Ignatieff pledges to erase deficit with no new taxes

[madmax]

The $50B stimulus funds do not continue as a year-to-year deficit - they are one-off spending. We borrowed money to inject stimulus into the economy and that money gets added to our national debt -

The CPC are raising taxes by increasing the Catchment area of the GST through Provincial Bribery. It is very important for the CPC to increase our taxes to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt.

[Topaz]

I think its time to go back to Oct just before the last election.......... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=12007

[Dave_ON]

The $50B stimulus funds do not continue as a year-to-year deficit - they are one-off spending. We borrowed money to inject stimulus into the economy and that money gets added to our national debt - we pay interest on it as we continue to pay it down over the time. Remember all the "surplus" money that Harper and the Conservatives used to pay down the National Debt? Well, now we're borrowing it back. The structural deficit (money that's required every year) on the other hand is affected by a decrease in revenues because of the recession - we're not taking in enough money to pay for our programs - so we're running an operating deficit. That will clear up when the economy gets rolling....so maybe the next 3 or 4 years may show a declining deficit until the economy really starts to roll. That shortfall in revenues is what we have to worry about - not the 50 billion that we borrowed on a one-time basis. That's the point that hopefully, people will start to understand.....but it's an advantage to the other parties that people don't.

But that's the point. Of course we can't start paying off the onetime 50 bil loan until our operating budget is back in the black. However, a return to the black in terms of operating costs does not magically make the 50 bil, plus interest, disappear overnight. It will take many years of operating in the black to pay it down. How precisely do they plan to do this? There are only two real possibilities, cut spending or raise taxes. Relying on operating surpluses is not going to be an effective means of paying down the debt. Otherwise when the next downturn comes and the next loan is required you still haven't finished paying off the last loan.

[OddSox]

Ok, now I'm confused.

Federal taxes must go up to pay off Canada’s increasing debt, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said today.

http://news.therecord.com/article/520203

[punked]

Ok, now I'm confused.

http://news.therecord.com/article/520203

See you are confused becuase you don;t have blind faith in the pretend plan the Liberals have offered. Don't worry they have clear policy on this, NO POLICY ONLY PROMISES.

[gc1765]

Why should the Liberals reveal their entire campaign by detailing everything early? They tried to reveal a major plank before last election with the Green Shift. The problem for the party is that the major election issue became that Liberal plank. The other parties didn't have to talk about cap and trade and its costs. Moreover, the timing of Dion's meant that they unveiled things just before the economy was in a tailspin. I wonder if their platform may have been the economy if they had not made the announcement before the election. It was only when Dion talked about the economy that he was able to salvage himself from an even greater defeat.

Maybe I'm just skeptical of politicians, but the Liberals often complain when the Conservatives make cuts, and yet now they will need to make substantial cuts. The last figure I heard we had a $50 billion deficit, that's a big hole to come out of and won't be easy.

If Ignatieff has some great ideas to save $50 billion, I'd love to hear them. Maybe he could even negotiate with Harper. He wouldn't get the credit, but that should be the least of a politician's concerns. Politicians working together to do what is best for Canada...I must be dreaming.

[gc1765]

deleted

Edited September 3, 2009 by gc1765

[jdobbin]

Ok, now I'm confused.

I'm sure you are. What was left off here was the hypothetical question that was posed that elicited that response. We have gone over it before in this forum.

However, no one is going to talk about taxes again since it is political poison. But then so are deficits. And Harper among others said there wouldn't be one.

So take your choice: Cuts, taxes or deficits.

Edited September 3, 2009 by jdobbin

[nicky10013]

Major DND/CF Investments

Date

Location

Summary of Announcement

Amount

June 25, 2006

CFB Halifax, NS

Announced by MND and Min PWGSC: Three Joint Support Ships (supply ships), and in-service support.

$2.9 billion

June 26, 2006

CFB Valcartier, QC

Announced by MND and Min PWGSC – 2,300 Medium-sized logistics trucks, and in-service support.

$1.1 billion

June 27, 2006

CFB Edmonton, AB

Announced by MND, Min Public Safety and Min PWGSC 16 medium- to heavy-lift helicopters, and in-service support.

$4.7 billion

June 28, 2006

CFB Trenton, ON

Announced by MND, Min PWGSC and Min Industry - four strategic and 17 tactical aircraft, and in-service support.

$8.8 billion

April 12, 2007

La Citadelle -

Quebec City, QC

Announced by MND and Min PWGSC – Purchase of up to 100 Leopard II Main Battle Tanks

$650 million

April 21, 2008

Halifax Shipyards, NS

Victoria Ships Ltd., BC

Announced by MND (East) and Min PWGSC (West) – Refit portion of the Halifax Class Modernization / Frigate Life Extension Project (HCM/FELEX).

$900 million

August 7, 2008

St Hubert, QC

Announced by MND and Min PWGSC – Afghanistan Air Capabilities: six Chartered Helicopters (MI17s), six Chinook Ds, small UAV (Scan Eagle), and two-year tactical (Heron) UAV lease.

$438 million

January 9, 2009

CFB Valcartier, QC

Announced by MND and Min PWGSC – Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS): 1300 Military Commercial Off-the-shelf vehicles (MilCOTS)

$274 million

February 13, 2009

CAE Inc. HQ - Montreal, QC

Announced by the Prime Minister and Min PWGSC – Operational Training System Provider: simulation training for the new CC-130J Hercules fleet

$346 million

March 9, 2009

NDHQ -Ottawa, ON

Announced by MND and Min PWGSC – Two long-term support contracts for the Army’s Land Command Support System (LCSS)

$525 million

July 2, 2009 Montreal, QC Announced by MND and Min PWGSC - the awarding of a contract to Weir Canada Inc. for the operation of the Naval Engineering Test Establishment (NETE). $600 million

May 7, 2007

News Release – 16 Enhanced Road Opening Capability (EROC) vehicles.

$29.6 million

May 10, 2007

News Release - 82 new Armoured Heavy Support Vehicle Systems (AHSVS)

$87 million

May 31, 2006

News Release – 25 additional RG31 Nyala Armoured Patrol Vehicles

$31 million

July 9, 2007

News Release – Purchase of six to eight Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) in support of Prime Minister’s Announcement Event

$4.4 billion

July 8, 2008

PWGSC News Release – LAV III Service and maintenance contract.

$374 million

September 5, 2008

PWGSC News Release – Combat Systems Integration and Command and Control System Portion of the HCM/FELEX project.

$2.0 billion

July 8, 2009 News Release - Current fleet of Light Armoured Vehicles (LAV) III will be upgraded and three new fleets of land combat vehicles will be acquired.

$5.2 billion

Total major investments announced to date: $34.68 Billion All done by the Cons and Mr Harpers Government...

here is a report written in 2000 well into a liberal tour, it explains what the liberals knew about the condition of our military back then....if you could name the liberal projects that address some of these issues....perhaps even the total value of those projects.

2000 report.

Infra structure projects are not very high on anyone's list....that being said one could hardly blame the government for DND's lack of planning....

Lets not forget who's mission this was, and how unprepared our military waqs to take on that task, so your comment about a bulk of the purchases being bought are for afghan really reflects on all levels and parties....

Acceptable standard is what can the Canadian tax payer afford or want.....it has nothing to do with NEEDS....

do we need the 3 rd largest navy in the world....NO, but we do need one that can defend our coast lines., and carry out of foreign policies.....and that requires more than a few ships we have now....even a die hard liberal can see that...So nobody is asking to keep up with the jones....just able to do the job assigned to them....

You can't just say that "infrastructure is not high on anyone's list." Building a place to actually put the planes is a no-brainer. What is even more incompetent is that they never even realized that the C-17s were too big to fit in their original hangars. You can't just let multi-million dollar brand new planes sit on a tarmac with all the ice and snow in the winter.

Furthermore, the chinooks and the leopard tanks are yet again more used purchases, something the Liberals never heard the end of whenever they purchased used equipment. So, in my mind, this isn't much different than Liberal purchases. Most of the other vehicles purchesed seems to me to be necessary as all the old vehicles were worn out due to rough wear and tear in Afghanistan. Also, the three supply ships have shockingly been cut to 1.

The Liberals initially purchased F-18s (under Trudeau..shocker) and the upgrade programme that all F-18s are currently undergoing is another Liberal initiative. CADPAT, adpotion of the C7, the LAV III, modern frigates, the coastal patrol vessels, the replacement of the sea kings and the new SAR helicopters were all projects approved under Liberal governments. In the end, the Canadian Armed Forces right now, especially the army, is a small, mobile and quick reaction force that can be deployed around the globe when not overstretched as we are now in Afghanistan. The only thing that the Conservatives have done to augment that is the C-17s. The rest was done, whether people want to admit it or not (god forbid we don't pay lipservice to stereotypes) was dune under the Liberals.

Anyways, Generalissimo Harper seems positive about the economy, however, the Economist shows that perhaps those who doubt could be right.

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgaller...atures_box_main

"IN ITS latest forecast for the world's biggest economies released on Thursday September 3rd, the OECD notes the "mostly favourable" economic news over the past few months. The think-tank reckons the German economy will grow more strongly than its peers in the third quarter. In the fourth quarter, America will leap ahead, and is expected to grow at an annualised rate of 2.4%. But the outlook looks less rosy for Japan, Italy and Britain, which are all forecast to endure further declines in GDP before the year is out. Canada's prospects ought to be brighter, because of its relatively small financial sector and its large commodity-based export industries. Despite these blessings, the OECD thinks Canada's economy will shrink at an annualised rate of 2% in the third quarter."

Dead Last.

[jdobbin]

Maybe I'm just skeptical of politicians, but the Liberals often complain when the Conservatives make cuts, and yet now they will need to make substantial cuts. The last figure I heard we had a $50 billion deficit, that's a big hole to come out of and won't be easy.

I agree. However, I don't think the deficit will disappear on its own and by the time we do decide to act, we could be looking at another downturn.

There will never be a good time to cut spending.

If Ignatieff has some great ideas to save $50 billion, I'd love to hear them. Maybe he could even negotiate with Harper. He wouldn't get the credit, but that should be the least of a politician's concerns. Politicians working together to do what is best for Canada...I must be dreaming.

Harper doesn't negotiate. He is a boot to head type of politician. We have seen that over the summer.

It is best to present the ideas for the future in a limited time format such as election so that the ideas can be compared and assessed.

[gc1765]

Harper doesn't negotiate.

Agreed. Like I said, I must be dreaming, but wouldn't it be nice of politicians did work together?

[Keepitsimple]

But that's the point. Of course we can't start paying off the onetime 50 bil loan until our operating budget is back in the black. However, a return to the black in terms of operating costs does not magically make the 50 bil, plus interest, disappear overnight. It will take many years of operating in the black to pay it down. How precisely do they plan to do this? There are only two real possibilities, cut spending or raise taxes. Relying on operating surpluses is not going to be an effective means of paying down the debt. Otherwise when the next downturn comes and the next loan is required you still haven't finished paying off the last loan.

At least you understand what I'm saying.....and I understand your point...but remember - our Federal debt is still just under $500 billion and now we're increasing it by $50B in stimulus. So your question of how to pay off the stimulus debt is the same question that governments have been wrestling with since the Trudeau days. I don't mean to belittle $50B but it really is part of an ongoing issue that we have to face - and in terms of National Debt to GDP, we are better off that almost all other countries. It may take 50 years to pay off the debt, if ever......but that's why Conservatives had such a hard time coming to grips with the Stimulus package - because deficits are not a good thing - they just add to the debt. To their credit (I think), the Liberals and NDP badgered the Conservatives into a large stimulus - and the Libs and NDP actually thought it wasn't enough! Now they're complaining about spending too much. Egads. Politics.

[Shady]

Certainly revenue can jump but do you think it will get rid of that deficit entirely? You are really convinced of that?

Why would I be convinced of something I didn't say?

I said the deficit would shrink substantially with a growing, instead of shrinking economy. That's just basic math. Now, if the Feds just hold spending, and not grow spending over the next year or so, then yes, most, if not all of the deficit will be gone. Especially after 2011, when Canadians aren't as involved in Afghanistan.

[OddSox]

So take your choice: Cuts, taxes or deficits.

Um, Mr. Ignatieff did not say there was a choice - he said "Federal taxes must go up".

[Army Guy]

You can't just say that "infrastructure is not high on anyone's list." Building a place to actually put the planes is a no-brainer. What is even more incompetent is that they never even realized that the C-17s were too big to fit in their original hangars. You can't just let multi-million dollar brand new planes sit on a tarmac with all the ice and snow in the winter.

Sure it is if your flushed with cash....which we are not....I think the Airforce guys figured out the plane would not fit in current hangers built for the C-130's .....however there is more to DND than trenton and other infra structure took priority....I don't think they sit long enough to gather snow and ice, regardless aircraft and equipment are not always sheltered....

Furthermore, the chinooks and the leopard tanks are yet again more used purchases, something the Liberals never heard the end of whenever they purchased used equipment.

Actually if you read up on the contracts you'll find we did purchase or lease new Leo A6 tanks off the Germans, then purchased used dutch leo's because at the time they where much cheaper than buying new, plus they where available sooner....

As for the Chinooks, there is several contracts regarding helo's one for renting Hips off a civilian contractor....to allow our forces limited resupply helo's ....then there is a purchase of 6 Chinnoks d models to act as a stop gap measure for afghan....then there is a contract for now 15 new f models once they are produced with the first ones in sewrvice around 2012 or 2013....but hey nice try....

Most of the other vehicles purchesed seems to me to be necessary as all the old vehicles were worn out due to rough wear and tear in Afghanistan.

OK worn out seems like a good excuse to purchase more....it is still a reason to buy is it not....if you had looked at the report dated in 2000 you'll see the liberals also had plenty of reasons to buy equipment....

Also, the three supply ships have shockingly been cut to 1.

No check the contracting sight once again you'll find the requirement is still for 4 resupply ships what has been canceled is a mulit purpose re supply ship/ troop carrier...

The Liberals initially purchased F-18s (under Trudeau..shocker) and the upgrade programme that all F-18s are currently undergoing is another Liberal initiative.

WOW had to reach back over 20 years for that one....i thought we where talking about just the last 4...considering we were flying F-104 , and f-105 aircraft at the time....shit even the 1 st generation Warsaw pact stuff was better....

CADPAT,

Was a DND funded research project, and due to lack of funds took over 10 years to implement , in fact they are still ongoing ....

adpotion of the C7,

once again your reaching way back on this one....considering at the time our Fn's where built in the 50's and 60's and NATO had long since adapted the 5.56 mm round as the standard....

the LAV III,

Lav III is a nice veh , but not enough where purchased to cover all the regts in Canada....

modern frigates

now your really reaching even the youngest in the class must be 15 years or older....

,

the coastal patrol vessels,

What coastal patrol boats....you mean those mine sweepers....

the replacement of the sea kings

which we still don't have ?

and the new SAR helicopters

Nice helo,

were all projects approved under Liberal governments

And the total for all those projects still does not come up to 38 bil....not even close....thats 38 bil over what 4 years....and all your projects are over what...20 years...

.

In the end, the Canadian Armed Forces right now, especially the army, is a small, mobile and quick reaction force that can be deployed around the globe when not overstretched as we are now in Afghanistan.

We have a very small army, that can not deploy any where with out lots of help....even if we had everyone in one spot...

The only thing that the Conservatives have done to augment that is the C-17s. The rest was done, whether people want to admit it or not (god forbid we don't pay lipservice to stereotypes) was dune under the Liberals.

Which is why i guess the members of our armed forces remember the liberal days of power as the dark years....not because we are allowed to wear sunglasses but rather on how tight the liberals where in regards to our nations defense.....

How about you keep your liberal projects to the last say 10 years that should be about fair....

[jdobbin]

Um, Mr. Ignatieff did not say there was a choice - he said "Federal taxes must go up".

And Harper had a choice: No deficits.

[punked]

And Harper had a choice: No deficits.

So in order for Ignatieff to have no deficits he must raise taxes? Ohhhh the lies have stared.

[jdobbin]

Why would I be convinced of something I didn't say?

I said the deficit would shrink substantially with a growing, instead of shrinking economy.

Only if the economy is booming along. Much of the extra revenue was corporate taxes coming in. I see no economist predicting boom times.

That's just basic math. Now, if the Feds just hold spending, and not grow spending over the next year or so, then yes, most, if not all of the deficit will be gone. Especially after 2011, when Canadians aren't as involved in Afghanistan.

Every economic report commissioned has stated we won't have the same strong growth that brought corporate taxes in for some time. Spending will have to go down which means cuts or the deficit will last more than five years or longer. Long enough that the next downturn might be around just as we are getting serious about reducing that deficit.

[Wilber]

You can't just say that "infrastructure is not high on anyone's list." Building a place to actually put the planes is a no-brainer. What is even more incompetent is that they never even realized that the C-17s were too big to fit in their original hangars. You can't just let multi-million dollar brand new planes sit on a tarmac with all the ice and snow in the winter.

Believe it or not hangars are cheap compared to airplanes. Back in WWII the first British 4 engine bomber (the

Short Stirling) was designed to fit into existing RAF hangers. It was a good design but unfortunately because of this requirement, the wingspan was too short for it to carry decent bomb loads and fly at the altitudes required to properly do the missions. But for that the Lancaster and Halifax might never had the place in history they did.

Bottom line is you design the tool needed to do the job then you design the infrastructure to support it. When Bofors designed the most successful naval gun currently in use, their 57MM used by most western navies including the US, they designed the ammunition first, then the gun.

[waldo]

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.

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.

and exactly what are those expectations of what’s needed to be done?

is it to continue down the Harper path away from Canada’s international traditions of peace (keeping) and diplomacy… is it to continue down the Harper path towards yearly military expenditures of $30 Billion under the guise of “defence” spending… abroad? And yes – can the vast sparsely populated country of Canada presume to take a leading “aggressive” military role in each of the world’s military hot-spots… delusions of grandeur, indeed.

military expenditures are typically about trade-offs… unfortunately, most Canadians aren’t aware how the trade-offs directly affect them. If you asked the average Canadian what happened to Liberal PM Martin’s national child care program… and it’s related funding after being cancelled by Stephen Harper, would the average Canadian recognize… and accept… that child care program funding in the form of new aircraft and tanks? Necessary and valued social programs… or delusions of grandeur military spending?

[bush_cheney2004]

and exactly what are those expectations of what’s needed to be done?

is it to continue down the Harper path away from Canada’s international traditions of peace (keeping) and diplomacy…

This is the real delusion given Canada's actual military deployments and missions.....General Hillier tried to disabuse this notion to no avail. Let's just call it...."peacekilling".

[waldo]

This is the real delusion given Canada's actual military deployments and missions.....General Hillier tried to disabuse this notion to no avail. Let's just call it...."peacekilling".

it is late, so perhaps understandable that you failed to explicitly mention your favoured Chretien/Serbian bombing reference

[justme]

and exactly what are those expectations of what’s needed to be done?

He was complaining about the slow response in Lebanon, and considering that other countries were able to use their navies to act faster, you might want to chew on that.

is it to continue down the Harper path away from Canada’s international traditions of peace (keeping) and diplomacy…

Oh, the old social workers with guns peace-keeping myth.

is it to continue down the Harper path towards yearly military expenditures of $30 Billion under the guise of “defence” spending…

$30 billion is about 2% of GDP which is quite reasonable for a defence budget, and when you consider how much it will cost to replace aging equipment, it's quite modest.

And yes – can the vast sparsely populated country of Canada presume to take a leading “aggressive” military role in each of the world’s military hot-spots…

It wouldn't be the first time, and Canada's population was a lot smaller in the past.

If you asked the average Canadian what happened to Liberal PM Martin’s national child care program… and it’s related funding after being cancelled by Stephen Harper, would the average Canadian recognize… and accept… that child care program funding in the form of new aircraft and tanks? Necessary and valued social programs… or delusions of grandeur military spending?

I'd say that child care is a parent's responsibility and national defence is the federal government's responsibility.

People like you love to complain about the US military, but when crap hits the fan everybody looks to the US to do something about it. Let me guess, you'd like to lean on the US entirely for defence, while you complain about them of course, and spend our defence budget on social programs?

[Smallc]

He was complaining about the slow response in Lebanon, and considering that other countries were able to use their navies to act faster, you might want to chew on that.

Which other countries? So far I've found two, and both had ships in the area at the time....we sometimes do, and sometimes don't. We didn't then. We also had the largest number of people to evacuate of western countries.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Smallc

[capricorn]

If you asked the average Canadian what happened to Liberal PM Martin’s national child care program…

Waldo, that was Jean Chretien's pie-in-the-sky national child care program, which first appeared in the Red Book in 1993 and Martin continued the tradition. It simply makes Liberals feel good to have universal child care in their list of priorities.

and it’s related funding after being cancelled by Stephen Harper,

At least Harper took the concrete measure of putting money directly in the hands of parents to give them more choice in childcare. Reality trumps pie-in-the sky every time.

would the average Canadian recognize… and accept… that child care program funding in the form of new aircraft and tanks? Necessary and valued social programs… or delusions of grandeur military spending?

What a ridiculous statement. Equipping our military to enable us to meet our basic international commitments does not equate delusions of military grandeur.