Ignatieff pledges to erase deficit with no new taxes

justme · September 3, 2009

Lets not forget that the Libs paid off 45 billion debt and if they hadn't where would Harper be now? I think before any elections the government should open the books and lets us voters know how well or how poorly they did the job. Before anyone says anything about Harper paying down the debt, it doesn't matter now because the interest on the debt has eaten it away. This government never admits their errors and there's plenty of them. I believe they will lose seats this time around.

And the Liberals in Ontario set a new record with an $18 billion deficit, which beats the NDP. They used to complain about the mess that the Conservatives left as well, but we don't hear much about that anymore.

punked · September 3, 2009

And the Liberals in Ontario set a new record with an $18 billion deficit, which beats the NDP. They used to complain about the mess that the Conservatives left as well, but we don't hear much about that anymore.

Funny they just did the same thing with a 3 billion dollar BC deficit too largest one ever.

justme · September 3, 2009

Not to mention the fact that they refused to move on many Canadians who were stranded during the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. It took a month for Harper to get transport together even though it's the Canadian government's duty to help citizens get out of harm's way.

And the countries that were able to act faster were able to do so because they had the navy capability to deal with it. Canada used to have one of the largest navies in the world, and now it's down to a dozen frigates, a few destroyers that are several decades old and a couple supply ships that are even older.

When you have to charter ships to get the job done, and everyone else wants those ships too, it's going to take longer.

You can either fund the armed forces adequately so that they are able to do what you expect to be done, or you can settle for less. You can't have it both ways.

nicky10013 · September 3, 2009

And the Liberals in Ontario set a new record with an $18 billion deficit, which beats the NDP. They used to complain about the mess that the Conservatives left as well, but we don't hear much about that anymore.

Lest we forget that figure is over two years. Furthermore, I'd rather be running a provinical deficit than go through another common sense revolution. As a young sprite growing up in Harris' Ontario was simply gleeful. School never started on time because he wouldn't pay teachers. That's a great thing that we should be going back to. Furthermore, considering how many manufacturing jobs Ontario has lost, it's a no brainer - all the tax revenues are gone which only makes things worse. The government hasn't announced a cavalcade of new spending projects. They're helping with infrastructure but, like with most other provinces, 52% of the budget goest to health care. They're actually bringing wait times down. Can't say the same about Mike Harris. After Harris, Ontarians asked if they'd rather have programmes or no deficit and they'd choose programmes. Despite whatever was said about religious schools, if it wasn't the case there is NO WAY McGuinty gets re-elected in the last election. period. The main issue wasn't even that he raised taxes, it was that he signed a pledge saying he wouldn't, which he never should have done in the first place.

nicky10013 · September 3, 2009

And the countries that were able to act faster were able to do so because they had the navy capability to deal with it. Canada used to have one of the largest navies in the world, and now it's down to a dozen frigates, a few destroyers that are several decades old and a couple supply ships that are even older.
When you have to charter ships to get the job done, and everyone else wants those ships too, it's going to take longer.

You can either fund the armed forces adequately so that they are able to do what you expect to be done, or you can settle for less. You can't have it both ways.

Oh please, they didn't even start looking for charters until a month in. If I recall correctly, and I do because I had a friend in the area for the summer so I remember quite vividly, they did in fact drag their feet on the issue for a good month.

Also, if that second part is meant to be a pot-shot at the Liberals lack of spending on the military, what exactly have the Tories done? Most of the major equipment re-hauls or orders were actually placed by Liberal governments with the notable exception of Canada's new C-17s and used Chinook helicopters. So wonderful was our Canadian government at purchasing these items, they did so without thinking of allocating money to build hangers for them. Those planes had to spend the entire Canadian winter sitting outdoors on a tarmac at CFB Trenton. So much for supporting the armed forces! Yet more lipservice. Granted, the spending is the highest it has been since WW2, all of it is being poured into Afghanistan and all this equipment will have to be replaced after the mission is over.

Also, who saw to it that the RCN was one of the biggest in the world? Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent. I'd also like to know what the acceptable standard is for the military these days? Should it be 3rd in the world like back in the good old days when China and India had no economy? They should have modern equipment and for the most part they do (the frigates are some of the best in the world). Delusions of grandeur thinking that a nation of 30 million people can keep up with countries even like the UK is wrongheaded and totally unpragmatic.

Edited September 3, 2009 by nicky10013

noahbody · September 3, 2009

Oh please, they didn't even start looking for charters until a month in. If I recall correctly, and I do because I had a friend in the area for the summer so I remember quite vividly, they did in fact drag their feet on the issue for a good month.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/07/18/e...-logistics.html

Actually, you don't recall correctly. Be sure to correct your rant of misinformation on the economist site too.

gc1765 · September 3, 2009

My guess? Everything.

So why the secrecy?

Keepitsimple · September 3, 2009

Show me a plan to cut.
The Liberals now say the deficit is a priority. Judge them on that.

What this will do is force the Tories to say how they will end the deficit. They refuse to talk about that.

OK......so...from an average voter perspective, people are still losing thousands of jobs and will continue to do so until at least the end of the year.....so it's obvious that the stimulus money has to keep flowing......and although there are some tenuous signs that the recession may be easing, it's still in the public's eye.........and you're saying the Liberals will focus on the deficit and how the Libs are going to tackle it? That just leaves a wide open door for the Conservatives. The stimulus is not a traditional deficit (structural deficit) - it's a huge loan to inject funds into the economy - not meant to increase ongoing year-to-year government spending. Harper will say that they'll continue to help people get back to work, keep the stimulus working, complete their plan, get the economy rolling, come out stronger than we went in, generate revenues and start to pay back what we borrowed. In general, the stimulus adds to the debt - not to the ongoing deficit - except for the years that the money is handed out. Once that's done, the deficit is mostly gone. Will people actually understand this? I think it could be explained in a fairly simple way.....but we'll see how it plays out......it might just end up being a technical argument that gets negated because of the confusion.

Topaz · September 3, 2009

McKay has come today and said that the Libs will stop the money coming out if they call for an election. Really? What about the package that Martin had when Harper brought down his government? Why is alright for Harper to call an election but not the opposition parties? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090903/...ay_federal_elxn

Dave_ON · September 3, 2009

And the Liberals in Ontario set a new record with an $18 billion deficit, which beats the NDP. They used to complain about the mess that the Conservatives left as well, but we don't hear much about that anymore.

Comparing provincial parties to their national equivelants is comparing apples to oranges. Running a province isn't the same as running a country comprised of provinces.

punked · September 3, 2009

Comparing provincial parties to their national equivelants is comparing apples to oranges. Running a province isn't the same as running a country comprised of provinces.

Then maybe the national party should stay out of provincial politics.

nicky10013 · September 3, 2009

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/07/18/e...-logistics.html
Actually, you don't recall correctly. Be sure to correct your rant of misinformation on the economist site too.

"I would only make one comment to other people trying to get away: Don't make this journey, try to get away by other means. Try and get through Syria, even with two little children that would have been better for me. I am very disappointed with Canada, especially with the delay."

from CTV

Ayed, who visited the Canadian Embassy in Beirut on Monday, said there has been no official information from the embassy on when or where the Canadian ships will dock.

Department of Foreign Affairs

"There are still logistical nightmares to work out, nightmares for people who just want to get out," she said. "This is a country with no way in or no way out unless you are a foreign national waiting for a ship."

From your article.

Just because you have the ships doesn't mean you're ready to use them or necessarily willing to use them. The minute the bombardment started Harper was more worried about defending Israel than actually thinking about getting people home. It's also important to note that less than half got out. My friend, still in Lebanon come near the end of the war had to use his British passport to get out. Unfortunately, he couldn't get onto Mr. Harper's plane when, after days of being told to do something, he finally acts and does something not to save lives but to score political points. Sure sounds like good ol' Stephen.

Argus · September 3, 2009

Here`s a campaign issue for Liberals only to be used in the event that things turn nasty. Harper`s demonstrated racism in refusing help to stranded Canadians abroad. It is not coincidence that all victims are citizens of color.
America sees fit to elect Obama president while Harper`s govt treats citizens of color as second class Canadians.

That would only be an issue for really dumb Canadians. I grant you, really dumb Canadians are a group the Liberals regularly court with really dumb issues, but I'm not sure it has a lot of traction.

Most people would know without even half a thought that a dispute between someone in Kenya and Border Services would never even have come to the attention of the minister, or even the deputy minister were it not for the press, who only recently jumped on it. It certainly wouldn't have been brought to Harper's attention. So how on earth anyone sane can describe this as Harper's "demonstrated racism" is a bit beyond me.

However, it's notable that the Liberals are attempting to appeal to dumb people. Ignatieff has promised a law requiring the government to come to the aid of Canadians abroad - uh, the same law the NDP proposed a week or two back and which the Liberals dismissed as unnecessary.

punked · September 3, 2009

However, it's notable that the Liberals are attempting to appeal to dumb people. Ignatieff has promised a law requiring the government to come to the aid of Canadians abroad - uh, the same law the NDP proposed a week or two back and which the Liberals dismissed as unnecessary.

I think some Liberals on this very Board called it unnecessary.

Argus · September 3, 2009

Lets not forget that the Libs paid off 45 billion debt and if they hadn't where would Harper be now?

I used to be poorer, living hand to mouth. Now I have lots of money, though I'm far from rich.

You know something - when the money is coming in, much more than you need to pay the bills - it's really easy to pay your bills on time.

Chretien benefited by ruling during a time of almost unprecedented, sustained economic world prosperity, especially American prosperity, which meant we benefited from that. He had a lot of money coming in, and was able to pay the bills on time. Had he ruled during Mulroney's time the story would have been far different.

Argus · September 3, 2009

My personal view is that major cuts will be the order of the day.
How do you think the Tories are going to get out of the deficit?

Your personal view? Sorry, jdobbin, but the rank hypocrisy of the Liberals thus far, and your leader in particular, is not boding well for his chances. His terming this as "the tories' $50 deficit" and talking about eliminating it without raising taxes - but no details - is not doing anything but getting eyes to roll.

His whole act, much like yours has been, in attempting to wash his hands of any responsibility resembles a teenage boy trying to pretend his girlfriend got pregnant all on her own. Sorry, pal, but you had a hand in this deficit baby too, and people are not going to forget it. It's YOUR deficit as much as it is Harper's. You guys absolutely insisted on the big incentive program, and you can be sure that Harper and the Tories will point that out at every opportunity, every time you guys start talking about the "Tory deficit".

And hell, it was only a few weeks ago you were demanding a second incentive program. Now you're whining about the budget deficit and ready to make it your number one policy issue!? LOL.

Even the Toronto Star seems unenthusiastic about your leader and his confused and two-faced policy pronunciations. And if you can't convince them, just who do you think you can convince?

Argus · September 3, 2009

Do you think that the Tories should tell us how they will end the deficit before saying the Liberal plan won't work?

What plan? You guys don't HAVE a plan. As the Globe says, when asked about his plan, Ignatieff says "Wait and see."

And it's not going to get any clearer than that. The Liberals know better than to make specific statements about just what they would cut prior to an election. "No new taxes" is as original and stupid as it is when Republicans down south say it. Isn't it your position that one of our problems is the irresponsible tax cuts made by the Tories? Then why "No new taxes!" as an election plank?

Edited September 3, 2009 by Argus

ba1614 · September 3, 2009

Sure:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-010-x/01108/6300164-eng.htm

Interesting, only the truly desperate would try to justify spending 300million on an election saying it stimulates the economy because it created a few very temporary(2 months) jobs.

Creating a few jobs that last a couple months does not stimulate the economy in any measurable amount. There isn't a reputable economist anywhere that will support that assertion. Unless of course you know of one you can show us?

jdobbin · September 3, 2009

What plan? You guys don't HAVE a plan. As the Globe says, when asked about his plan, Ignatieff says "Wait and see."

I realize that some people want an entire platform laid out in minute detail months before the election but as Ignatieff says "wait and see." We are not in an election now. We might not be if the NDP and Tories forge a deal.

And it's not going to get any clearer than that. The Liberals know better than to make specific statements about just what they would cut prior to an election. "No new taxes" is as original and stupid as it is when Republicans down south say it. Isn't it your position that one of our problems is the irresponsible tax cuts made by the Tories? Then why "No new taxes!" as an election plank?

The mere mention of taxes is election poison.

As for a plan to end the deficit, political parties are going to be on the hook for saying something about it even if it a "come hell or high water" speech that Martin gave.

Argus · September 3, 2009

In the end, every single person the government refuses to bring back has been a person of colour.

A number of Canadians run into trouble abroad every year. Those troubles are resolved in 99.9% of the cases within a matter of hours or days. Of those that remain, a small fraction come to the notice of the media who then bring it to the notice of the simpletons of the public. Mostly, they get the stories wrong too.

As to all the ones you know of involving "person of colour" it would seem to me that one could better say they all involve immigrants - you know, people who tend to have fewer documents, a lower understanding of how the system works, and poorer communications skills.

Not to mention the fact that they refused to move on many Canadians who were stranded during the Israeli-Lebanese conflict.

I think most Canadians feel the government went above and beyond in their efforts to get those faux-Canadians "home" for a brief stay. Virtually all of them have since gone back to Lebanon, you know.

The reason why Ignatieff needs to come up with a plan is because Harper, with his unwise tax cuts created structural deficits.

If they were unwise then why doesn't he put them back? Or doesn't have have the moral courage of his convictions?

jdobbin · September 3, 2009

Your personal view? Sorry, jdobbin, but the rank hypocrisy of the Liberals thus far, and your leader in particular, is not boding well for his chances. His terming this as "the tories' $50 deficit" and talking about eliminating it without raising taxes - but no details - is not doing anything but getting eyes to roll.

Then by all means vote Tory next election. You are obviously confident that they have a plan that doesn't roll your eyes.

His whole act, much like yours has been, in attempting to wash his hands of any responsibility resembles a teenage boy trying to pretend his girlfriend got pregnant all on her own. Sorry, pal, but you had a hand in this deficit baby too, and people are not going to forget it. It's YOUR deficit as much as it is Harper's. You guys absolutely insisted on the big incentive program, and you can be sure that Harper and the Tories will point that out at every opportunity, every time you guys start talking about the "Tory deficit".

Your whole act is to blame the Liberals for the deficit. Well, fine. Now they are talking about ending the deficit. You might not like the fact it isn't completely detailed but it will get everyone talking about it. Your party is going to have to respond.

And hell, it was only a few weeks ago you were demanding a second incentive program. Now you're whining about the budget deficit and ready to make it your number one policy issue!? LOL.

You seem to think stimulus and all government spending is the same thing.

Even the Toronto Star seems unenthusiastic about your leader and his confused and two-faced policy pronunciations. And if you can't convince them, just who do you think you can convince?

I don't get the Toronto Star nor do I read most of their political coverage since it seems so narrowly focused to region. I'm not sure what sort of leader of the party they want. Maybe one day they will come clean about that.

Argus · September 3, 2009

What we do know is that there is a deficit now and the Tories don't want to talk about it.

What we also know is that this deficit had four fathers, three determined and one reluctant, and yours was first among those determined to spend more money.

Shady · September 3, 2009

How do you think the Tories are going to get out of the deficit?

One could do absolutely nothing, and the deficit will shrink substantially with a growing economy, instead of a shrinking one. The recession is WHY there's a deficit.

But let's not have facts get in the way of Ignatieff's talking points.

Argus · September 3, 2009

You mean Mr.Harper was SCARED into spending to keep us out of this recession because he was about to lose his job last winter.....

Yeah, and remind me, who was it that demanded that money be spent? Oh right, the Liberals.

jdobbin · September 3, 2009

Interesting, only the truly desperate would try to justify spending 300million on an election saying it stimulates the economy because it created a few very temporary(2 months) jobs.
Creating a few jobs that last a couple months does not stimulate the economy in any measurable amount. There isn't a reputable economist anywhere that will support that assertion. Unless of course you know of one you can show us?

Only the desperate would suggest that $300 million has no impact whatsoever. I never said it was a long term strategy but it does boost employment for a time.

The Tories have made the claim that an election stops or endangers all federal spending (save for the election). That had economists laughing at the outrageous nature of the statement.