Canada's debt

[Smallc]

I really wish someone had the guts to step out and make elections with fixed dates, introduce recall legislation, and create term limits for office.

See, this is one of those times that we disagree. I see the above things as being contradictory with Westminster philosophy. We don't need recalls or fixed elections because parliament holds the government to account on such things. As for term limits, I've never been for that. It gest rid of the bad...but also the good.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

See, this is one of those times that we disagree. I see the above things as being contradictory with Westminster philosophy. We don't need recalls or fixed elections because parliament holds the government to account on such things. As for term limits, I've never been for that. It gest rid of the bad...but also the good.

Westminster? As in the Statute of (1932)?

[Molly]

I see little merit in fixed elections or term limits-- all they really do is restrict voters' options- but the right of recall is fundamental, and wa-ay overdue. I can't imagine anything that would do more to 'keep 'em honest', even if the process and the threshold were extremely demanding.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Molly

[jdobbin]

Why not? The hole gets deeper everyday while the "government" attempts to keep its job. The Liberals would be doing the same thing. It is a sad state of affairs but that is the natural direction of Canadian politics.

Hard to say where the Liberals would have been but I imagine they would have not been $50 billion in deficit and counting.

I really wish someone had the guts to step out and make elections with fixed dates, introduce recall legislation, and create term limits for office.

We do have fixed election dates. Every five years from the previous election.

If you want to have true fixed elections, you have to end confidence votes and the ability of the government to call an election before the fixed date.

However, in a minority, you could have a stalled Parliament for 4 years.

I supposed we could then have 300 recalls and keep doing that every few months but my guess is that we'd soon tire of that instability.

The career politician is what irks me the most living on the public dime. Next would be the patronage bestowed upon partisan supporters of the "winning faction". The nation is held to ransom with these things, managing or navigating through all the twists and turns diverts the governments attention from just administering the public system as they simply should be.

Career politicians, career civil servants. Take your pick.

We could privatize it to the lowest bidder. Have Halliburton run things for us.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Hard to say where the Liberals would have been but I imagine they would have not been $50 billion in deficit and counting.

We do have fixed election dates. Every five years from the previous election.

If you want to have true fixed elections, you have to end confidence votes and the ability of the government to call an election before the fixed date.

However, in a minority, you could have a stalled Parliament for 4 years.

I supposed we could then have 300 recalls and keep doing that every few months but my guess is that we'd soon tire of that instability.

Career politicians, career civil servants. Take your pick.

We could privatize it to the lowest bidder. Have Halliburton run things for us.

That was a ten point response! I love it! I think it would be cheaper, that is for sure.

[Smallc]

but the right of recall is fundamental, and wa-ay overdue.

And it has no place in this system. Once elected, parliament makes the decisions for and about itself. If we don't like the choices we've made, then we kick them out next election.

[Smallc]

Westminster? As in the Statute of (1932)?

No, the system of Parliamentary Democracy that we use.

[madmax]

That number is hocus-pocus statistics. I think it's a projected cumulative deficit over the next five years.

The projected federal deficit this year was about $40 billion and this projection has recently been increased to $50 billion. Understandably, federal government revenues have fallen off a cliff while government expenditures have stayed constant or even risen. Even with a deficit of $50 billion, total federal debt will stay well below 50% of GDP.

Understandbly... Incompetently

Edited May 27, 2009 by madmax

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No, the system of Parliamentary Democracy that we use.

You mean the 800 year odd dinosaur created in England where the "Upper House" was composed of hereditary appointments of land owners and distant royalty? You mean the system which applied here in Canada still appoints the "Upper House" with very similar kinds of people? You mean the system here that does not let us choose our own leader? The one that took away the right of citizens to own property, when the constitution was repatriated and partially rewritten in 1982? That would be the system where only elected provincial representatives were allowed to vote on it and it was never ratified by the citizens?

In my view the system of democracy that we use is outdated and ineffective. There are too few restrictions placed on representatives for starters. In a more general sense I certainly don't see how partisan arm-strong voting tactics fits in with the term democracy at all. When the elected representatives can be disciplined for voting against the party, even removed from the party at the leaders discretion, I will suggest that this is a repressive system that is not in any way representative of a democracy at all.

As a first step, legislation that provides for free votes unfettered by party whips is the most basic reform we need. From there we could at least say that democracy is alive and well in this nation. The continuing level of kindergarten behavior in the House of Commons is another matter worthy of debate. On so many levels federal politics needs major work to actually start delivering the benefits to the citizens that have paid for them.

[Smallc]

You mean the 800 year odd dinosaur created in England

Yes, the one that still works well...especially in Canada, to this day.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes, the one that still works well...especially in Canada, to this day.

I just cannot agree with that. Does that mean that you agree or disagree with the attempt at a coalition government early this year?

[Smallc]

Does that mean that you agree or disagree with the attempt at a coalition government early this year?

I didn't like it because of who would have led it, but I completely agree with the idea. We don't vote for governments in Canada.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I didn't like it because of who would have led it, but I completely agree with the idea. We don't vote for governments in Canada.

Good point, one which I agree with you on. Yet does it not seem wrong not to be able to vote for a government?

[Topaz]

Nor has your party. I'm not happy about the deficit. I wasn't happy about the whole incentice spending thing either. But as Harper so aptly put it in the House the other day, the united opposition is doing nothing but scream

"The deficit is too high! Spend more! Spend more!"

The Liberals have been particularly hypocritical, with the farcical behaviour of that pompous, self-righteous phony Goodale the other day being a particular low point. Yet all they have to say with regard to what the Tories need to do is SPEND MORE MONEY!

What the oppositions parties were screaming at was the money for construction isn't getting out the door and perhaps the reason for that is the 50 Bil. debt and the shortage of money in the kitty? Any money getting out is probably going to the Tories territories first. IF the Libs hadn't paid off the 40 Bil at Murloney left, the Harper govt would be deeper in debt. Just how is Harper going to get rid of the 50 Bil+ in 5 years, when the Libs took 10 years to pay off 40 Bil and they had to cut spending. Like it or not, either party will have to raise taxes!

[Moonbox]

There was no one pushing the Tories to spend way above their election promises from 2006 to 2008. They did it themselves. Those budgets said they would restrict spending to rate of inflation and increase in population was supported by the Liberals. The Tories were the ones that breezed past those marks. Blaming the Liberals for that is just garbage.

Nobody argues that. All we argue is that given the excessive spending, the Liberal solution was to propose increased spending. They promised this in 2008, they are promising it now. They are promising EI spending increases, they are saying Harper's not doing enough to help the economy but at the same time they're criticizing his spending. Somehow you're able to determine that promised spending increases in the wake of Tory increases means the Liberals would show fiscal restraint, but the shoe don't fit. The facts speak otherwise.

Only you, in your weird little way, are somehow able to reconcile this VERY fundamental problem with the Liberal position on the economy.

The Liberals at least have a record of cutting spending. The present Tories, even when times as good, don't.

That is, of course, if you ignore Paul Martin's tenure, Pierre Trudeau's record, and ONLY use the mid 90's as your reference point.

I'm really sorry to have to tell you this, but what the Liberals did in 1995 was to prevent the government of Canada from going bankrupt. They had no choice. They did what was necessary. Unfortunately for you, we're now looking at a completely different set of people, 14 years later, who are promising and proposing nothing BUT increased spending.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Moonbox

[Smallc]

Yet does it not seem wrong not to be able to vote for a government?

No. We vote for representatives. That's the way the system was designed...that's the way most systems work.

[jdobbin]

Nobody argues that.

I get people here all the time saying that it is the Liberals fault that there was overspending in those two years.

All we argue is that given the excessive spending, the Liberal solution was to propose increased spending. They promised this in 2008, they are promising it now.

In 2006 to 2008, Liberals were not proposing overspending. They supported budgets that said they were going to restrict spending to the limits promised. That is a fact.

They are promising EI spending increases, they are saying Harper's not doing enough to help the economy but at the same time they're criticizing his spending.

The Liberals did criticize Tory spending plans as well as the cuts in taxes that led to shortfalls. It was pretty easy to see some of the waste yet the Tories did it anyways with flagpoles and murals and UFO museums.

Somehow you're able to determine that promised spending increases in the wake of Tory increases means the Liberals would show fiscal restraint, but the shoe don't fit. The facts speak otherwise.

Only you, in your weird little way, are somehow able to reconcile this VERY fundamental problem with the Liberal position on the economy.

There was nothing that the Liberals did in 2006 through 2008 that compelled the Tories to spend as they did. Too many on the right blame the Liberals for it and say if only they had a majority, they could keep their promises. I'm sorry. It doesn't wash. The Tories were trying to buy votes for two years and failed. And they failed to keep their principles on not overspending.

That is, of course, if you ignore Paul Martin's tenure, Pierre Trudeau's record, and ONLY use the mid 90's as your reference point.

And you ignore Mulroney's tenure of not making substantial cuts in spending. Some of those same Conservatives are in office now.

I'm really sorry to have to tell you this, but what the Liberals did in 1995 was to prevent the government of Canada from going bankrupt. They had no choice. They did what was necessary. Unfortunately for you, we're now looking at a completely different set of people, 14 years later, who are promising and proposing nothing BUT increased spending.

And only the Tories will be able to get us out of a $50 billion deficit? Um, how?

There are still many Liberals who were around in the 1990s and who knew to cut to end the deficit. We know that there are not Tories alive who know how to do this.

[Argus]

I think governments can influence economies, but you're right, they don't control them...and yes, recent Conservative governments have a habit of deficit spending.

Recent Conservative governments? The worst by far was Trudeau, and he ruled at a time, for the most part, of a booming economy. Chretien ruled during a booming economy, too. During his first few years - lacking that booming economy - he ran up huge deficits.

[Argus]

There was no one pushing the Tories to spend way above their election promises from 2006 to 2008.

Granted, and I hold them responsible for that.

On the other hand, minorities, or governments faced with imminent elections, ALWAYS spend far more than they should.

The Liberals at least have a record of cutting spending. The present Tories, even when times as good, don't.

The tories cut taxes instead, which is fine as long as the books balance.

[Argus]

Hard to say where the Liberals would have been but I imagine they would have not been $50 billion in deficit and counting

You can imagine all you like. There is no indication in previous Liberal election platforms, be it Martin's, Dions, or in the attitude of the present Liberals, that the deficit would be one cent smaller, and considerable indication it would be even larger.

[jdobbin]

Granted, and I hold them responsible for that.

On the other hand, minorities, or governments faced with imminent elections, ALWAYS spend far more than they should.

Canadians seem not to have been taken in by the spending and over a number of elections now, have not rewarded a majority. Harper could have done himself a lot of good by showing restraint on the spending side.

If the Liberals make a commitment of reducing and ending the deficit come hell or high water in the next election, it put a lot of pressure on the Tories to do the same. Someone has to speak up against this deficit.

The tories cut taxes instead, which is fine as long as the books balance.

Which the Parliamentary Budget Officer raised alarms about in 2008. He predicted the book would not balance and that was before a penny of stimulus was spent.

[jdobbin]

You can imagine all you like. There is no indication in previous Liberal election platforms, be it Martin's, Dions, or in the attitude of the present Liberals, that the deficit would be one cent smaller, and considerable indication it would be even larger.

Given that the Liberals probably would not have cut the GST, I am inclined to think the deficit would not have been bigger than what we see now.

No way to tell.

In any event, the Liberals no longer have Dion. A new leader (Ignatieff) can develop a new platform policies while an older leader (Harper) has to defend his record and current platform policies.

Not fair, I know, but that is the burden of actually running the country.

[Argus]

What the oppositions parties were screaming at was the money for construction isn't getting out the door and perhaps the reason for that is the 50 Bil. debt and the shortage of money in the kitty?

You people have an absurdly unrealistic idea of just how fast programs can be developed, rules invented on the fly, forms created, processes thought up, people hired, space made....

It might seem like we've been talking about these incentive programs forever, but in reality the budget was only passed in mid march.

By way of comparison. It takes approximately one year to run a competition, internal or external, to hire anyone to do a job, even the simplest of jobs, say a clerk in a mailroom. Once we hire them, and they fill out their forms, it takes six full weeks before HR can push through the paperwork for them to get a pay cheque.

You want to push billions of dollars out the door in a couple of months? LOL

[Smallc]

Recent Conservative governments? The worst by far was Trudeau, and he ruled at a time, for the most part, of a booming economy. Chretien ruled during a booming economy, too. During his first few years - lacking that booming economy - he ran up huge deficits.

Are you sure you can't make that spin any faster?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Smallc

[Moonbox]

I get people here all the time saying that it is the Liberals fault that there was overspending in those two years.

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

In 2006 to 2008, Liberals were not proposing overspending. They supported budgets that said they were going to restrict spending to the limits promised. That is a fact.

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 did criticize Tory spending plans as well as the cuts in taxes that led to shortfalls. It was pretty easy to see some of the waste yet the Tories did it anyways with flagpoles and murals and UFO museums.

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.

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

And you ignore Mulroney's tenure of not making substantial cuts in spending. Some of those same Conservatives are in office now.

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.

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.