Massive Conservative $85 Billion Dollar Deficit

[Oleg Bach]

Let me put it in terms even you can understand. The money in the Fiscal Stabilization Funds wasn't earning 1%.

This was plainly demonstrated in Saskatchewan and Manitoba's reports on their funds.

You guys keep talking economics - hope you're getting paid ? If not keep talking about the details..."Fiscal Stabilization fund" What's that? Is it a fund you put money in and store it for a rainy day? Does this fund keep economys stable and guard from fluxuation? Or is it just a big bank account like the American Federal Reserve that Americans deposit in but can never with draw from unless they belong to some elite club --- The Fed is the eternal bail out package..

[DrGreenthumb]

Someone just got punched in the nose. Touche.

No one can deny that the Conservatives did anything to curb their spending. Actually what the stimulus package really is, is business as usual for the CPC. Their track record demonstrated they liked spending more money then they take in.

Now, its coming to bite them in the ass.

Good For Manitoba and Saskatchewan. NDP and Sask party governments with their house in order.

Actually the Sak party can't really take the credit for saskatchewan's good position. They have only recently taken over from another NDP government who through wise fiscal management prepared the province to deal with tough times. Time for a federal new democrat government.

[jdobbin]

Time for a federal new democrat government.

The New Democrats keep losing people to the provincial wings. There is not enough movement back to the other side, especially at the premier level. I imagine the NDP would do better if a Romanow or Doer headed up the federal wing.

[Moonbox]

Utter crap. The Harper Tories had plenty of resources left over to them when they got into power. They blew it all.

Jdobbin you don't have the slightest clue.

I'll grant you that Harper had a lot of stupid spending increases, particularly in the 2008 election budget, but it's 100% retarded to say that these were the 'cause' of the current deficit.

One detail that you've always avoided to acknowledge Jdobbin was that Paul Martin's spending increases as PM more or less matched Harper's. Whether it was a Liberal or Conservative government, we would have had those increases. When you're in danger of losing confidence in minority government it's almost impossible to keep a tight wallet. The fact that none of them ran a deficit during this period is at least worthy of credit.

The reason we're running a deficit now is that revenue fell through the floor.

The Liberals didn't insist on a deficit. Try to get that straight. Your party rode this country straight into deficit with a lack of planning.

The Liberals ABSOLUTELY insisted on a deficit. It's easy for a snivelling opposition (and their hack supporters) to claim hindshight today but we could have used this information a few years ago. Let's look a few simple facts:

1. Paul Martin's Liberals increased spending at pretty much the exact same pace that Harper's Tories did while they were in charge. It's all about public opinion in a shakey minority.

2. Despite a CPC minority and innumerable chances the Liberals had to bring down the current government in the last several years, they did nothing. If they were serious about creating 'reserves' and curbing spending, they would have made an issue about it. They didn't. I wonder what Canadians would have been more receptive to. Tax decreases and increased spending OR no tax decreases and no spending increases?

3. Months ago I provided links where Liberals were clamoring for $30B in direct stimulus spending and accusing Harper of not doing enough for the economy. Given that the only way to pay for $30B in stimlus was to run a deficit, your claim that the Liberals weren't insisting on a deficit is not only wrong but also flat out retarded.

I eagerly await to see how you'll squirm your way around these arguments. Are you going to take the 'Don't personalize' approach or the 'let's get anal and semantic' approach? Either way I'm excited to see how you're going to convince us all that the Liberals would have spent $15B per year extra paying back debt or saving money in 2006-2007 given that every indication from back then was pretty much pointing to the opposite.

Hindsight is precious isn't it?

Edited March 17, 2009 by Moonbox

[Oleg Bach]

Liberals like a deficit also - everyone loves to spend other peoples money.

[Moonbox]

Liberals like a deficit also - everyone loves to spend other peoples money.

so do other provinces

[fellowtraveller]

Good For Manitoba and Saskatchewan. NDP and Sask party governments with their house in order.

It makes me puke to see Manitoba mentioned in the same breath as any kind of fiscal prudence.

They suck a few extra billion out of their neighbours every year for their very existence, then crow about saving some of it?

It is like stealing your Grandmothers welfare cheque out of her purse then laughing as she buys cat food for dinner.

[jdobbin]

It makes me puke to see Manitoba mentioned in the same breath as any kind of fiscal prudence.

Guess this means you won't be voting for the Tories next election since they upped the transfer payments.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin you don't have the slightest clue.

Here we go with another Consertvative supporter defending the deficit they put Canada back into.

I'll grant you that Harper had a lot of stupid spending increases, particularly in the 2008 election budget, but it's 100% retarded to say that these were the 'cause' of the current deficit.

Try to refrain from using words that are not allowed in these forums.

What do you think causes deficits? Overspending.

One detail that you've always avoided to acknowledge Jdobbin was that Paul Martin's spending increases as PM more or less matched Harper's. Whether it was a Liberal or Conservative government, we would have had those increases. When you're in danger of losing confidence in minority government it's almost impossible to keep a tight wallet. The fact that none of them ran a deficit during this period is at least worthy of credit.

I'm afraid that Harper has breezed past Martins' spending. You know this.

The reason we're running a deficit now is that revenue fell through the floor.

We were getting close to the break even point even before that. This happened of course while the Tories spent at breakneck speed. Remember the weeks before the election call?

The Liberals ABSOLUTELY insisted on a deficit. It's easy for a snivelling opposition (and their hack supporters) to claim hindshight today but we could have used this information a few years ago. Let's look a few simple facts:

The whining and whimpering is from Conservative supporters who ignored outside advice to cutback on spending and prepare for a downturn upon their first budget.

1. Paul Martin's Liberals increased spending at pretty much the exact same pace that Harper's Tories did while they were in charge. It's all about public opinion in a shakey minority.

Afraid not. Andrew Cohen has written on this. You have seen it here. You continue to ignore it.

2. Despite a CPC minority and innumerable chances the Liberals had to bring down the current government in the last several years, they did nothing. If they were serious about creating 'reserves' and curbing spending, they would have made an issue about it. They didn't. I wonder what Canadians would have been more receptive to. Tax decreases and increased spending OR no tax decreases and no spending increases?

The Liberals might have been guilty of supporting the government but not of having Canada end up in deficit. This idea that the deficit is the Liberal's fault is a nice ploy but I think the electorate knows where the buck stops.

3. Months ago I provided links where Liberals were clamoring for $30B in direct stimulus spending and accusing Harper of not doing enough for the economy. Given that the only way to pay for $30B in stimlus was to run a deficit, your claim that the Liberals weren't insisting on a deficit is not only wrong but also flat out retarded.

And I showed links right back that said there were no numbers discussed. McCallum corrected that story a day after it came out. Tories were the one that kept repeating it.

And refrain from using words deemed inappropriate in this forum.

I eagerly await to see how you'll squirm your way around these arguments. Are you going to take the 'Don't personalize' approach or the 'let's get anal and semantic' approach? Either way I'm excited to see how you're going to convince us all that the Liberals would have spent $15B per year extra paying back debt or saving money in 2006-2007 given that every indication from back then was pretty much pointing to the opposite.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that since the 1990s the Liberals have run the country quite well.

While other countries went into deficit, we didn't.

Hindsight is precious isn't it?

I think that is what the electorate is looking at right now. If only they had gone for a party that kept the country out of deficit.

[Moonbox]

Here we go with another Consertvative supporter defending the deficit they put Canada back into.

Another useless comment by a Liberal hack. We can both play that game.

Try to refrain from using words that are not allowed in these forums.

Noted.

What do you think causes deficits? Overspending.

I'm afraid that Harper has breezed past Martins' spending. You know this.

Now you're just making stuff up Jdobbin. This is another case where you've failed to back up your useless nattering with actual facts. The first year Paul Martin was PM federal program expenses increased from $153B to $176B (2004-2005). That's a $23B spending increase over ONE year while revenue only went up by $13B. That was the biggest single year increase in spending we've ever seen. From then until 2008-2009 spending only increased by another $30B after that. You do the math genius.

We were getting close to the break even point even before that. This happened of course while the Tories spent at breakneck speed. Remember the weeks before the election call?

Oh my GOD the federal government is breaking even while reducing my taxes! THE HORROR!!!

I do recall the weeks leading up to the election call. I also remember that Dion's Liberals were promising to match or exceed Harper's spending promises. At this point a lot of the infrastructure promises can be considered pre-emptive stimulus anyways.

The whining and whimpering is from Conservative supporters who ignored outside advice to cutback on spending and prepare for a downturn upon their first budget.

Politics are always about comparisons. You can complain about Conservative spending and I'd be right with you in doing so but you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking the Liberals do better when Martin proved and Dion promised them to be every bit as bad or worse. It's your implicit position as a hardcore Liberal hack that compromises your criticisms.

Afraid not. Andrew Cohen has written on this. You have seen it here. You continue to ignore it.

I have no idea who Andrew Cohen is nor have I read anything he's written.

The Liberals might have been guilty of supporting the government but not of having Canada end up in deficit. This idea that the deficit is the Liberal's fault is a nice ploy but I think the electorate knows where the buck stops.

I'm NOT saying it's THEIR fault. I'm saying as the official opposition they had every chance and opportunity to do something about it and they didn't. Certainly Harper's Conservatives can be blamed for the giant stimulus deficit but given that the Liberals held veto power the whole time and didn't use it you can hardly make the case that they were against a deficit. We're not talking $1-2B dollars here. We're talking $30B here. That's enough money to get the opposition off their asses to vote against the government. Again, they didn't do it.

And I showed links right back that said there were no numbers discussed. McCallum corrected that story a day after it came out. Tories were the one that kept repeating it.

Okay he changed the story. Let's go over things really quickly then. The Liberals threatened to bring down the government for not doing ENOUGH to stimulate the economy. In January the conservatives announce $30B in stimulus. The Liberals support this budget and back down from coalition talks.

What sort of conclusions would a RATIONAL AND INTELLIGENT person make? If the Liberals are threatening to bring down the government for not spending and then support it after big spending announcements I'm PRETTY SURE we can say they're in all the way as far as deficits go. This is not Trudeau or Mulroney majorities we're talking about here. It takes at least two parties to pass a budget these days, and this year one of those parties was the Liberals.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that since the 1990s the Liberals have run the country quite well.

I've no major complaints. The fact that they ran the country in the best economy we've seen in 50 years helped I think.

I think that is what the electorate is looking at right now. If only they had gone for a party that kept the country out of deficit.

Hey in normal times I'm with you on that. I live in Ontario, however, and now we need help. We've been bankrolling your mooching province for decades now and you're up in arms now that the economic machine that's supported your sorry province needs some backing. K-W right now has almost 10% unemployment. Ouch.

In good times we should be paying down the debt. Chretien did a good job of that and to a lesser extent so did Martin/Harper. Both of them could have done better. Now, however, we're faced with a totally different environment. The 'deficit is evil' mentality is too black and white to really have a place in modern economics. Every government everywhere is running massive deficits and that's because it's sound and proven short term economic theory.

[Alta4ever]

Actually the Sak party can't really take the credit for saskatchewan's good position. They have only recently taken over from another NDP government who through wise fiscal management prepared the province to deal with tough times. Time for a federal new democrat government.

An NDP party that ran them into the gound first, Calvert began making changes as he saw the end of socialism in the province because they just couldn' afford to keep it anymore.

Then Brad wall came made some changes to the royalty structure and boom the Saskatchewan engine started finnally, it just took a conservative to turn the key, instead of whine about equalization that calvert was nolonger able to extort.

[normanchateau]

I'll grant you that Harper had a lot of stupid spending increases, particularly in the 2008 election budget, but it's 100% retarded to say that these were the 'cause' of the current deficit.

Particularly in 2008? Do you not remember the outrageously high spending in the 2007 budget? The 2007 budget committed billions of new dollars to be spent in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

"With this 2007 budget, Jim Flaherty officially becomes the biggest-spending finance minister in the history of Canada.

It’s true. The $200-billion Mr. Flaherty proposes to spend this year [2007] works out to about $5,800 for every citizen. Even after you adjust for increases in prices and population, that’s more than the Martin government spent at its frenetic worst, when it was almost shovelling the stuff out the door. It is more than the Mulroney government spent in its last days, when it was past caring."

Source:

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

Long before the current recession, Harper was driving us toward a deficit by spending far more than he took in. History will show that Harper's financial mismanagement and imprudence damaged Canada more than the free spending of his predecessors.

[Oleg Bach]

You had better understand what deficit spending really is. It is bridge financing - or like taking out a second mortage. If you look at where the word mortgage comes from, it means a man borrowing on his fathers fortune with a guarentee that the creditors will be paid once his father is dead - It is borrowing not on the health and wealth of a nation but the death of it. Your are borrowing money from the public and in eccense handing over money that does not belong to you over to a third party...The public will not benefit from deficit spending - but someone will...and Harper serves those not us.

[jdobbin]

Another useless comment by a Liberal hack. We can both play that game.

Another retort from hyperpartisan supporters of Harper.

Now you're just making stuff up Jdobbin. This is another case where you've failed to back up your useless nattering with actual facts. The first year Paul Martin was PM federal program expenses increased from $153B to $176B (2004-2005). That's a $23B spending increase over ONE year while revenue only went up by $13B. That was the biggest single year increase in spending we've ever seen. From then until 2008-2009 spending only increased by another $30B after that. You do the math genius.

Try to refrain from the angry personalizing that you normally resort to.

Please do your own math and look at the fact that Harper has spent more than Martin in each year he has been in office. Or do you deny that? I have shown you those figures. Andrew Coyne and the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation has taken Harper to task for spending beyond Martins number and yet some Conservatives still think Harper has spent less or kept his promise not to spend above the rate of population growth and inflation. Or do you deny that promise was made or was broken?

Oh my GOD the federal government is breaking even while reducing my taxes! THE HORROR!!!

I do recall the weeks leading up to the election call. I also remember that Dion's Liberals were promising to match or exceed Harper's spending promises. At this point a lot of the infrastructure promises can be considered pre-emptive stimulus anyways.

Think the Harper government spent an additional $3 billion even before the election call on UFO museums and the like.

Politics are always about comparisons. You can complain about Conservative spending and I'd be right with you in doing so but you've somehow deluded yourself into thinking the Liberals do better when Martin proved and Dion promised them to be every bit as bad or worse. It's your implicit position as a hardcore Liberal hack that compromises your criticisms.

It is your hardcore Conservatism that make you deny that Harper spent more than Martin.

I have no idea who Andrew Cohen is nor have I read anything he's written.

I'm a little surprised about that. National Post editor and now Maclean's editor. A fiscal conservative not afraid to throw any party under the bus and he has done so with Tory spending.

I'm NOT saying it's THEIR fault. I'm saying as the official opposition they had every chance and opportunity to do something about it and they didn't. Certainly Harper's Conservatives can be blamed for the giant stimulus deficit but given that the Liberals held veto power the whole time and didn't use it you can hardly make the case that they were against a deficit. We're not talking $1-2B dollars here. We're talking $30B here. That's enough money to get the opposition off their asses to vote against the government. Again, they didn't do it.

That sounds to me like you are saying it is the Liberal's fault. I think you will find that the electorate usually punishes the government for deficits, not the Opposition.

Okay he changed the story. Let's go over things really quickly then. The Liberals threatened to bring down the government for not doing ENOUGH to stimulate the economy. In January the conservatives announce $30B in stimulus. The Liberals support this budget and back down from coalition talks.

However, there wasn't anything about Liberals supporting a deficit.

What sort of conclusions would a RATIONAL AND INTELLIGENT person make? If the Liberals are threatening to bring down the government for not spending and then support it after big spending announcements I'm PRETTY SURE we can say they're in all the way as far as deficits go. This is not Trudeau or Mulroney majorities we're talking about here. It takes at least two parties to pass a budget these days, and this year one of those parties was the Liberals.

And while Harper will try to blame the Liberals for the deficit, it is more likely that the government is where the buck stops.

I've no major complaints. The fact that they ran the country in the best economy we've seen in 50 years helped I think.

And yet other countries ran back into deficit.

Hey in normal times I'm with you on that. I live in Ontario, however, and now we need help. We've been bankrolling your mooching province for decades now and you're up in arms now that the economic machine that's supported your sorry province needs some backing. K-W right now has almost 10% unemployment. Ouch.

You should be upset with Harper. He extended transfer payments. The Liberals had resisted that but not Harper.

If you want to change it, get rid of the person who increased transfers.

In good times we should be paying down the debt. Chretien did a good job of that and to a lesser extent so did Martin/Harper. Both of them could have done better. Now, however, we're faced with a totally different environment. The 'deficit is evil' mentality is too black and white to really have a place in modern economics. Every government everywhere is running massive deficits and that's because it's sound and proven short term economic theory.

And I am saying we could have avoided the deficit like some provinces have done.

[Alta4ever]

Another retort from hyperpartisan supporters of Harper.

Another response from a hyperpartisan liberal.

[jdobbin]

Another response from a hyperpartisan liberal.

And then there are super--hyperpartisan Conservatives.

[DrGreenthumb]

And then there are super--hyperpartisan Conservatives.

Anything Harper does is ok because as soon as he gets his majority he will ban abortion and teach adam and eve in Science class lol

[Moonbox]

Another retort from hyperpartisan supporters of Harper.

Calling me hyperpartisan doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. If I'm hyperpartisan conservative than you're hyperpartisan Liberal. Whoopy. We've both labelled each other and we haven't gone anywhere.

Try to refrain from the angry personalizing that you normally resort to.

There was no personalizing in the last post. What you see as anger is actually thinly disguised contempt.

Please do your own math and look at the fact that Harper has spent more than Martin in each year he has been in office. Or do you deny that?

Jdobbin i've commented on numerous occasions how poorly you interpret the numbers you use. As usual, you interpret them as a hack Liberal supporter. Saying Harper is the biggest spending PM ever is absolutely meaningless considering that can be said of almost EVERY PM we've ever had. Other than 1995-1996 spending increases by billions EVERY year. This is because the economy is growing. If you want to look at meaningful measures, take income versus program expenditure. In 2004-2005 after the biggest spending increases in Canadian History, Martin Liberals spent 83% of income on program expenditure. In 2007-2008 Harper had increased that to 84%. Martin spending went from $153B to $176B in ONE year. How were you not pulling your hair out over that???

The interesting thing to note is that GST under Harper dropped 2% and without that government revenue would be significantly increased and the ratios would look better.

So yes, Harper has increased spending, but relative to income and taking into account the tax cuts, the difference between Harper spending increases and Martin spending increases is negligible. Look at the numbers:

CTF - Revenue vs Expenditure

Or do you deny that? I have shown you those figures. Andrew Coyne and the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation has taken Harper to task for spending beyond Martins number and yet some Conservatives still think Harper has spent less or kept his promise not to spend above the rate of population growth and inflation. Or do you deny that promise was made or was broken?

I haven't denied any of Harper's broken promises. He's a champ at broken promises. With that said spending really hasn't terribly outpaced inflation. Spending increased slightly in 2008-2009...something like 3.4%. That's not really far off inflation at all. On the flip side, Paul Martin increased spending by about 13% in 2004-2005, so your theory of tight Liberal pockets really falls apart there.

Think the Harper government spent an additional $3 billion even before the election call on UFO museums and the like.

Yeah UFO museum. What the hell? Anyways, it's an exaggeration to say $3B was spent on things like that. A big one.

It is your hardcore Conservatism that make you deny that Harper spent more than Martin.

I didn't deny it. I'm refuting the conclusions you derive from your numbers because they're exaggerated and ignoring important variables like revenue increases and tax reductions. This is all in the interest of hack partisanship.

That sounds to me like you are saying it is the Liberal's fault. I think you will find that the electorate usually punishes the government for deficits, not the Opposition.

I'm not saying it's the Liberal's fault. I'm saying it's the Conservatives AND the Liberal's fault. Nevermind who the electorate blames. 90% of the electorate probably couldn't even name their own MP.

You should be upset with Harper. He extended transfer payments. The Liberals had resisted that but not Harper.

If you want to change it, get rid of the person who increased transfers.

No, I'm not really upset with him. The Liberals paupered the provinces, who provide most of our services, in order to finance Trudeau/Mulroney debt. Harper helped the provinces a bit. I'm angry at Trudeau for coming up with the idiotic/unfair equalization formula in the first place.

And I am saying we could have avoided the deficit like some provinces have done.

The provinces that are avoiding deficits are the ones who generally suck the federal teat. Manitoba, for example, is one of the hardest suckers. Who cares if you balance your budget when you are getting proportionally like 25% more federal transfer payments than we are in Ontario?

That's like congratulating a welfare mom for being a sound fiscal manager. Congrats Octomom. You're the epitome of financial acumen.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

Calling me hyperpartisan doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. If I'm hyperpartisan conservative than you're hyperpartisan Liberal. Whoopy. We've both labelled each other and we haven't gone anywhere.

I don't believe you know what you're talking about. I guess we're back to going no where.

There was no personalizing in the last post. What you see as anger is actually thinly disguised contempt.

You say that but all I hear is the anger.

Jdobbin i've commented on numerous occasions how poorly you interpret the numbers you use. As usual, you interpret them as a hack Liberal supporter. Saying Harper is the biggest spending PM ever is absolutely meaningless considering that can be said of almost EVERY PM we've ever had. Other than 1995-1996 spending increases by billions EVERY year. This is because the economy is growing. If you want to look at meaningful measures, take income versus program expenditure. In 2004-2005 after the biggest spending increases in Canadian History, Martin Liberals spent 83% of income on program expenditure. In 2007-2008 Harper had increased that to 84%. Martin spending went from $153B to $176B in ONE year. How were you not pulling your hair out over that???

As a hack hyperpartisan Conservative, I can see how you would disagree with the numbers. Harper spent more money than Martin did in each of the years he said he would reduce spending. I think I will go with the CTF numbers on this and Harper's own promise not to go over the rate of inflation and rate of population growth.

The interesting thing to note is that GST under Harper dropped 2% and without that government revenue would be significantly increased and the ratios would look better.

Yes, we have heard that from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position that Harper created and how he laid the blame for the deficit solely at Harper's feet.

So yes, Harper has increased spending, but relative to income and taking into account the tax cuts, the difference between Harper spending increases and Martin spending increases is negligible. Look at the numbers:

Not quite. It was a violation of the Tory promise in the 2006 election and every budget afterwards.

I haven't denied any of Harper's broken promises. He's a champ at broken promises. With that said spending really hasn't terribly outpaced inflation. Spending increased slightly in 2008-2009...something like 3.4%. That's not really far off inflation at all. On the flip side, Paul Martin increased spending by about 13% in 2004-2005, so your theory of tight Liberal pockets really falls apart there.

And Martin lost because of the desperate spending that Harper criticized. Why is Harper continuing with that policy?

You think Canadians are going to blame Martin and Dion for the deficit? No. The buck stops with Harper and his party.

Yeah UFO museum. What the hell? Anyways, it's an exaggeration to say $3B was spent on things like that. A big one.

That was the numbers again from the CTF and various media. It was spending announcements every single day.

I didn't deny it. I'm refuting the conclusions you derive from your numbers because they're exaggerated and ignoring important variables like revenue increases and tax reductions. This is all in the interest of hack partisanship.

They're not exaggerated. They have been posted here many times and you seen them many times. You just keep denying them. That is all in the interest of hack partisanship.

I'm not saying it's the Liberal's fault. I'm saying it's the Conservatives AND the Liberal's fault. Nevermind who the electorate blames. 90% of the electorate probably couldn't even name their own MP.

Ah, there is that the old chestnut that the electorate are stupid. You know this constant alienating of the voters probably isn't helpful.

The blaming of the Liberals for the deficit now is going to be a hard sale.

No, I'm not really upset with him. The Liberals paupered the provinces, who provide most of our services, in order to finance Trudeau/Mulroney debt. Harper helped the provinces a bit. I'm angry at Trudeau for coming up with the idiotic/unfair equalization formula in the first place.

Equalization has existed since Confederation. Blame our founding fathers.

The provinces that are avoiding deficits are the ones who generally suck the federal teat. Manitoba, for example, is one of the hardest suckers. Who cares if you balance your budget when you are getting proportionally like 25% more federal transfer payments than we are in Ontario?

Look, as I say, blame Harper. He increased transfers.

That's like congratulating a welfare mom for being a sound fiscal manager. Congrats Octomom. You're the epitome of financial acumen.

And Harper is the daddy of the latest payment.

When will you change your vote to end these payments. It certainly won't be Harper who cuts them off.

[Moonbox]

You say that but all I hear is the anger.

You're hearing what you want to hear then. You want to feel like your dazzling *cough* and level-headed intellect is actually affecting me. While you may evoke sneering contempt out of me that's about all you'll get and your arguments are just as badly thought out as PT's are.

Harper spent more money than Martin did in each of the years he said he would reduce spending. I think I will go with the CTF numbers on this and Harper's own promise not to go over the rate of inflation and rate of population growth.

When we were going over the CTF's criticisms back in October I believe they said that Harper had done a bad job, but Stephane Dion and the Liberals were planning to do much worse. Would you care to dig that up again?

And Martin lost because of the desperate spending that Harper criticized.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!

That's all I'm going for here. I don't care if you criticize Harper. I don't think he's done a great job. What I take exception to in your postings is how one-sided and exaggerated your criticisms always are.

They're not exaggerated. They have been posted here many times and you seen them many times. You just keep denying them. That is all in the interest of hack partisanship.

Yes, they are exaggerated. When you say things like Harper's the biggest spending PM ever, you're totally exaggerating. That was Trudeau. You've proven on MANY occasions that you have immense difficulty interpreting numbers but when you say things like Harper's the biggest spending PM ever it really highlights how butt-hurt you are about the Conservatives running the government.

Look at spending as a percentage of GDP, or compared to revenue generated for the government. I've acknowledged A MILLION times that I think Harper is a big spender Jdobbin. What I'm denying is that the Liberals are any better. They spent JUST as much when Paul Martin was PM (when you actually look at the numbers MEANINGFULLY rather than just take the actual dollar values and don't ignore the other relevant variables). Don't even try to continue this discussion until you acknowledge these numbers.

All indications have been that the Libs would spend JUST as much right now as Harper is.

Dion was promising just as much spending during the election. The Liberals threatened to bring down the government for not spending to stimulate the economy. Ignatieff and the Liberals signed on to the budget and the stimulus. Where is there ANY INDICATION ANYWHERE that the Liberals would be tight with the public purse?? There aren't any. You keep insisting that they would but the facts speak otherwise.

Ah, there is that the old chestnut that the electorate are stupid. You know this constant alienating of the voters probably isn't helpful.

To who? I'm not running for office. I could care less if I alienate the voters. Most of them are stupid. I'm not saying they're stupid if they don't vote for the same party as me. I say they're stupid because they vote without any understanding of the issues half the time and vote based purely on party or misconception.

Part of the problem is dogmatic party hacks like you endlessly posting misinterpreted numbers and people accepting them without doing any research on their own. You're not the only guilty party. The Conservatives totally villified Dion and the Green Shift beyond what was fair. BTW that was another instance where you refused to look at the numbers with me. It doesn't seem like your strong point.

The blaming of the Liberals for the deficit now is going to be a hard sale.

That's not my intention. My intention is to make it clear that there is no room to criticize the deficit from behind the Liberal brand. They're in on it all the way.

Equalization has existed since Confederation. Blame our founding fathers.

The current formula was Trudeau's invention.

Look, as I say, blame Harper. He increased transfers.

He increased it for everyone. Ontario has more money because of it. I'm not blaming him for that. I'm still blaming Trudeau and whiney have-not provinces for creating an equalization formula that would probably take messing with the constitution to fix.

When will you change your vote to end these payments. It certainly won't be Harper who cuts them off.

At least not with a minority! It certainly won't be the Liberals who change it either! The main beneficiaries of the transfer payments are the large municipalities and that's the only place they get votes nowadays!

[jdobbin]

You're hearing what you want to hear then. You want to feel like your dazzling *cough* and level-headed intellect is actually affecting me. While you may evoke sneering contempt out of me that's about all you'll get and your arguments are just as badly thought out as PT's are.

And I say that you are hearing what you want to hear. And your contempt probably flows to anyone who disagree with you.

When we were going over the CTF's criticisms back in October I believe they said that Harper had done a bad job, but Stephane Dion and the Liberals were planning to do much worse. Would you care to dig that up again?

I believe I was the one that posted that in the first place. However, I also posted how the CTF said that Harper was worse that the previous Liberal government.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!

That's all I'm going for here. I don't care if you criticize Harper. I don't think he's done a great job. What I take exception to in your postings is how one-sided and exaggerated your criticisms always are.

And I have posted that information before as well which is why I throw my hands up in the air when you say Martin was worse than Harper when it came to each budget. He wasn't. And the CTF has said so.

Yes, they are exaggerated. When you say things like Harper's the biggest spending PM ever, you're totally exaggerating. That was Trudeau. You've proven on MANY occasions that you have immense difficulty interpreting numbers but when you say things like Harper's the biggest spending PM ever it really highlights how butt-hurt you are about the Conservatives running the government.

I have never said anything about Harper being the biggest spending PM ever and I defy you to show where I posted that.

You are either lying or misinformed.

Look at spending as a percentage of GDP, or compared to revenue generated for the government. I've acknowledged A MILLION times that I think Harper is a big spender Jdobbin. What I'm denying is that the Liberals are any better. They spent JUST as much when Paul Martin was PM (when you actually look at the numbers MEANINGFULLY rather than just take the actual dollar values and don't ignore the other relevant variables). Don't even try to continue this discussion until you acknowledge these numbers.

I have looked at the numbers. Government grew 14% under Martin. It grew another 14.8% percent under Harper.

They spent 7.5% in 2006 and 6.9% in 2007 after promising to keep it at the rate of inflation and population growth. In 2008, it was running at 11%.

All indications have been that the Libs would spend JUST as much right now as Harper is.

And the record while they were in government was that they did better and that has been confirmed by CTF several times.

Dion was promising just as much spending during the election. The Liberals threatened to bring down the government for not spending to stimulate the economy. Ignatieff and the Liberals signed on to the budget and the stimulus. Where is there ANY INDICATION ANYWHERE that the Liberals would be tight with the public purse?? There aren't any. You keep insisting that they would but the facts speak otherwise.

I said during the election that Dion's promises were costly. I said the same thing about Harper's promises.

What I have pointed out is that the record of the past two Liberal governments was better than Harper's on growth of government.

To who? I'm not running for office. I could care less if I alienate the voters. Most of them are stupid. I'm not saying they're stupid if they don't vote for the same party as me. I say they're stupid because they vote without any understanding of the issues half the time and vote based purely on party or misconception.

By all means, call the voters what you will. If the general feeling of Tory members is well know towards the electorate, I expect it continue the alienation.

Part of the problem is dogmatic party hacks like you endlessly posting misinterpreted numbers and people accepting them without doing any research on their own. You're not the only guilty party. The Conservatives totally villified Dion and the Green Shift beyond what was fair. BTW that was another instance where you refused to look at the numbers with me. It doesn't seem like your strong point.

I'm afraid you're just getting all huffy now that people don't see it the way you do.

That's not my intention. My intention is to make it clear that there is no room to criticize the deficit from behind the Liberal brand. They're in on it all the way.

Oh, there is plenty of room. We keep hearing about how weak Dion was and how the Tories could push him around. Well, Harper didn't have to let it get this way. It is probably why people are starting to re-think his financial management. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of people on the right starting to think who would be better, what party would be better.

The current formula was Trudeau's invention.

Please. Equalization was codified in 1957. Since then it has gone through a lot of tweaks many under Tory governments.

He increased it for everyone. Ontario has more money because of it. I'm not blaming him for that. I'm still blaming Trudeau and whiney have-not provinces for creating an equalization formula that would probably take messing with the constitution to fix.

Equalization exists in every industrial state except the U.S.

The U.S., of course, transfers moneys to states in different ways but it all amounts to setting national standards.

We have had in Canada since Confederation. Alberta received till 1964. Resource wealth or manufacturing wealth tend to take you off equalization.

I'm not surprised you aren't blaming Harper for the latest increase. In that regard, it is similar to farmers decades after the fact yelling to the skies about CP Rail.

At least not with a minority! It certainly won't be the Liberals who change it either! The main beneficiaries of the transfer payments are the large municipalities and that's the only place they get votes nowadays!

So you say Harper has a secret agenda to open the Constitution? What is with Conservatives and changing the charter all the time?

I think you'll recall that the Liberals reduced transfers in the 1990s.

[normanchateau]

So yes, Harper has increased spending, but relative to income and taking into account the tax cuts, the difference between Harper spending increases and Martin spending increases is negligible.

So Martin increased spending by 14% and Harper by 14.8%:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-the-state.aspx

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?

[jdobbin]

So Martin increased spending by 14% and Harper by 14.8%:

That is certainly higher now.

[Moonbox]

That is certainly higher now.

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????

[Argus]

Please do your own math and look at the fact that Harper has spent more than Martin in each year he has been in office.

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.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Argus