Liberals push more stimulus

[Keepitsimple]

Yawn. He's one of the most respected journalists in the country. He has more than one award to prove it.

Yawn.....then I guess you agree with what he says:

It's rare for any opposition party to be entirely prepared for an election. Even so, Liberals are unusually, and dangerously, distanced from the starting blocks. Ignatieff is still introducing himself to a skeptical electorate, a policy platform promised for spring remains a summer work in progress and there is a yawning vacancy in the leader's office where there should be a tough, seasoned and confidence-inspiring strategist.

[Smallc]

I'm not really much of a partisan, so yeah, I do.

[Werecar]

Is the phrase "tax measures" the new code word for raising taxes? Raising taxes during a recession is about the worst thing one can do. And the reason there's a deficit, isn't because Canadian's aren't paying enough in taxes. :angry:

Thats a myth. In fact the conservative core dismisses Chretien and Martins financial accomplishments because Mulroney was the guy who brought in the GST during the 90s recession. During the boom years we kept hearing about how Ottawa was running such a good surplus they needed to slash taxes. We can;t have it both ways and claim that taxes need to be slashed both in boom times and in bust times.

As for your deficit point, well the reason there is a deficit is because the government is spending more money then they are taking in through revenues and they do what primarily through taxes.

If we want to avoid a deficit then we have 2 ways to do it and they are pretty self-evident.

1) Lower spending.

2) Raise taxes.

For the record both Dion and Layton did have various tax measures that would have had little negative impact economically but good impact on the federal coffers.

Iggy has only said he doesn't rule out a tax increase in the future in order to restore the fiscal balance (ie get rid of the deficit). Harpers policies are clearly designed to win voter support with his "no tax hike" rhetoric but it makes for irresponsible government because in the long run we pay far more in taxes servicing the debt that his policies will keep adding to.

[Argus]

Considering the Liberals managed to run no deficits for many years and cut spending and taxes at the same time, it is hard to imagine they could do worse than the present Tories.

Are you honestly.... wait, I forget who I was talking to. Are you REALLY going to try to compare how the Liberals managed the budget during the boom years - boom years through no fault of theirs - and how the Tories are managing during a world-wide recession? Just how amazingly stupid do you imagine people are here?

The government itself has said that the majority of money is spent or being spent now so this idea that nearly none of it has been spent in a mystry. Where did you get that information?

Nonsense. It is abundantly clear that virtually none of the projects for which the money has been allocated has yet been completed. Most are still to be started.

In June we were in deflation for the first time in 15 years. Without government spending, it would have dipped even more dramatically.

Your imagination at play, for the money from the government has not yet made its way into the economy.

Flaherty himself said that employement was going to be stuck at 9 or 10% in the worst hit areas, manufacturing was going to continue to suffer in part to world demand and high Canadian dollar.

Unemployment is always high in the "worst hit areas", and this massive budgetary splurge will not do a thing to aid the Canadian dollar or world demand.

[jdobbin]

Are you honestly.... wait, I forget who I was talking to. Are you REALLY going to try to compare how the Liberals managed the budget during the boom years - boom years through no fault of theirs - and how the Tories are managing during a world-wide recession? Just how amazingly stupid do you imagine people are here?

Yes, actually. Many countries went into deficit in those so-called boom years. Not Canada.

Nonsense. It is abundantly clear that virtually none of the projects for which the money has been allocated has yet been completed. Most are still to be started.

The nonsense appears to be coming from you. The Tory government itself has said much of the money is being spent or in the process of being spent.

Your imagination at play, for the money from the government has not yet made its way into the economy.

I'm afraid it is you that is delusional. The Tories say the money is being spent now and only about 20% had not been allocated as of yet.

http://www.kelowna.com/2009/07/09/canada-f...-more-stimulus/

The federal government has in place a two-year, $46-billion plan aimed at creating jobs and reviving tepid demand in an effort to mitigate the fallout from the global financial crisis. (The stimulus could reach nearly $80-billion when provincial and territorial contributions are taken into account.) Mr. Harper has said 80% of the federal stimulus funds have been committed.

At least half the stimulus package will have been spent by the end of the year. The rest is in projects expected to stretch to the end of next year.

However, you seem to think very little has been spent at all.

Of course this is all on top of the massive spending already committed in the previous budget.

Unemployment is always high in the "worst hit areas", and this massive budgetary splurge will not do a thing to aid the Canadian dollar or world demand.

What will help areas hard hit is continued infrastructure work. 80% of the money has already been committed now, half the budget for stimulus will be spent by the end of the year.

[Moxie]

No we do not to need waste more money, it hasn't worked for the US or Europe and they've bankrupted their nations trying to solve a problem that only time will solve. The problem with the socialist eventually they run out of other people's money, Harper placing us into a deficit was sickeing enough. I for one do not want ownership in GM but I wasn't given a choice and the NDP and Liberals allowed that massive socialist expenditure to happen without a peep of protest.

[Smallc]

No we do not to need waste more money, it hasn't worked for the US or Europe

I don't know, it seems that the economy has stabilized and the recovery has begun.

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, actually. Many countries went into deficit in those so-called boom years. Not Canada.

Only thanks to all the cuts to Provincial transfer payments - causing every province except Alberta to go into deficit and slash Education and Healthcare. Take a bow Mr. Martin. Thank you Liberals.

[jdobbin]

Only thanks to all the cuts to Provincial transfer payments - causing every province except Alberta to go into deficit and slash Education and Healthcare. Take a bow Mr. Martin. Thank you Liberals.

Sorry, many countries started going back into deficit after Martin started restoring transfers.

[punked]

Sorry, many countries started going back into deficit after Martin started restoring transfers.

By what math is keeping transfers up with with inflation "restoring". The feds promised to contribute 50% of the cost of Medicare, right now thanks to Martin they pay 16%.

[Topaz]

Why don't you read it again it clear states that the conservatives spent 7 billion, yet the accumulated EI suplus is suppose to be 51 billion where did that go? The answer spent by former liber governments. Do you not get that this is an unfunded liablity in general revenue?

Where did it go? Well, the Tories are saying that they put 30 Bil towards the debt, took 2 Bil, for their new EI fund, which must to close to broke, and probably the rest went into general revenue were it probably ended up in Afghanistan war! Plus, it was said over and over in the Commons that they had a 3Bil surplus for emergency and yes all of it is gone and the Tories will be rising EI premiums to cover the short fall. The only thing the Tories are good at is spending and big government. How much does it cost us taxpayers for all the employees they have hired.

[jdobbin]

By what math is keeping transfers up with with inflation "restoring". The feds promised to contribute 50% of the cost of Medicare, right now thanks to Martin they pay 16%.

The cut in the percentage started in the 1970s. The NDP supported the Liberals many times in government while it was reduced.

[Shady]

The cut in the percentage started in the 1970s. The NDP supported the Liberals many times in government while it was reduced.

So you're blaming it on the NDP?

[punked]

The cut in the percentage started in the 1970s. The NDP supported the Liberals many times in government while it was reduced.

Nope it was the 90's the rules were changed and the NDP was against it.

Edited July 26, 2009 by punked

[jdobbin]

So you're blaming it on the NDP?

Nope. Just pointing out that the NDP ought not to blame the Liberals for reductions when they supported the government.

The reductions were part of a process to give provinces more autonomy over health. With that autonomy, came the responsibility for paying a higher percentage.

This shouldn't be anything new to you. This was often done at the provinces' behest.

[jdobbin]

Nope it was the 90's the rules were changed and the NDP was against it.

Baloney.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canad...-administration

In the late 1970s, however, the federal government began to withdraw from its central role. It announced that it would no longer keep its commitment to pay one-half of the public health costs, in addition to ending the practice of placing restrictions on how the provinces and territories operated their health insurance schemes. As a result, the provinces and territories gained greater autonomy in the delivery of health care services. They also, however, had to bear a larger share of public health care costs.

Why do you feel the need to lie all the time?

Edited July 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[Smallc]

We couldn't afford 50% anymore and everyone knows that. If we had kept funding everything at the the early 90s level, we'd be in as bad of financial shape as the rest of the G8. Yes, some things were forced to suffer....crown corporations, the military, healthcare, but there was no alternative. The federal government doesn't have a magical pot of gold.

[punked]

We couldn't afford 50% anymore and everyone knows that. If we had kept funding everything at the the early 90s level, we'd be in as bad of financial shape as the rest of the G8. Yes, some things were forced to suffer....crown corporations, the military, healthcare, but there was no alternative. The federal government doesn't have a magical pot of gold.

No see we pay the Taxes, the Feds just downloaded debt to the provinces in the 90's and it really hurt the have not provinces health care system. We could do fine with 50% you just have to be committed to health care. As for bloc transfers yes they were a Liberal idea of the 70's but when Health care was rolled into Health and Social Transfer by Paul Martin in the 90's that was the real cut. I will give it to Haprer for getting ride of those, that giant lump sum o money to the province looked great until you figured out you were getting much less then when it was Health, Secondary education, and Welfare alone.

Edited July 26, 2009 by punked

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Face it folks, things just are not going to get cheaper, they are going to get more expensive. The federal government already has enough debt load to worry about, and unless they can figure a way to increase its revenue streams and reduce their expenditures then we will always face funding crisis decision making. No matter what you cut you anger one group or another, yet expenditure reductions are going to have to happen anyway. To be the government right now means to be making some tough choices. For starters you have only minority to work with, then there are the regional expenditures that further divide political support, then you come up against the big daddy of them all which is revenue streams dependent upon economic conditions. That is a lot of variables to deal with.

A solution from inside the box of political correctness will not function this time.

[Argus]

Yes, actually. Many countries went into deficit in those so-called boom years. Not Canada.

Yes, because of the money pouring in through the GST your party had gone to the walls to oppose, and because you slashed transfers to the provinces leaving them no money for health care, education and welfare - money you never restored, even when the surpluses were so high Martin was playing crooked accounting games to hide them.

The nonsense appears to be coming from you. The Tory government itself has said much of the money is being spent or in the process of being spent.

No, they are not. They are parsing their words to make it sound like the money has been "spent". In fact, it has been commited to a variety of projects, so I suppose in some sense you could say it is "spent", but those projects have, for the most part, hardly begun. It has only been a few months since the budget was passed, for Gods sakes. Do you imagine bridges have already been constructed, buildings already renovated, roads and highways already laid down and the workers sent home with their paycheques?

However, you seem to think very little has been spent at all.

I"m sorry for having so very much more common sense and such a terrific sense of reality. I know that conflicts with your bizarroland world view, where the instant you agree to pay for a new bridge the materials have already been purchased and the workers already hired and paid.

[Argus]

We couldn't afford 50% anymore and everyone knows that. If we had kept funding everything at the the early 90s level, we'd be in as bad of financial shape as the rest of the G8. Yes, some things were forced to suffer....crown corporations, the military, healthcare, but there was no alternative. The federal government doesn't have a magical pot of gold.

What in the hell are you talking about? There is only one taxpayer. Do you think health care is cheaper when it's paid by the provinces instead of the federal government? Are you aware that the federal government collects taxes which it passes on to the provinces to pay for health care?

What the hell difference would it be if the feds paid for it themselves?

[jdobbin]

Yes, because of the money pouring in through the GST your party had gone to the walls to oppose, and because you slashed transfers to the provinces leaving them no money for health care, education and welfare - money you never restored, even when the surpluses were so high Martin was playing crooked accounting games to hide them.

The provinces complained about the cuts to transfers but what did they do? They cut taxes and slashed services further.

The electorate has the final say on all this. They voted for the Liberals en masse and the popularity of Martin for tacking the deficit was very high.

As for not restoring money for health, Martin set up long term funding for it as prime minister. It is one of the reasons that Harper has not run into crying provinces during his time in office.

Harper has learned that if you give the provinces money like he did with Quebec, you can't trust them to spend it where they promise. Charest took the big gift that Harper gave him to cut taxes. Then he turned around and blamed Harper for the condition in his promise and asked for more.

No, they are not. They are parsing their words to make it sound like the money has been "spent". In fact, it has been commited to a variety of projects, so I suppose in some sense you could say it is "spent", but those projects have, for the most part, hardly begun. It has only been a few months since the budget was passed, for Gods sakes. Do you imagine bridges have already been constructed, buildings already renovated, roads and highways already laid down and the workers sent home with their paycheques?

If 20% has not yet been assigned, it has not been spent. That means that 80% of the money has been spent. Since this stimulus is to last two years, it means that a lot of it will be complete by year end such as the home renovations tax credit. There are highway and infrastructure projects all over the country right now with shovels in the ground.

I"m sorry for having so very much more common sense and such a terrific sense of reality. I know that conflicts with your bizarroland world view, where the instant you agree to pay for a new bridge the materials have already been purchased and the workers already hired and paid.

I'm sorry if you don't somehow realize that a lot of these projects such as highway construction and infrastructure have been underway for many months. Some have already been completed.

[punked]

What in the hell are you talking about? There is only one taxpayer. Do you think health care is cheaper when it's paid by the provinces instead of the federal government? Are you aware that the federal government collects taxes which it passes on to the provinces to pay for health care?

What the hell difference would it be if the feds paid for it themselves?

Agreed it is our money.

[Smallc]

What the hell difference would it be if the feds paid for it themselves?

The difference? We'd have deficits forever again. Now we don't. Most provinces didn't either. They seemed hey had worked it out pretty well.

[Smallc]

No see we pay the Taxes, the Feds just downloaded debt to the provinces in the 90's and it really hurt the have not provinces health care system.

That's right, and it allowed the federal government to balance its budget, something that couldn't have happened at 50% funding.