Massive Conservative $85 Billion Dollar Deficit

[Moonbox]

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.

2008 just ended. The numbers I showed gave enough data to compare how Martin's spending trends mirrored Harper's. That was my intention. Whether or not Harper dropped a spending bomb in the last couple months of 2008 is irrelevant given that's exactly what the Liberals were demanding he do.

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.

I'd be inclined to agree with the PBO that the CPC isn't showing exactly how bad the employment, revenue and deficit numbers really are. With that said we don't have any solid numbers on spending right now other than the stimulus and deficit figures so we're both just guessing right now.

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

Ultimately yes, which i've agreed with 100 times already. That doesn't mean the Liberals didn't demand and vote for the spending, which is the best indication for where they stand fiscally.

Probably because real dollars are more important than imaginary dollars.

It's your imagination that Liberals would not have spent like Harper did. At least from my perspective I can back it up with their public policy, election platforms and stimulus demands. You're basing your claim of fiscal responsibility on....nothing? You win for imagination. I was never that good at it. I need my facts man!

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

According to you, because it suits your argument. The size of the bureaucracy accounts for a small percentage of the budget. The total spending numbers are the most important, and from the numbers we do have, Harper hasn't even spent as fast as Martin. I'm talking about spending increase RATES, not nominal dollar values.

I doubt it.

I doubt that as well.

You can imagine and doubt all you want. The fact that they weren't running the government means you can say absolutely anything you want about what they would have or could have done. At least I'm basing my opinions on the offical positions of the Liberal Party, their election platforms and their record in parliament. You're basing it on, once again, nothing.

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

How does that change that they promised spending increases across the board? It'll be aweful convenient during our next election for the Libs to pretend they didn't but that's more because the average voter doesn't pay any attention.

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

After the initial cuts were made it was a simple matter of riding a big economic boom for 8 years. The 1995-96 cuts as I recall were the ones that made the tough decisions. It helped that inflation rates dropped to like 2% as well.

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

No party can satisfy everyone and nobody can every be 100% satisfied with any party. The sooner you realize politics is a science of trade-offs the sooner you'll be able to get off the Liberal bandwagon and vote for them based on their merits rather than this deep emotional attachment you seem to feel.

Again, I'm NOT DEFENDING HARPER'S SPENDING RECORD. It's bad. If, for example, Ignatieff decides in June that he's going to bring down the government and reign in spending, I can almost GUARANTEE I'd vote for him. If, on the other hand, he rides the "we're not the government we have nothing to do with the deficit" wagon for the next couple years and then only campaigns on controlling spending AFTER we've recovered, it's a bit less likely.

We shall see but I'm strongly wagering he'll pretend he was in a coma or something until 2011.

Is someone willing to make tought decisions NOW, or are we going to see all the Keynesian supporters turn into Friedmans only AFTER the money has been spent? There's going to be an aweful lot of irony and hindsight over the next few years.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

2008 just ended. The numbers I showed gave enough data to compare how Martin's spending trends mirrored Harper's. That was my intention. Whether or not Harper dropped a spending bomb in the last couple months of 2008 is irrelevant given that's exactly what the Liberals were demanding he do.

What baloney. Irrelevant? The Liberals didn't ask Harper to burn through cash like it was going out of style in the last months of 2008.

I'd be inclined to agree with the PBO that the CPC isn't showing exactly how bad the employment, revenue and deficit numbers really are. With that said we don't have any solid numbers on spending right now other than the stimulus and deficit figures so we're both just guessing right now.

Given how much money was being shovelled out the door in 2008, I think we might be in for a shock. And no, the Liberals were not cheerleading every penny of it. Many of the things that were being funded were clearly political spending.

Ultimately yes, which i've agreed with 100 times already. That doesn't mean the Liberals didn't demand and vote for the spending, which is the best indication for where they stand fiscally

.

If that is true, why did you support Harper who let Liberals pass by through nearly two dozen confidence motions? Was it because you supported Liberal spending back then and wanted more now?

It's your imagination that Liberals would not have spent like Harper did. At least from my perspective I can back it up with their public policy, election platforms and stimulus demands. You're basing your claim of fiscal responsibility on....nothing? You win for imagination. I was never that good at it. I need my facts man!

You're thinking your speculation is fact?

According to you, because it suits your argument. The size of the bureaucracy accounts for a small percentage of the budget. The total spending numbers are the most important, and from the numbers we do have, Harper hasn't even spent as fast as Martin. I'm talking about spending increase RATES, not nominal dollar values.

According to your figures because it suits your argument. You say it is more important but very few others are thinking it is. And given 2008 and now 2009, Harper likely makes Martin a small time spender.

You can imagine and doubt all you want. The fact that they weren't running the government means you can say absolutely anything you want about what they would have or could have done. At least I'm basing my opinions on the offical positions of the Liberal Party, their election platforms and their record in parliament. You're basing it on, once again, nothing.

And I am basing it on real dollars spent by Harper. That is what it is going to come down to the end.

How does that change that they promised spending increases across the board? It'll be aweful convenient during our next election for the Libs to pretend they didn't but that's more because the average voter doesn't pay any attention.

The average vote knows where the buck stops.

After the initial cuts were made it was a simple matter of riding a big economic boom for 8 years. The 1995-96 cuts as I recall were the ones that made the tough decisions. It helped that inflation rates dropped to like 2% as well.

The same economic boom you talk about was not enough for other countries not go into deficit. Liberals continued to cut spending.

No party can satisfy everyone and nobody can every be 100% satisfied with any party. The sooner you realize politics is a science of trade-offs the sooner you'll be able to get off the Liberal bandwagon and vote for them based on their merits rather than this deep emotional attachment you seem to feel.

The attachment I have is based on better governing.

Again, I'm NOT DEFENDING HARPER'S SPENDING RECORD. It's bad. If, for example, Ignatieff decides in June that he's going to bring down the government and reign in spending, I can almost GUARANTEE I'd vote for him. If, on the other hand, he rides the "we're not the government we have nothing to do with the deficit" wagon for the next couple years and then only campaigns on controlling spending AFTER we've recovered, it's a bit less likely.

I think you will see the Liberals lean towards strong cuts in spending to reduce the deficit. If the Tories follow past practices, they will raise taxes.

We shall see but I'm strongly wagering he'll pretend he was in a coma or something until 2011.

Is someone willing to make tought decisions NOW, or are we going to see all the Keynesian supporters turn into Friedmans only AFTER the money has been spent? There's going to be an aweful lot of irony and hindsight over the next few years.

I doubt Harper will want to be around for the end of result of his deficits.

[Moonbox]

What baloney. Irrelevant? The Liberals didn't ask Harper to burn through cash like it was going out of style in the last months of 2008.

Actually that's exactly what they did. They threatened to bring down the government for not doing enough to stimulate the economy. You have a really short memory.

Given how much money was being shovelled out the door in 2008, I think we might be in for a shock. And no, the Liberals were not cheerleading every penny of it. Many of the things that were being funded were clearly political spending.

If the Liberals had any desire for spending to be reduced they would have campaigned to reduce spending in October. If you disagree with increased spending you GENERALLY DO NOT promise to increase it even more during an election.

If that is true, why did you support Harper who let Liberals pass by through nearly two dozen confidence motions? Was it because you supported Liberal spending back then and wanted more now?

I didn't. I voted for Martin in 2004 and only voted against him after the sponsorship scandal. Since then I've supported Harper over Dion/Bob Rae Liberals and ONLY in that respect.

You're thinking your speculation is fact?

I was making fun of you again. It's pathetic for you to claim the Liberals would not have spent in Harper's place when, like I've said before, they spent like crazy under Martin, based an election campaign on huge new spending and then demanded stimulus spending in December. We can blame Harper for the final numbers but it's sad that you'd even try to say the Liberals would have reigned in spending when their own election platform promised the opposite.

According to your figures because it suits your argument. You say it is more important but very few others are thinking it is. And given 2008 and now 2009, Harper likely makes Martin a small time spender.

How are the numbers on TOTAL spending increases NOT more important than a set of numbers you found comparing only a SMALL part of total spending? The TOTAL numbers are the ones that affect the taxpayer's. What if Harper had shrunken the government but increased overall spending by 500%? Would that mean he was better with money than Martin? No!

And I am basing it on real dollars spent by Harper. That is what it is going to come down to the end.

Obviously. I've never argued that. What I'm arguing is your claim that the Liberals wouldn't have spent money like the clowns they have been for the last few years. ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING they did, said, promised and campaigned on indicated they would INCREASE spending.

You can repeat over and over and over that Harper is PM. That doesn't change the fact that heavily increasing spending has been an undeniable Liberal policy point for the last 5 years. You can pretend it's not all you want but that's taking party hack to the extreme.

The same economic boom you talk about was not enough for other countries not go into deficit. Liberals continued to cut spending.

NOW you're showing just how little you know/understand about the actual numbers. The Liberals decreased spending in ONLY one year and that was 1995-1996. They reduced it by about $9B. They did not cut spending after that. Spending increases followed inflation. I'll give them credit for that, but it helped that interest rates fell through the floor and that federal revenues skyrocketed.

You can give as much credit to the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Canada for stabilizing the money supply as you can give to the LPC for balancing our budget. Federal revenue under Mulroney barely kept pace with inflation. Under Chretien it pretty much doubled inflation. I don't expect you to care or perhaps even understand.

The attachment I have is based on better governing.

The fact that you even have an attachment is testament to most of your baseless claims. You're so in love with the Liberal label I doubt you've voted for anyone but since the 1970's.

I think you will see the Liberals lean towards strong cuts in spending to reduce the deficit. If the Tories follow past practices, they will raise taxes.

If that's what they campaign on then I'm on board. I'm just not going to pretend that's what they'll do when they're promising the opposite. Hmm...sounds like someone we know.

I doubt Harper will want to be around for the end of result of his deficits.

If I were him I would have let the Liberals form the coalition. Signing on to the stimulus was political suicide IMO. I take small concessions from the fact that at least this will remind us of the dangers of over-spending and maybe politicians will learn their lesson.

We'll see.

[jdobbin]

Actually that's exactly what they did. They threatened to bring down the government for not doing enough to stimulate the economy. You have a really short memory.

Not bringing down the government is not demanding money being spent. You know that. If that was true, it would apply to Harper since he let Martin spend money.

If the Liberals had any desire for spending to be reduced they would have campaigned to reduce spending in October. If you disagree with increased spending you GENERALLY DO NOT promise to increase it even more during an election.

This is assuming that the Liberals would have continued Harper's spending programs. That is a big assumption.

I didn't. I voted for Martin in 2004 and only voted against him after the sponsorship scandal. Since then I've supported Harper over Dion/Bob Rae Liberals and ONLY in that respect.

So if you didn't vote against Martin for spending, one might assume you supported that spending.

I was making fun of you again. It's pathetic for you to claim the Liberals would not have spent in Harper's place when, like I've said before, they spent like crazy under Martin, based an election campaign on huge new spending and then demanded stimulus spending in December. We can blame Harper for the final numbers but it's sad that you'd even try to say the Liberals would have reigned in spending when their own election platform promised the opposite.

It is pathetic for you to personalize all the time. Grow up.

As I said, it a big assumption that the Liberals would have continued Harper policies on top of their own, especially in areas where they had cut in the past like VIA and the military college.

The TOTAL numbers are the ones that affect the taxpayer's.

And I am saying that we don't have the total numbers in that area. Harper has shovelled money out fast throughout 2008 and we are still waiting to hear the damage.

Obviously. I've never argued that. What I'm arguing is your claim that the Liberals wouldn't have spent money like the clowns they have been for the last few years. ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING they did, said, promised and campaigned on indicated they would INCREASE spending.

Assuming they didn't cut spending elsewhere.

You can repeat over and over and over that Harper is PM. That doesn't change the fact that heavily increasing spending has been an undeniable Liberal policy point for the last 5 years. You can pretend it's not all you want but that's taking party hack to the extreme.

And you can pretend that the Liberals would keep Conservative spending in place while adding their own but it doesn't make it true.

NOW you're showing just how little you know/understand about the actual numbers. The Liberals decreased spending in ONLY one year and that was 1995-1996. They reduced it by about $9B. They did not cut spending after that. Spending increases followed inflation. I'll give them credit for that, but it helped that interest rates fell through the floor and that federal revenues skyrocketed.

It was the cuts in spending that helped bring inflation down which brought interest rates down. You assume that one had nothing to do with the other but before the cuts and controls on spending, Canada had a premium on it's interest rates over the U.S. that could be quite high. Our inflation was no where near where it is today as well.

The way those things came down by reducing the size of government, cutting spending and keeping strict controls on it.

You can give as much credit to the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Canada for stabilizing the money supply as you can give to the LPC for balancing our budget. Federal revenue under Mulroney barely kept pace with inflation. Under Chretien it pretty much doubled inflation. I don't expect you to care or perhaps even understand.

I haven't dismissed the Bank of Canada's role but it was a combination of fiscal and monetary policy that brought Canada from the brink.

The fact that you even have an attachment is testament to most of your baseless claims. You're so in love with the Liberal label I doubt you've voted for anyone but since the 1970's.

There's that personalization we are getting to know all so well.

If that's what they campaign on then I'm on board. I'm just not going to pretend that's what they'll do when they're promising the opposite. Hmm...sounds like someone we know.

My guess is that we'll hear there is more than fiscal matters that keep some people voting for the Tories.

If I were him I would have let the Liberals form the coalition. Signing on to the stimulus was political suicide IMO. I take small concessions from the fact that at least this will remind us of the dangers of over-spending and maybe politicians will learn their lesson.

We'll see.

If Harper lost the government at that time, there were plenty of Tories looking to dump him. His career would have been over. He fought to stay in power.

Given what we are seeing in polls, the lukewarm support from Harper that kept him in minority territory is faltering. Harper had Dion and the Liberals on the defensive the entire time and still managed to spend way over each promises cap. You can't blame the Liberals for that since they voted for the budgets that Harper promised which was spending at the rate of inflation and population growth.

[Moonbox]

Not bringing down the government is not demanding money being spent. You know that. If that was true, it would apply to Harper since he let Martin spend money.

The Liberals DEMANDED stimulus spending and threatened to bring down the government over it. Forgot that didn't you?

This is assuming that the Liberals would have continued Harper's spending programs. That is a big assumption.

They would have started their own spending programs, as promised in their election platforms. Forgot that too didn't you?

I'm getting so tired of this thread now. Every time I've responded to you I've said I'm NOT BLAMING THE LIBERALS, yet you continue to say it's wrong to blame the Liberals. You're not even reading what I'm saying.

What I've been saying this WHOLE thread is that if it looks, acts and smells like a pig, it's a pig.

The Liberals spent heavily in 2004-2006, they promised extravagant spending in 2006, campaigned on spending increases in 2008 and demanded spending increases in December 2008.

I'm basing my criticism of them on THEIR OWN POLICY PLATFORMS. You're making it up for them all in hind-sight and claiming that none of their OFFICIAL positions matter because they weren't in government.

Basically what you're saying is that what you've decided the Liberals WOULD have done is drastically different from what they themselves SAID they would have done. You claim they would not have increased spending drastically even though they promised they would. You claim that if they did increase spending, they would have cut spending elsewhere, even though there is ZERO indication from them that this would have happened.

You're making up a lot of things on the Liberal's behalf. Like I said before, you're so desperate to preserve the image of the label you've been blindly following that you'll contradict their own party platform and make stuff up yourself to fill in the gaps.

You really don't have anything to support any of your opinions. Where was there any indication the Liberals would have reduced spending if they were running things? You can say it doesn't matter, but for you to claim the Liberals want to reduce spending you need the party itself to step up and say so.

It's hack partisanship and you know it.

Edited March 31, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

The Liberals DEMANDED stimulus spending and threatened to bring down the government over it. Forgot that didn't you?

Nope. However, they didn't demand all the rest of the spending that Harper was shovelling out the door for his own programs.

They would have started their own spending programs, as promised in their election platforms. Forgot that too didn't you?

Haven't forgotten that. However, you assume they would have continued all of Harper's programs.

I'm getting so tired of this thread now. Every time I've responded to you I've said I'm NOT BLAMING THE LIBERALS, yet you continue to say it's wrong to blame the Liberals. You're not even reading what I'm saying.

You say that but then you go and blame the Liberals all over again.

What I've been saying this WHOLE thread is that if it looks, acts and smells like a pig, it's a pig.

And I've said that you are speculating that conclusion.

The Liberals spent heavily in 2004-2006, they promised extravagant spending in 2006, campaigned on spending increases in 2008 and demanded spending increases in December 2008.

And the Liberals lost in 2006 in part because of that spending and the lack of credibility on their leadership and platform in later years. You are speculating now that that they would pile new spending on top of Harper's spending.

I'm basing my criticism of them on THEIR OWN POLICY PLATFORMS. You're making it up for them all in hind-sight and claiming that none of their OFFICIAL positions matter because they weren't in government.

I am saying that Harper is spending real dollars. You are speculating that the Liberals would have continued Harper's programs and theirs.

Basically what you're saying is that what you've decided the Liberals WOULD have done is drastically different from what they themselves SAID they would have done. You claim they would not have increased spending drastically even though they promised they would. You claim that if they did increase spending, they would have cut spending elsewhere, even though there is ZERO indication from them that this would have happened.

I guess we'll never know since they were never elected as government. All I know is that Harper has spent real dollars since 2006 and Tories are trying to say that Liberals demanded all of it and that is the reason we are spending that much and ending up in deficit. It is bogus argument.

You're making up a lot of things on the Liberal's behalf. Like I said before, you're so desperate to preserve the image of the label you've been blindly following that you'll contradict their own party platform and make stuff up yourself to fill in the gaps.

I have not contradicted the plaform. The Liberals have said they would do things differently than Harper. You seem to think it means spending what Harper did and then some.

You really don't have anything to support any of your opinions. Where was there any indication the Liberals would have reduced spending if they were running things? You can say it doesn't matter, but for you to claim the Liberals want to reduce spending you need the party itself to step up and say so.

The Liberals have said they would do it differently. They were rather incredulous that Harper put money back in to the Quebec military college and VIA after they cut those areas.

It's hack partisanship and you know it.

And your partisanship is against the Liberals. You believe they will do worse based on their platform but then assume they will do nothing but add on to Harper's spending.

[Argus]

That is a bogus and you know it.

It's quite clear to anyone who isn't frothing at the mouth with hatred of Harper and his party.

[Moonbox]

Nope. However, they didn't demand all the rest of the spending that Harper was shovelling out the door for his own programs.

Whether or not the programs were Liberal or Conservative is irrelevant. Either way the money was spent or promised to be spent.

Haven't forgotten that. However, you assume they would have continued all of Harper's programs.

To make the argument that the Liberals would have cut spending to finance their new spending programs you actually need something to base that on. THE ONLY actual facts we have to go on here is that the Liberals were promising spending increases. My claims are based on their party platform. Your speculation is based on whatever you think makes the LPC look better.

You say that but then you go and blame the Liberals all over again.

I didn't. You are again ignoring what I said. I said the Liberals promised, campaigned on and demanded increased spending. You've decided that what they would have done was the opposite....

And the Liberals lost in 2006 in part because of that spending and the lack of credibility on their leadership and platform in later years. You are speculating now that that they would pile new spending on top of Harper's spending.

I'm not speculating. I'm basing my position on the LPC party's platform and what THEY THEMSELVES said. If they were serious about scaling back Harper's spending they would have indicated such during the 08 election. As it turns out the only thing that was mentioned was $85B in new spending increases and STILL you insisted that they're somehow going to cut spending.

I am saying that Harper is spending real dollars. You are speculating that the Liberals would have continued Harper's programs and theirs.

and the responsibility is duly Harper's. That STILL doesn't mean you have anything to back up your claim that the Liberals would have or even would now reduce spending. Even THEY are not saying that. They promised before and have been promising the whole time to do the opposite.

I guess we'll never know since they were never elected as government. All I know is that Harper has spent real dollars since 2006 and Tories are trying to say that Liberals demanded all of it and that is the reason we are spending that much and ending up in deficit. It is bogus argument.

It is a bogus argument. Other than the stimulus spending at least, which they did indeed demand and Harper did it to save his government. When the Liberals turn around and pretend they didn't want the spending and promise to reduce spending, I'll vote for them. I'll know them for the snakes they are but at least I'll have a reason to believe they'll reduce spending.

I have not contradicted the plaform. The Liberals have said they would do things differently than Harper. You seem to think it means spending what Harper did and then some.

They are the ones promising extra spending with no mention of cuts.

The Liberals have said they would do it differently. They were rather incredulous that Harper put money back in to the Quebec military college and VIA after they cut those areas.

Trivial examples with little bearing on the overall picture. The via rail cuts were politically motivated. The military college was a tiny overall spending boost to our military. You're grasping at anything you can hold on to now huh?

And your partisanship is against the Liberals. You believe they will do worse based on their platform but then assume they will do nothing but add on to Harper's spending.

My partisanship extends only so far as criticizing the bleating of blind sheep cheerleading the party of their choice. When you come up with made up balogna and start misrepresenting facts I'm going to criticize you for it. When Mr. Canada used to post his nonsense I'd similarly call him out on it.

[jdobbin]

Whether or not the programs were Liberal or Conservative is irrelevant. Either way the money was spent or promised to be spent.

Under a Tory government. This isn't a coalition government and it isn't like the Liberals had a line item veto. It was take it or leave it on each budget and rather than drag Canada into another election or a coalition government, the Liberals let the budgets pass. They didn't write the budgets or we might have seen quite a lot of differences.

To make the argument that the Liberals would have cut spending to finance their new spending programs you actually need something to base that on. THE ONLY actual facts we have to go on here is that the Liberals were promising spending increases. My claims are based on their party platform. Your speculation is based on whatever you think makes the LPC look better.

I have based it on facts. Not everything was listed in the platform. A lot of it has been mentioned in previous budgets the Liberals had in terms of cuts that the Tories re-introduced. A lot of the spending was criticized in the budget readings to know that they would not have been proposed by the Liberals.

I didn't. You are again ignoring what I said. I said the Liberals promised, campaigned on and demanded increased spending. You've decided that what they would have done was the opposite....

Increased spending on stimulating sectors of the economy not on the Harper's overall program of spending. There is a difference.

I'm not speculating. I'm basing my position on the LPC party's platform and what THEY THEMSELVES said. If they were serious about scaling back Harper's spending they would have indicated such during the 08 election. As it turns out the only thing that was mentioned was $85B in new spending increases and STILL you insisted that they're somehow going to cut spending.

If you were basing it on what they were saying, you would have know that the $3 billion that Harper was pushing for that was not set for any areas was opposed by the Liberals but they were left with a take it or leave scenario since the Tories weren't going to remove it.

and the responsibility is duly Harper's. That STILL doesn't mean you have anything to back up your claim that the Liberals would have or even would now reduce spending. Even THEY are not saying that. They promised before and have been promising the whole time to do the opposite.

Actually, the Liberals have said they would have been better at managing money all along. They haven't been insisting on three years of spending increased above the rate of inflation and population growth and you know it.

It is a bogus argument. Other than the stimulus spending at least, which they did indeed demand and Harper did it to save his government. When the Liberals turn around and pretend they didn't want the spending and promise to reduce spending, I'll vote for them. I'll know them for the snakes they are but at least I'll have a reason to believe they'll reduce spending.

I suspect that is how the next election will be fought. It will be about ending the deficit.

They are the ones promising extra spending with no mention of cuts.

They have mentioned cuts. The Liberals didn't want the $3 billion in the budget unless the Tories would say what they were going to spend it on. Msot suspect they are keeping it to use for election spending. Politcal spending.

Trivial examples with little bearing on the overall picture. The via rail cuts were politically motivated. The military college was a tiny overall spending boost to our military. You're grasping at anything you can hold on to now huh?

There are other examples as well. The Liberals were not supportive of the increase in transfers either that Harper introduced since they just ended up in tax cuts in Quebec.

My partisanship extends only so far as criticizing the bleating of blind sheep cheerleading the party of their choice. When you come up with made up balogna and start misrepresenting facts I'm going to criticize you for it. When Mr. Canada used to post his nonsense I'd similarly call him out on it.

Your argument that the Liberal would have spent more based on their platform is speculation. You are welcome to it but it isn't a fact. A fact is that the Tories have overspent and continue to overspend. Your counter argument is that the Liberals are making the Tories do that. As if. The Liberals are not responsible for line item decisions of the budget.

The bleating of saying that the Liberals were going to be worse is going to sound hollow when the Tories look as bas as they do.

Ignatieff only has to say that the Liberals ended the deficit and will do so again to sound credible. He can say that it was Liberals who decreased spending and will do so again to sound credible.

Harper can't say either in terms of his party.

[jdobbin]

It's quite clear to anyone who isn't frothing at the mouth with hatred of Harper and his party.

I don't hate Harper. I just believe he is wrong in almsot everything he does.

[Moonbox]

Jdobbin I'm not going to respond again to this thread after this because you're like a broken record.

I'm not blaming the Liberals for the deficit.

I'm saying that up until now everything the Liberals did, said or promised indicated increases in spending.

The increased program spending since 2006 is totally 100% Harper's fault. Stop saying I'm blaming the Liberals because I'm not.

What I'm saying is that you CANNOT intelligently and reasonably make the argument that the Liberals would have spent less. If the Liberals were against the spending increases, in the 2008 election they would have said they were going to reign in Harper's extra spending and return to fiscal responsibility. There was ZERO mention of that. All they mentioned was $85B in NEW spending. They spent like mad before Harper and they were demanding spending in December. If I'm speculating, it's based on THAT, whereas your speculating is based on.....nothing. Wait...it's based on the LPC of 14 years ago.

I'm not defending Harper. I think he's a fool and I think that more every day. I'm not defending his spending increases. What I AM doing is calling you out for the Liberal party hack that you are. The fact that you would even TRY to say that the Liberals would have cancelled Harper's spending increases to finance their own $85B worth of election spending promises is a perfect example of it. First, the LPC spending promises were FAR beyond anything Harper had already spent. Second, they never mentioned there would be any cuts.

It's all just propaganda and misinformation for you. I don't even know who you're trying to fool. It looks like you're fooling yourself more than anything.

The 1995-1996 spending cuts are NOT good indicators of Liberal fiscal responsibility today. The '95 Liberals were NOTHING like the Liberals today, just like the Trudeau Liberals were NOTHING like the '95 Liberals.

Blindly following a political label is a dangerous and stupid thing to do. All that matters is who's running the party and what they're saying they want to do. When I see people like Bob Rae (a big spender as Ontario Premier) and Dion promising giant spending increases, I'm going to assume that's what the LPC wants to increase spending.

You, on the other hand, plug your ears, close your eyes and say they're going to do the opposite of their promises, deliberately blinding yourself to the reality of today and desperately trying to suck everyone in with you.

The Liberals are not the government, you're right, but that doesn't mean we can't judge their policy and platforms of the recent past and the present. Those all indicated increased spending.

[Smallc]

What I'm saying is that you CANNOT intelligently and reasonably make the argument that the Liberals would have spent less.

There is one thing though that you probably can agree on. If the Liberals were in power they would not have lowered taxes as quickly as the Conservatives did.

[waldo]

What I'm saying is that you CANNOT intelligently and reasonably make the argument that the Liberals would have spent less.

I concur

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin I'm not going to respond again to this thread after this because you're like a broken record.

I was going to say the same.

I'm not blaming the Liberals for the deficit.

It sure sounded like it and it sure sounds like a lot of Tories are.

I'm saying that up until now everything the Liberals did, said or promised indicated increases in spending.

It is why they weren't elected among other things. What I have said is that there were plenty of funding the Liberals would not have done that Harper has.

The increased program spending since 2006 is totally 100% Harper's fault. Stop saying I'm blaming the Liberals because I'm not.

As I said, it sure sounded like it. And certainly we are hearing that from Conservative supporters here and from Tory MPs who blame overspending on almost anyone but themselves.

What I'm saying is that you CANNOT intelligently and reasonably make the argument that the Liberals would have spent less. If the Liberals were against the spending increases, in the 2008 election they would have said they were going to reign in Harper's extra spending and return to fiscal responsibility. There was ZERO mention of that. All they mentioned was $85B in NEW spending. They spent like mad before Harper and they were demanding spending in December. If I'm speculating, it's based on THAT, whereas your speculating is based on.....nothing. Wait...it's based on the LPC of 14 years ago.

I have no problem saying Martin's spending was beyond what he promised. However, since 2006, the Tories have pretty much rolled over the Liberals on budgets and basically said yay or nay and and if nay we go to an election. The Liberals had no line item veto over things and there is plenty of spending they would have not have done.

One thing I can be pretty sure of: The Liberals would have not have gone into deficit as the Tories did. They certainly would not have lowered the GST and would have been far more cautious on lowering other taxes. It is very likely that a surplus would have cushioned the blow in 2009 given standard Liberal budgets. And those weren't 14 years ago. Those were just three years ago.

I'm not defending Harper. I think he's a fool and I think that more every day. I'm not defending his spending increases. What I AM doing is calling you out for the Liberal party hack that you are. The fact that you would even TRY to say that the Liberals would have cancelled Harper's spending increases to finance their own $85B worth of election spending promises is a perfect example of it. First, the LPC spending promises were FAR beyond anything Harper had already spent. Second, they never mentioned there would be any cuts.

Generally speaking, candidates rarely talk about what they will cut.

However, after every election where the government is tossed, there are cuts made to programs that the previous government started. I have no doubt that many Harper programs would have gotten the axe.

It's all just propaganda and misinformation for you. I don't even know who you're trying to fool. It looks like you're fooling yourself more than anything.

And yet you can't resist responding.

The 1995-1996 spending cuts are NOT good indicators of Liberal fiscal responsibility today. The '95 Liberals were NOTHING like the Liberals today, just like the Trudeau Liberals were NOTHING like the '95 Liberals.

I know that many on the right try to play down what was achieved. It was not just one year of cuts but years of spending restraint and budget surpluses.

Harper has now none of those traits in office.

Blindly following a political label is a dangerous and stupid thing to do. All that matters is who's running the party and what they're saying they want to do. When I see people like Bob Rae (a big spender as Ontario Premier) and Dion promising giant spending increases, I'm going to assume that's what the LPC wants to increase spending.

And that Dion was not elected among other things. You would think that Harper would have taken the hint to manage finances better given polling on the issue.

You, on the other hand, plug your ears, close your eyes and say they're going to do the opposite of their promises, deliberately blinding yourself to the reality of today and desperately trying to suck everyone in with you.

Well, you're still here so I can assume that someone is listening.

The Liberals are not the government, you're right, but that doesn't mean we can't judge their policy and platforms of the recent past and the present. Those all indicated increased spending.

The Liberal leadership and platform was judged. You keep saying they would do worse than the Tories and for your part, the is just partisan speculation. You know it but refuse to admit it.