Canada's debt

[jdobbin]

They don't know what they're talking about then.

And yet I continue to hear it all the time in this forum.

2006-2008 is the CPC's record, not the LPC's. The CPC didn't shine in this time, you're right. What you really have to ask yourself, however, is why the Liberals promised spending increases in the 2008 election if they were so in favor of fiscal restraint? If you were unhappy with the spending, one would assume spending decreases would be on the agenda and not new spending announcements. Keep in mind this was before stimulus spending was even part of the picture. Since then, the Liberals have been demanding even more spending.

The Liberals lost and during the election I said their promises were getting ridiculous.

No one in the last election was promising fiscal restraint. They all lost their heads.

Again, if you're going to criticize the spending don't make spending promises on top of it. It sends a pretty confusing message, one only brainwashed Liberals seem able to reconcile. I mean, saying, "The CPC has been spending too much, but WE'LL spend an extra $80B over the next few years." somehow to you means that spending will get reduced. Chretien and Martin reduced spending 14 years ago...so it MUST be true.

The Liberals were punished for not being realistic with their promises. Now, the Tories are going to face the music for what they have actually done.

As far as UFO museums, seriously get off that. It's ludicrous, but it's peanuts and you bring it up all the time.

The breakdown of Western Diversification and other development agencies is filled with peanut-sized spending that you thing is ludicrous. It added up to the tens of millions each year. The bigger projects like the Canadian Human Rights Museum add up to tens of millions more and we see projects like that all over the country.

Yeesh, even showing restraint on a few of those projects would have kept the government within their promise not to spend beyond inflation and rate of population growth.

Mulroney cut spending significantly from Trudeau's levels. $30B in debt service payments each year from Trudeau's accumulated debt turned operating surpluses into DEEP deficits. I can show you these numbers AGAIN if you like. For Mulroney to have balanced the budget with 14% prime interest rates and the biggest debt levels ever, he'd have had to slash spending far beyond what Chretien and Martin did.

And I can show you again that he didn't make significant cuts. Even with a growing economy in the 1980s, he spent pretty freely. And one of the reasons our interest rates were up is because we were paying a premium for Constitutional talks. Investors didn't like the instability the talks caused. This is pretty old territory and plenty in the business world have written about how the talks bumped up rates a few notches.

If you want to talk about former cronies and who's in government right now, Pierre Trudeau's spending record was the worst of all BY FAR and there are lots of current Liberals who worked with him.

Really? Who exactly are you concerned about who served with Trudeau that you think is a big time spender with no record of fiscal restraint?

Edited May 27, 2009 by jdobbin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The past can teach us much, yet it does not seem to solve anything by pointing this way or that. Laying blame can make you feel better but it does not fix the problem. This nation needs to understand what the macro-economy is and where the place of this nation is within it. We need to find out how to take advantage of the opportunities we have instead of crying about the ones we missed.

As long as we continue to use the same means to solve the problems, we will continue to have them. Until we begin to step out of the box we will find ourselves restricted by our own lack of imagination.

[Nat]

I thought we would never see the bad old "Tory" days of deficit spending again. Boy was I wrong!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I thought we would never see the bad old "Tory" days of deficit spending again. Boy was I wrong!

The government can be either of the right or left, in boom or bust, and still be held as responsible whether right or wrong. Luck of the draw is what I will suggest. My point is that once a government is formed, the public agenda or party platform goes out the door at the drop of a hat in favour of the day to day operation of a real time administration.

We can point fingers and scream faulty ideology but the reality is such that the administration and the politics of government are two different things.

[Smallc]

Luck of the draw is what I will suggest.

The deficit before stimulus is $25B according to the CBC. According to Don Drummond, if it weren't for the GST cut, the deficit before stimulus would only be half as large.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Any government that cuts taxes has my attention, and potential support. Of course there are other considerations such as the retention of existing program spending.

[Martin Odber]

The faces/parties change but does the situation?

Possible solutions from a personal perspective?

* change the creation of money from created as debt to created as surplus as done in our past about 60 years ago when we brought in all universal social programs

* collect the tabs owed by those on corporate welfare, I understand it amounts to trillions in unpaid taxes

* rather than leave the solutions to politicians and merely gripe about their choices, poll the Canadian people via referendum and let the Canadian people ourselves determine what option(s) best suit our needs in that area

www.canadianreferendumparty.com

regards,

Martin

After watching question period today, I couldn't believe what I heard. The Libs said the Tories are /have a 125 BILLION deficit! This is what the Min.of Fin. met that he debt would be higher than thought? The PM stood up and didn't deny it but said it wasn't their fault blame on the "global recession". The Tories have the biggest government ever and I would like to see how much the government is spending and were its going! Generation X is the one going to have to pay this off and even though the PM said this is just a short term debt, I don't believe him unless he going to borrow money from China like the US! The problem is the Tory govt unemployment spending is up and paying into it, is down and next years income taxes revenues are going to be down. The Tories have a really mess on their hands and I don't think they know how to get out of it, even though they say they do but never say HOW??? When the better times come again no matter who is in power, taxes will have to go up, probably for the middle and upper class.

[jdobbin]

* rather than leave the solutions to politicians and merely gripe about their choices, poll the Canadian people via referendum and let the Canadian people ourselves determine what option(s) best suit our needs in that area

And then we get contradictory legislation and things like ending a deficit get voted down as we have seen in California.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The faces/parties change but does the situation?

Possible solutions from a personal perspective?

* change the creation of money from created as debt to created as surplus as done in our past about 60 years ago when we brought in all universal social programs

* collect the tabs owed by those on corporate welfare, I understand it amounts to trillions in unpaid taxes

* rather than leave the solutions to politicians and merely gripe about their choices, poll the Canadian people via referendum and let the Canadian people ourselves determine what option(s) best suit our needs in that area

www.canadianreferendumparty.com

regards,

Martin

Referendums are not enough. They have no current value in the House. What we need is a direct democracy from a new constitution to a peoples ratification. Let the politicians propose and let the people choose.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Jerry J. Fortin

[Moonbox]

Referendums are not enough. They have no current value in the House. What we need is a direct democracy from a new constitution to a peoples ratification. Let the politicians propose and let the people choose.

I'm of the firm opinion that the Greeks had it right. The people do not know best. The 'people' by and large, do not bother to keep themselves informed or educated enough to make fiscal policy decisions. Leave it to people who at least understand the principles and we can have our pageants elections and judge what politicians say they're going to do and what they actually end up doing. Kind of like now...but we could use a little more accountability.

[Martin Odber]

I'm of the firm opinion that the Greeks had it right. The people do not know best. The 'people' by and large, do not bother to keep themselves informed or educated enough to make fiscal policy decisions. Leave it to people who at least understand the principles and we can have our pageants elections and judge what politicians say they're going to do and what they actually end up doing. Kind of like now...but we could use a little more accountability.

I am of the mind that the experts are likely the wisest to consult. I am also of the mind that NO politician is an expert on all situations. Therefore would it not be agreeable to arrange to have our experts on any given field present the options to the public, the people of Canada decide which option, and our elected representative mandated to vote our choice in parliament.

regards,

Martin

www.canadianreferendumparty.com

[Martin Odber]

Referendums are not enough. They have no current value in the House. What we need is a direct democracy from a new constitution to a peoples ratification. Let the politicians propose and let the people choose.

Jerry,

You are absolutely right that referendums do not have current value in the house. However if said referendum controlled the vote of your MP or MPP on any given matter, the combined votes of MP's or MPP's would hold sway in parliament.

If a party existed whose sole objective was to gather and forward the majority votes of their constituents as their own, every member of that party elected would be one more step towards a responsible accountable government with no personal agenda's.

I believe this could be a viable example of "direct democracy"

regards,

Martin

www.canadianreferendumparty.com

[Smallc]

the people of Canada decide which option,

No. The people of Canada elect representatives, those representatives pick the government, and the government (for the most part) sets the agenda. You don't like the agenda? Then you change governments at the next election.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Jerry,

You are absolutely right that referendums do not have current value in the house. However if said referendum controlled the vote of your MP or MPP on any given matter, the combined votes of MP's or MPP's would hold sway in parliament.

If a party existed whose sole objective was to gather and forward the majority votes of their constituents as their own, every member of that party elected would be one more step towards a responsible accountable government with no personal agenda's.

I believe this could be a viable example of "direct democracy"

regards,

Martin

www.canadianreferendumparty.com

Indeed it would, and as a matter of fact this form of direct democracy makes a great deal of sense. It reduces the bureaucracy of the event to a large degree. Now if you plan to take that a step further and have all matters of legislative effort first ratified by the people at the constituency level you will have accomplished something. What needs to happen is that the representative is provided with the direction and information at the local level, they would then be able to actually "REPRESENT" the views of the local citizens and carry a single democratic vote to the House of Commons.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No. The people of Canada elect representatives, those representatives pick the government, and the government (for the most part) sets the agenda. You don't like the agenda? Then you change governments at the next election.

Valid and legal point, one very realistic in its approach. The problem is there is no real representation going on under the current system. The only thing represented is the party leaders desires. Even the party bows to the will of the leader and the representatives carry that message to Ottawa and vote according to the whim of the leader. That is the major flaw in the system we use, no free votes. The way to fix that is with a direct democracy. That way when the elected representative votes against the will of the citizens they can recall them., and discipline them. The citizens deserve to be heard. I will take that a step further, the citizens have a democratic right to be heard.

[August1991]

Understandbly... Incompetently

Madmax, the simple fact is that government revenues have fallen off a cliff because of teh decline in economic activity. To take one small example, imagine what the government is collecting now in capital gains taxes (compared to the taxes people are writing off through capital losses). This is the explanation for the current deficit. Incidentally, provincial and municipal governments will soon face similar shortfalls. Consider how falling house prices will have reduce property taxes.

One can argue that Flaherty and Finance should have foreseen this but this Great Recession seems to have caught many people off guard.

Compared to other OECD countries, Canada is being remarkably prudent. We have not gone overboard with a stimulus package. A $50 billion deficit is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and adds modestly (3%) to our debt to GDP ratio. Compare that to the US where the projected deficit this year alone will increase the debt by over 10% of GDP.

-----

Few things are as misunderstood as government debt. Unlike people, countries never retire and they never die. If you were going to work forever, would you save?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

August that is a good thing. We are in a far different position than other nations, and that stems from the already well regulated financial system here. What was a once a source of complaint by other nations, our attempt to control our own financial sector, has become a source of benefit to us. I hate to say it, but in this specific case regulations were beneficial to us.

[Smallc]

Valid and legal point, one very realistic in its approach. The problem is there is no real representation going on under the current system. The only thing represented is the party leaders desires.

That's our own fault. We as people vote according to party policies and leaders. If we're really fed up with party politics, we should elect indepndents.

[Molly]

No. The people of Canada elect representatives, those representatives pick the government, and the government (for the most part) sets the agenda. You don't like the agenda? Then you change governments at the next election.

That's a switch from insistence that we elect representatives. (With which, btw, I heartily agree.)

Why is it important to you that folks be stuck with a bad choice of representative until such time as the majority of everyone elses representatives agree that they should all face judgement? Would it not have been more fair, for instance, if David Emersons constituents had the immediate ability to challenge that fraud? I lived in a provincial constituency that would have appreciated the same privelege, having voted for one thing, and recieved its precise opposite.

I don't for a moment suggest that the bar should be low-- it should be very high in fact, to circumvent/defeat those who would try to use it to create a permanent election campaign situation-- but the option needs to exist for those circumstances where the continuation of mis-representation renders the situation a travesty of democracy, and it can be clearly shown that a representative has lost the confidence of those he'represents'.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Molly

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's our own fault. We as people vote according to party policies and leaders. If we're really fed up with party politics, we should elect indepndents.

I have been saying that for a long time. I don't care who forms a government, as long as the people are heard.

[Smallc]

I just don't see a place for recall in our system. In a republic, maybe, but not in a Westiminster Parliament.

[Topaz]

Right now the deficit is at 50 Bil(but it could be more) and the PM has said he'll borrow more if he's needs to. Anyone know the interst on that borrowed money? If the recession goes on for another 5 years, our deficit will be 200Bil or more. Yet the PM says he'll have it paid off in 5 years, yeah right! We have a novice people playing politicians that don't know what to do or have any experience how to deal with it!

[Moonbox]

Right now the deficit is at 50 Bil(but it could be more) and the PM has said he'll borrow more if he's needs to. Anyone know the interst on that borrowed money? If the recession goes on for another 5 years, our deficit will be 200Bil or more. Yet the PM says he'll have it paid off in 5 years, yeah right! We have a novice people playing politicians that don't know what to do or have any experience how to deal with it!

If the recession lasts more than 5 years we'll have more problems than just the deficit. You're criticizing Harper for stimulus spending when the opposition is saying he's not doing 'enough'. It's an example of 'spending is totally okay' as long as it's not done by Harper.

[ToadBrother]

If the recession lasts more than 5 years we'll have more problems than just the deficit. You're criticizing Harper for stimulus spending when the opposition is saying he's not doing 'enough'. It's an example of 'spending is totally okay' as long as it's not done by Harper.

That sums it up. And if the shoe was on the other foot and Iggy was PM and Harper was in Opposition, it would also apply. That's politics.

[jdobbin]

It's an example of 'spending is totally okay' as long as it's not done by Harper.

It is the depth of the deficit given Harper's earlier record. If you are going to spend like a drunken sailor, you should at least make sure you have enough revenue for it.