 14 years ago Jean Chretien balanced the budget and what past Liberals do is more important than what present Liberals are doing....as long as you don't count Pierre Trudeau....

The simple fact is that Martin increased spending by $23B over two years. Harper (according to the CTF), increased spending by $31B over three years. Even if the 2008-2009 spending figures are several billions higher than so far recorded, Martin STILL spend on average just as much or more than Harper. That's WITHOUT adjusting for inflation.

Go by the numbers Jdobbin. The numbers shall set you free.

[jdobbin]

Oh please. You've got yourself so confused and fooled up over the Liberals it's not even funny. According to you, $23B spending increases over two years under Martin, a 2008 election platform based on spending increases, December's demand for stimulus spending and then being the ONLY opposition party to vote in favor of $30B in stimulus all add up to mean the Liberals want to reduce spending....

Please. It is you who gets confused by thinking that Harper hasn't blown past those figures with all his might in three years falt.

Wait...none of that matters because 14 years ago Jean Chretien balanced the budget and what past Liberals do is more important than what present Liberals are doing....as long as you don't count Pierre Trudeau....

You said only the present counts. But then you go back to Trudeau. Try to keep things straight.

The simple fact is that Martin increased spending by $23B over two years. Harper (according to the CTF), increased spending by $31B over three years. Even if the 2008-2009 spending figures are several billions higher than so far recorded, Martin STILL spend on average just as much or more than Harper. That's WITHOUT adjusting for inflation.

Harper spent that on top of Martin's increase. That's what scary.

Go by the numbers Jdobbin. The numbers shall set you free.

As I keep telling you. 14% on top of Liberal spending and increasing rapidly.

[Moonbox]

Please. It is you who gets confused by thinking that Harper hasn't blown past those figures with all his might in three years falt.

I need numbers man. You still won't go over them. Don't even bother arguing if you can't give me numbers. CTF is showing $23 Billion over 2 years for Martin and $31 Billion over 3 years for Harper. Martin increased spending faster than Harper. Do the math. Until you do that you're just blowing hot air. You've already shown us how Harper increase spending faster than Martin on a SMALL FEATURE of the overall budget. What you've failed to refute is that Martin did indeed increase spending faster than Harper, which the numbers show he did. It kind of blows your whole "Liberals are responsible" theory right out the window, especially considering how much the Liberals wanted to spend in October and how adamant they were about stimulus spending....

You said only the present counts. But then you go back to Trudeau. Try to keep things straight.

It was sarcasm. I was making fun of you for what time periods you picked to reflect the LPC's strong record of fiscal management. As far as your argument is concerned, Jean Chretien's reduced spending is the only record that we can use to rate Liberal spending policy. Martin, Dion, Ignatieff and Trudeau don't matter?

Harper spent that on top of Martin's increase. That's what scary.

but so were Martin's spending promises, and Dion's. Now we have to wait and see what Ignatieff's plans are. We'll see.

As I keep telling you. 14% on top of Liberal spending and increasing rapidly.

Those aren't the total spending numbers. Those are a small part of the overall budget number. This is you squirming and avoiding the real and total spending numbers. You've taken a miniscule part of the overall budget and tried to present it as the final number that actuall affects people's wallets, which it isn't. If I'm wrong, go over the numbers with me. I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong. You generally refuse to go over numbers with me, however, because they're harder to play smoke and mirrors with.

[madmax]

No deficit in Manitoba this year.

No deficit in Saskatchewan this year.

$14 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT in Ontario... $57 BIllion Projected. (NUTS)

[jdobbin]

I need numbers man. You still won't go over them. Don't even bother arguing if you can't give me numbers. CTF is showing $23 Billion over 2 years for Martin and $31 Billion over 3 years for Harper. Martin increased spending faster than Harper. Do the math. Until you do that you're just blowing hot air. You've already shown us how Harper increase spending faster than Martin on a SMALL FEATURE of the overall budget. What you've failed to refute is that Martin did indeed increase spending faster than Harper, which the numbers show he did. It kind of blows your whole "Liberals are responsible" theory right out the window, especially considering how much the Liberals wanted to spend in October and how adamant they were about stimulus spending....

I'm afraid it is you who is blowing hot air. I have shown you the numbers and you refuse to believe them.

You have shown me 2006 documents with Harper's 2007 budget announcements. They don't even show what the budget surplus or deficit was for those years. Do you have anything more current? You have tried to say that is for three years in office but clearly it isn't.

It was sarcasm. I was making fun of you for what time periods you picked to reflect the LPC's strong record of fiscal management. As far as your argument is concerned, Jean Chretien's reduced spending is the only record that we can use to rate Liberal spending policy. Martin, Dion, Ignatieff and Trudeau don't matter?

Since Dion and Ignatieff have only been in Opposition, I don't have a spending record for them. I can only go by who has been in government and actual dollars. I have no problem saying Trudeau was a big spender and that Martin was spending big. Harper spends more and with the 2009 budget outspend in a big way.

but so were Martin's spending promises, and Dion's. Now we have to wait and see what Ignatieff's plans are. We'll see.

And Harper is spending real dollars, not just making promises.

Those aren't the total spending numbers. Those are a small part of the overall budget number. This is you squirming and avoiding the real and total spending numbers. You've taken a miniscule part of the overall budget and tried to present it as the final number that actuall affects people's wallets, which it isn't. If I'm wrong, go over the numbers with me. I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong. You generally refuse to go over numbers with me, however, because they're harder to play smoke and mirrors with.

Those are on top of the Martin spending and the CTF says so.

http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/BudgetMA08_18-21.pdf

You just refuse to read it.

Edited March 28, 2009 by jdobbin

[Argus]

Since Dion and Ignatieff have only been in Opposition, I don't have a spending record for them. I can only go by who has been in government and actual dollars. I have no problem saying Trudeau was a big spender and that Martin was spending big. Harper spends more and with the 2009 budget outspend in a big way.

On the other hand, we voters, if we don't like something, need to see an alternative. Frankly, the Liberal Party has not presented any such alternative. Your last election promised even bigger spending than the Tories delivered. And your current leader is, despite all your bluster, on record as not only supporting but demanding the huge incentive splurge in the Tory budget. So are any number of your senior MPs. So I'm really not sure what point you think you're making here. Vote for the Liberals because uhm, you wouldn't be doing the same thing? Frankly, I don't believe a word of that.