Massive Conservative $85 Billion Dollar Deficit

[jdobbin]

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.

It is why I said from 2006 on that the Liberals would not win the election when it came. They were not showing the majority of the electorate that they had better leadership or compelling policies.

Your last election promised even bigger spending than the Tories delivered.

And I said at the time in posts here that it was ridiculous and that Dion and the party were getting desperate and didn't think about the ability to make good on any of the money promises.

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.

The big difference now is the deficit. I don't believe the Liberals would have been in deficit for 2009. The Parliamnetary Budget Officer has said a few times that the last tax decrease and the continued spending tipped the balance in favour of deficit.

I don't the Liberals would have reduced the GST. And that alone is a major policy difference.

[DrGreenthumb]

It is why I said from 2006 on that the Liberals would not win the election when it came. They were not showing the majority of the electorate that they had better leadership or compelling policies.

And I said at the time in posts here that it was ridiculous and that Dion and the party were getting desperate and didn't think about the ability to make good on any of the money promises.

The big difference now is the deficit. I don't believe the Liberals would have been in deficit for 2009. The Parliamnetary Budget Officer has said a few times that the last tax decrease and the continued spending tipped the balance in favour of deficit.

I don't the Liberals would have reduced the GST. And that alone is a major policy difference.

All Ignatief would have to do is refuse to pass c-15 unless the cannabis parts were removed, then announce that the Liberals would re-introduce a decriminalization bill when they are elected. Ignatief would get a majority. The NDP would be crushed as all the young people in the party would move back to the Liberals. Lots of us in the NDP loved Cretien, cuz he was a scrapper. We left the Liberals because they had pussy leaders that wouldn't stand up for liberal ideas. I'm tellin you dobbin, that if ignatieff came out with something intelligent to say about cannabis prohibition, you would see his numbers jump into majority territory in a matter of weeks.

[Argus]

The big difference now is the deficit. I don't believe the Liberals would have been in deficit for 2009. The Parliamnetary Budget Officer has said a few times that the last tax decrease and the continued spending tipped the balance in favour of deficit.

I don't the Liberals would have reduced the GST. And that alone is a major policy difference.

Had the Tories gone into deficit without this big fat "incentive" program, you might be able to suggest that with a degree of believability. However, it's clear that Liberal promises, with or without a cut to GST, would have brought us very close to deficit with the economic downturn being what it has been - if not actually into deficit. But there is no way that they could have dumped over 30 billion in incentive spending into their budget and NOT had a deficit.

[jdobbin]

Had the Tories gone into deficit without this big fat "incentive" program, you might be able to suggest that with a degree of believability. However, it's clear that Liberal promises, with or without a cut to GST, would have brought us very close to deficit with the economic downturn being what it has been - if not actually into deficit. But there is no way that they could have dumped over 30 billion in incentive spending into their budget and NOT had a deficit.

The Tories did go into deficit without the stimulus. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. They didn't have to spend 1 extra penny in the budget and they were in deficit.

[Argus]

The Tories did go into deficit without the stimulus. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said. They didn't have to spend 1 extra penny in the budget and they were in deficit.

They may have gone into deficit without the stimulus. We'll never know if they would have done something - made large cuts or increased taxes or something in order to stop from going into deficit. The point is the stimulus package made that pretty unimportant. Any government would have gone into deficit with a 30+ billion stimulus package suddenly appearing on the books.

[jdobbin]

They may have gone into deficit without the stimulus. We'll never know if they would have done something - made large cuts or increased taxes or something in order to stop from going into deficit. The point is the stimulus package made that pretty unimportant. Any government would have gone into deficit with a 30+ billion stimulus package suddenly appearing on the books.

They did go into deficit and the Parliamentary Budget Officer said so as did pretty much every other economist.

Large tax increases and cuts? When? Where?

[Argus]

They did go into deficit and the Parliamentary Budget Officer said so as did pretty much every other economist.

Large tax increases and cuts? When? Where?

As far as I'm aware what was said was they were GOING TO GO into deficit. However, they never got a chance to present a budget - minus that big stimulus package - so we don't really know what would have happened.

[Smallc]

Parliamentary budget officer predicted in the range of a $12B - $15B deficit before stimulus.

[jdobbin]

As far as I'm aware what was said was they were GOING TO GO into deficit. However, they never got a chance to present a budget - minus that big stimulus package - so we don't really know what would have happened.

Completely bogus since the Tories themselves were saying a deficit was going to happen even before their stimulus package. The only dispute was how large it was going to be. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said upwards of $15 billion.

[Argus]

Completely bogus since the Tories themselves were saying a deficit was going to happen even before their stimulus package. The only dispute was how large it was going to be. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said upwards of $15 billion.

You have a cite with the Tories saying they were going into deficit prior to the stimulus package?

The last report I saw on the budget officer, prior to parliament going into shut down because your party said the tories weren't spending enough money, said

Parliamentary budget officer predicts $3.9B deficit

Updated Thu. Nov. 20 2008 5:58 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A new report says the federal deficit will be about $3.9 billion in 2009 unless Ottawa invokes some major policy changes.

Note the part which says "unless Ottawa invokes some major policy changes". This was prior to their budget. We'll never really know what they planned to put into that budget as the preemptive attempt to sieze power by the three stooges changed everything.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Argus

[jdobbin]

You have a cite with the Tories saying they were going into deficit prior to the stimulus package?

You really don't remember?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008...ce-meeting.html

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Wednesday the federal government will run a deficit in the 2009-10 fiscal year, admitting Canada can't withstand the sinking world economy.

Speaking after a meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts in Saskatoon, Flaherty said it's quite clear a shortfall can't be avoided given the economic forecasts.

[Smallc]

You have a cite with the Tories saying they were going into deficit prior to the stimulus package?

They were going into deficit and that was reflected in the economic statement. They were going to stay in the black only by relying on then non existent asset sales. They cut too deep and spent too much....and now, we pay the price. What really scares me is what will have to be done in order to balance things again. We were just getting things fixed from the last round of cuts....and now we may have to do it again.

[Argus]

You really don't remember?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008...ce-meeting.html

Uh, yeah, in December, well after the attack of the three stooges. And in that report Flaherty states that the government is likely to be spending a lot of money on infrastructure and the auto industry it hadn't planned to.

Do you actually think this proves your point in any way?

[Smallc]

Uh, yeah, in December, well after the attack of the three stooges.

Why should that matter? Do the Conservatives supposedly not have principles?

[jdobbin]

Uh, yeah, in December, well after the attack of the three stooges. And in that report Flaherty states that the government is likely to be spending a lot of money on infrastructure and the auto industry it hadn't planned to.

But that wasn't even calculated in their figures at the time. And with Statscan saying the country was in deficit in November and December, you can see money was already being spent faster than it was coming in.

Do you actually think this proves your point in any way?

You asked for evidence that the Tories were talking deficit even before stimulus. I'm not surprised by your dismissal of it and your complete blame of the Liberals for the deficit.

[Argus]

Why should that matter? Do the Conservatives supposedly not have principles?

This lot? About as many principals as the Liberals, apparently. Which is to say - nothing that gets in the way of their staying in power.

[Argus]

But that wasn't even calculated in their figures at the time. And with Statscan saying the country was in deficit in November and December, you can see money was already being spent faster than it was coming in.

You asked for evidence that the Tories were talking deficit even before stimulus. I'm not surprised by your dismissal of it and your complete blame of the Liberals for the deficit.

You shouldn't be surprised at my dismissing your patently dishonest suggestion. Even in your own cite Flaherty was clearly talking about a deficit with regard to the stimulous package.

[Smallc]

This lot? About as many principals as the Liberals, apparently. Which is to say - nothing that gets in the way of their staying in power.

And yet you continue to support them over the Liberals despite the fact that they are acting like Liberals....or at least trying to. You want to know the real difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals right now? The Liberals actually believe in the things they're talking about.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Smallc

[bjre]

The reason that I think Canada is lack of wise, capable politician is proved again by this thread.

When economic crisis came, Harper deny it first.

Then he refuse spend anything on this until Liberal and NDP try to unite.

After that he began to spend money only for the purpose to spend to prove he is doing something.

Even try to take tax dollars from below $20/hr workers to save the jobs that earn 76$/hr.

Does Liberal have some better idea? I don't think so.

If they were sure they were able to rescue the economy, they should not fear of took the power from Tories with NDP in February.

All the wisdom of the politicians are used on how to attack their rivals and keep their own positions.

Why the politician can not sit together and try to work with their good willingness to solve the problems?

The politicians that care only about themselves, and their party, and maybe their sponsors are too much more than enough.

Canada need better education system that can create people that have responsibility, have integrity, have good willing to people, have capability to solve problems.

[Argus]

And yet you continue to support them over the Liberals despite the fact that they are acting like Liberals....or at least trying to. You want to know the real difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals right now? The Liberals actually believe in the things they're talking about.

Oh little liberals like you might but the big boys just guffaw at your naivity. The big boys have no principals, no morals and no ethics or values. All they care about is power. They'll say whatever they think the sheep will like in order to get it.

At the moment, I mostly support the Conservatives simply because most of the attacks on them are hypocritical, from people who would be doing exactly the same or worse, or already have many times in the past. I've seen nothing to indicate the Liberals would be an improvement in any way on what the Conservatives are doing now. Maybe you, as a zealous Liberal, could tell me just what they'd be doing better.

[jdobbin]

You shouldn't be surprised at my dismissing your patently dishonest suggestion. Even in your own cite Flaherty was clearly talking about a deficit with regard to the stimulous package.

That is a bogus and you know it.

[Smallc]

Oh little liberals like you might but the big boys just guffaw at your naivity. The big boys have no principals, no morals and no ethics or values.

Nice generalizing you've got going on there. Can I join in? No, I'd rather not, because it would be completely dishonest.

[Moonbox]

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

What? You showed me that the bureaucracy rose by 14.8% under Harper and 14.0% under Martin. You didn't show me that Harper spent faster than Martin. I showed you the opposite WITH NUMBERS.

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.

Here's from Stats Can, Federal Budget

That indicates surplus for 2008 so it's probably not right for 2008 but at least it lets you compare the spending part.

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.

Actually in a minority government you can't say that. Harper writes the budgets, yes, but it was the Liberals demanding stimulus in December and threatening to bring down the government over it. Just because the Liberals aren't running the government doesn't mean they can totally escape responsibility. Yes, it's ulimately Harper's budget but no, Ignatieff and Dion cannot say they didn't demand the spending and then sign on for it.

You can say it ain't so all you want, but they DID demand and sign on for the spending.

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

So what? Why would a Liberal government that promises to spend more be any better than a CPC government that spends more?

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

You just refuse to read it.

I DID read it. It said that spending increased after Martin. The dollar value of spending increased. Of course the CTF is upset about that. What I've been saying this WHOLE ENTIRE THREAD is that the RATE of spending increases was FASTER under MARTIN. The CTF did NOT refute that. Spending has increased overall under every Prime Minister ever. Looking at strict dollar values is only part of the picture.

Given Martin's rate of spending increases, along with his 2006 election spending promises, you can safely assume he would have blown Harper's numbers out of the water, or at least matched them.

There's something to be said that Harper increased spending considerably after spending was already increased heavily, but it would have happened under Martin OR Harper. What I'm saying is that EITHER WAY we would have had a big spending government.

Again, EVERY SINGLE points to the Liberals wanting to spend. The Liberals before Harper spent like crazy. The Liberals DURING Harper wanted to increase spending, the 2008 election promised HUGE spending and then they DEMANDED spending in December stimulus.

Like I said before there is NOTHING to back up your claims that current Liberals are fiscally responsible. The only thing you're going on is 1995. If the Liberals were promising to reduce spending the last few years, I'd be more receptive to your claim. They did the opposite and you're trying to pretend that they're promised spending increases don't matter because they weren't the ruling government....

I think Harper's done a crap job. I'm not sure I'll vote for him again. Hopefully they'll replace him, or at least they get rid of the Bob Raes and Dions of the current Liberals. I'm not happy with what either party is providing right now.

[jdobbin]

What? You showed me that the bureaucracy rose by 14.8% under Harper and 14.0% under Martin. You didn't show me that Harper spent faster than Martin. I showed you the opposite WITH NUMBERS.

You showed me numbers that didn't even take in 2008 and how much was being spent. CTF and the Conference Board could only guess.

Here's from Stats Can, Federal Budget

That indicates surplus for 2008 so it's probably not right for 2008 but at least it lets you compare the spending part.

Which the Parliamentary Budget Officer already says is incorrect. It seems each month they keep revising the previous numbers for employment, spending. The raw data never makes it out of Finance until almost an entire quarter has passed by.

Actually in a minority government you can't say that. Harper writes the budgets, yes, but it was the Liberals demanding stimulus in December and threatening to bring down the government over it. Just because the Liberals aren't running the government doesn't mean they can totally escape responsibility. Yes, it's ulimately Harper's budget but no, Ignatieff and Dion cannot say they didn't demand the spending and then sign on for it.

You can say it ain't so all you want, but they DID demand and sign on for the spending.

It is ultimately Harper's budget. He can't run from it.

So what? Why would a Liberal government that promises to spend more be any better than a CPC government that spends more?

Probably because real dollars are more important than imaginary dollars.

I DID read it. It said that spending increased after Martin. The dollar value of spending increased. Of course the CTF is upset about that. What I've been saying this WHOLE ENTIRE THREAD is that the RATE of spending increases was FASTER under MARTIN. The CTF did NOT refute that. Spending has increased overall under every Prime Minister ever. Looking at strict dollar values is only part of the picture.

It is a big part of the picture since it is what has led us to the situation we are now.

Given Martin's rate of spending increases, along with his 2006 election spending promises, you can safely assume he would have blown Harper's numbers out of the water, or at least matched them.

I doubt it.

There's something to be said that Harper increased spending considerably after spending was already increased heavily, but it would have happened under Martin OR Harper. What I'm saying is that EITHER WAY we would have had a big spending government.

I doubt that as well.

Again, EVERY SINGLE points to the Liberals wanting to spend. The Liberals before Harper spent like crazy. The Liberals DURING Harper wanted to increase spending, the 2008 election promised HUGE spending and then they DEMANDED spending in December stimulus.

And the Liberals lost. And now we have read dollars being spent like crazy.

Like I said before there is NOTHING to back up your claims that current Liberals are fiscally responsible. The only thing you're going on is 1995. If the Liberals were promising to reduce spending the last few years, I'd be more receptive to your claim. They did the opposite and you're trying to pretend that they're promised spending increases don't matter because they weren't the ruling government....

Only 1995? I think you must be reading some strange numbers.

I think Harper's done a crap job. I'm not sure I'll vote for him again. Hopefully they'll replace him, or at least they get rid of the Bob Raes and Dions of the current Liberals. I'm not happy with what either party is providing right now.

You may have to go to another party since I can't see either party satisfying you.

[normanchateau]

About as many principals as the Liberals, apparently.

Hard to say which party has more principals.

However, one-time Young Liberal then Progressive Conservative/Reform/National Citizens Coalition/Alliance/Conservative Harper appears to have no principles other than routinely changing his stripes.