Massive Conservative $85 Billion Dollar Deficit

[Smallc]

Yes, over multiple years. But mostly because you guys insisted on it.

That's no the root of the problem. Imagine if spending levels from 2006 on only raised with inflation. We may have been in deficit, but it would have been much smaller.

[jdobbin]

Liberals supported it.

And the Tories had no balls?

[Argus]

That was the total over a number of years. It is $34 billion this year.

We could have handled that if there had been $15 billion of spending cuts in 2007/08 and roughly the same amount from a contingency fund.

Oh really? And where were these fifteen billion in spending cuts going to come from? Your party is on record promising to INCREASE funding to the arts, among other areas. Do tell me Mr. Liberal, where you're going to cut $15 billion from. I would seriously like to hear it. Because I have not heard your party make any proposals for cutting ANY funding to ANYTHING - except, of course, to the military, who they sent off to Afghanistan to die, and then abandoned.

[MontyBurns]

Harper made the mistake of making many people in Quebec feel like they were traitors for supporting an MP they thought would represent them better in Ottawa. The feeling he was trying to convey in the rest of Canada was an anti-Quebec tone. It worked. I still remember the blistering attack in these forums that didn't just stick to the BQ but the entire province and the people of Quebec.

Maybe the liberals can make some headway in quebec with their ad-agency connections. Use them to promote the liberal party and encourage quebecers to "be Canadian".

[MontyBurns]

And the Tories had no balls?

Pot calling the kettle black. Can't have a 30 billion package and not at the same time. Liberals wanted it.

[jdobbin]

Okay, sure, whatever. You DA MAN!

There's that froth.

Your scaremongering certainly had a significant effect on the mood of consumers and business, and resulted in a not-insubstantial amount of the drastic cut in consumer and business confidence and spending which has been helping to increase job losses. Harper was trying to calm things, telling people not to panic, not to get scared, and your party were running around shrieking at the top of their lungs, arms waving in the air, eyes bugging out. It was pathetic.

Utter crap. Consumer confidence didn't drop because the Opposition told Harper to address going problems in credit and in the manufacturing sector. It was pathetic to watch Harper get in a war with Ontario all through 2008 and tell people it wasnt worth investing there.

Yeah, the recession is all the Tories fault, and the deficit - due mostly to the incentive package you insisted on - not at all your fault. Of course not. Who could think otherwise!

The deficit is the Conservative's fault. They are the government. The buck stops with them.

Words like "honesty" and "responsibility" are largely foreign concepts to most Liberals.

Words like "fury" and "attack" are largely not foreign concepts to most Tories.

I'm not defending going into deficit. I was in favour of them letting your clownish little gang of three take over, and stumble into a huge deficit with their "incentive program" once they decided on what it would be. I am, however, pointing out that there is no way in hell your party would not have violently opposed any significant cuts to program spending, no matter what they were. So yet again, your sniveling about the deficit is more than a touch dishonest and hypocritical. Personally I would have liked to see massive cuts in all kinds of programs, beginning with most arts funding, but no way in hell would the Liberals or NDP or BQ have gone along with that.

The snivelling and clownish behavior seems to restircted to those on the right who in their dishonest and hypocritical way blame others for their out of control spending and stupid decision making.

I know the tactic is to say that the Liberals are forcing the hand of the government and that Harper is not responsible for the the deficit but that story is just not resonating.

[jdobbin]

Pot calling the kettle black. Can't have a 30 billion package and not at the same time. Liberals wanted it.

I guess you can try blaming the Liberals for the deficit. How is that working for you? Way up in the polls? Ready to go to an election on it?

[jdobbin]

Oh really? And where were these fifteen billion in spending cuts going to come from? Your party is on record promising to INCREASE funding to the arts, among other areas. Do tell me Mr. Liberal, where you're going to cut $15 billion from. I would seriously like to hear it. Because I have not heard your party make any proposals for cutting ANY funding to ANYTHING - except, of course, to the military, who they sent off to Afghanistan to die, and then abandoned.

More crap.

There was plenty of things the Tories restored that Liberals had cut and no desire to see come back.

[MontyBurns]

[quote name='jdobbin' date='Mar 16 2009, 09:16 AM' post='401389'

their out of control spending

It's called economic stimulus. Obama's doing it too. Get on board. Your party wanted it.

[jdobbin]

It's called economic stimulus. Obama's doing it too. Get on board. Your party wanted it.

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

[MontyBurns]

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

You sound like a conservative. You need to spend lots of money like Obama. Everyone's doin' it.

[jdobbin]

You sound like a conservative. You need to spend lots of money like Obama. Everyone's doin' it.

The Liberals were the party of no deficit. You could have had stimulus and no deficit. The Tories made bad decisions and now they are in massive deficit.

I can't believe that real fiscal Conservatives are happy with that. They can blame the Liberals if they want but the buck stops with Harper.

[Argus]

That's no the root of the problem. Imagine if spending levels from 2006 on only raised with inflation. We may have been in deficit, but it would have been much smaller.

Not much. In fact, the projected deficit excluding the "incentive" program was only a few billion. Remove that damned 4.5 billion per year extra to Quebec in equalization and that would have taken care of it.

[Argus]

The Liberals were the party of no deficit. You could have had stimulus and no deficit. The Tories made bad decisions and now they are in massive deficit.

The Liberals were the party which invented huge deficits, and they did it in good economic times, creating the debt load so that when we got hyper inflation it exploded in size. They continued to have large deficits in Chretien's early years, until the US economic recovery dragged Canada out of recession and the money started flowing into government coffers again. To suggest the Liberals would not be running a deficit this year is ludicrous, and as out and out a lie as anyone is ever likely to see here.

[Argus]

More crap.

There was plenty of things the Tories restored that Liberals had cut and no desire to see come back.

Name them.

[Smallc]

Remove that damned 4.5 billion per year extra to Quebec in equalization and that would have taken care of it.

Quebec gets $7B - $8B in equalization....one of the smallest amounts per capita. Removing their equalization would be illegal.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Smallc

[Argus]

There's that froth.

Uhm, no, it's called mockery. Surely you must see a lot of it in your everyday life.

Utter crap. Consumer confidence didn't drop because the Opposition told Harper to address going problems in credit and in the manufacturing sector. It was pathetic to watch Harper get in a war with Ontario all through 2008 and tell people it wasnt worth investing there.

I'm not saying that the panic and scaremongering of your party and the other opposition parties was in large part responsible, but it certainly played a part.

The deficit is the Conservative's fault. They are the government. The buck stops with them.

If this were a majority government you would be right. It's not, and given the tactics, the hysteria from your party when they initially failed to spend billions on incentives, don't think people will forget who insisted on a massively expensive stimulus program. Well, stupid people will, perhaps, so maybe that's all you care about. After all, who else votes Liberal?

I know the tactic is to say that the Liberals are forcing the hand of the government and that Harper is not responsible for the the deficit but that story is just not resonating.

You talk like a back room political hack, one of those dishonest, weaselly clowns for whom truth and honesty are meaningless, and it's spin that matters. You're not going to be able to spin your way out of your share of responsibility for this "incentive" program, though, no matter how much you lie.

[Argus]

Quebec gets $8B in equalization....one of the smallest amounts per capita. Removing their equalization would be illegal.

Shhhh. Adults are talking.

[Wilber]

The money is budgeted for.

The two key things that fiscal stabilization funds look for are interest and liquidity. Floating rate bonds offer annualized liquidity and better interest than bank accounts.

What money? Issuing bonds is borrowing, In order to borrow, you have to offer a rate that will entice people to buy your debt. Who is paying that interest? The tax payer.

Because we didn't need to have one this year. Given that Bernanke said yesterday said that the recession looks like it might break this year, this deficit lasting numerous years seems rather foolish.

Sure, we could of have put 30 billion in a piggy bank instead of using it to pay down debt and use it to cover this years deficit, but then we would still be the same amount in the hole at the end of the year.

I can't believe you think that old debt has to be paid faster even when it results in higher inflation and interest rates. If you want to keep low inflation and low interest rates, you don't pay down debt faster just to watch the economy slow down as a result.

I can't believe that you think hanging on to older debt that is costing you more is better than acquiring new debt that is costing you less than half what it is costing you to service that older debt.

I know you don't buy it. Look it up if you don't believe me. It isn't theory. It has been shown to happen. Paying off national debt at ever greater rates causes inflation and higher interest rates. In other words, it can lead to economic slow down.

First you tell me buying down debt causes an economic slowdown, then you complain that government spends too much. It seems to me that you think government spending is OK as long as it is being spent on servicing debt so why do you get so sweaty about a deficit? How on earth could reducing public debt slow down the economy other than reducing the stimulus government spending provides? I'm not looking up anything, it's your theory.

What is difficult to understand about causing higher inflation and interest rates by paying debt at ever faster rates?

You will have to explain it to me. I would like to know how being in debt makes me richer. The only way it could cause inflation is through increased spending made possible by lower taxes and greater net revenues to the government because less money is needed to service the national debt. If you want your tax dollars going for interest payments to government bond holders (many of whom are outside Canada) instead of staying in your own pocket or providing services such as health care, count me out.

If we were looking at many years of downturn. We are now hearing that we could be heading out of it in 2009

Who knows, I don't suppose people knew the Great Depression would last a decade when they were only seven months into it. From a fiscal point of view, the only thing that really matters is what our total debt load will be when the budget is finally balanced again. When we borrowed the money will not matter, only the cost of servicing it.

I guess the difference between us is as a rule, I have always put a priority on paying down debt over saving. Debt is an anchor around my neck. Without debt, I have flexibility and the option of going into debt at the lowest rates available if I need to.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Wilber

[waldo]

You talk like a back room political hack, one of those dishonest, weaselly clowns for whom truth and honesty are meaningless, and it's spin that matters. You're not going to be able to spin your way out of your share of responsibility for this "incentive" program, though, no matter how much you lie.

you need to man-up to your Harper Conservative government's actions/budget - otherwise you're stating an Opposition party had direct input to the budget (which doesn't seem to be common/public knowledge).

please detail the Opposition party supplied items that Harper incorporated into his budget... into your Conservative party's budget

.

.

or

.

.

man-up... accept that Harper and his Conservative party have responsibility for the budget... they own it... as Ingatieff continues to reinforce.

besides - what's the problem... have you no confidence in Harper and his crew to actually manage the economy and turn around those deficits? C'mon, just think how good it will feel to pull the ole 'told you so' card... unless you have no confidence in Harper/Flaherty - oh my!

[Progressive Tory]

The Liberals were the party which invented huge deficits,

"Mulroney's inability to improve the government's finances, as well as his use of tax increases to deal with it, were major factors in alienating the western conservative portion of his power base. .... Annual budget deficits ballooned to record levels, reaching $42 billion in his last year of office. These deficits grew the national debt dangerous close to the psychological benchmark of 100% of GDP, further weakening the Canadian dollar and damaging Canada's international credit rating. (Wikipedia)

Chretien was elected in 1993 and "By 1995, Canada had eliminated the federal deficit, becoming the only G7 country to have a budget surplus." (Wikipedia)

2006 Harper inherits 13 billion dollar surplus, which he blew when times were good, leaving nada to help us now.

Conservatives drained coffers: Watchdog

Edited March 16, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Wilber]

2006 Harper inherits 13 billion dollar surplus, which he blew when times were good, leaving nada to help us now.

Interesting, they also paid down 13 billion in debt that year. Wonder how that happened. I guess "Progressive Tories" don't consider paying their debts to be good financial practice.

[madmax]

So you're saying that lousy journalism excuses you for posting misinformation? Or that reading beyond the headline to the actual story is too difficult for you? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. All of the above are referring to the estimate of what the combined deficit will be over several years, not to a single year's deficit. The budget deficit he's passed this year is $34 billion.

The Conservatives plan is to run a massive $85 Billion dollar deficit. I quote financial Reports on Business and Right Wing Media Reports.

I read the articles it is a massive $85 Billion Dollar deficit that the Conservative Government is intent on running.

[madmax]

Your contention they should have simply stuffed tens of billions away in a giant piggy back is economic nonsense. It's certainly true they should have tried harder to cut the budget earlier, but where? I cannot think of a single major cut that would not have put the Liberal Party into hysterical opposition.

You defend poor fiscal policy. The Conservative government fiscal record prior to the 08 Election was underwhelming. The post 08 Conservative Government is fixated on throwing money at every special interest, Billions For Banks, Billions for Billionaires and in the corporate sector. Increased billions to be spent and Decreased Billions to be collected.

This fiscal policy will neither stimulate the economy or balance the books. But lots of lobbyists are going home with full bellies.

[jdobbin]

Uhm, no, it's called mockery. Surely you must see a lot of it in your everyday life.

And you must have frequent visits to the doctor over the rage that must be doing damage to your heart.

I'm not saying that the panic and scaremongering of your party and the other opposition parties was in large part responsible, but it certainly played a part.

The lazy response to the growing problem of liquidity in Canada was Harper's to wear 100%.

If this were a majority government you would be right. It's not, and given the tactics, the hysteria from your party when they initially failed to spend billions on incentives, don't think people will forget who insisted on a massively expensive stimulus program. Well, stupid people will, perhaps, so maybe that's all you care about. After all, who else votes Liberal?

Yes, that's the response the voters like to hear. Call them stupid for not sharing your opinion. Seems to be working with the voters, right?

You talk like a back room political hack, one of those dishonest, weaselly clowns for whom truth and honesty are meaningless, and it's spin that matters. You're not going to be able to spin your way out of your share of responsibility for this "incentive" program, though, no matter how much you lie.

And you talk like an angry white guy who sits at their desk hoping no one knows they are typing on a government computer when they should be working.

Edited March 16, 2009 by jdobbin