Ignatieff pledges to erase deficit with no new taxes

[punked]

As I said, I don't expect many to believe that economic growth alone will fairly quickly get out out of deficit.....but if Mr. Ignatieff is not going to raise taxes, not going to cut transfers, and not going to cut programs.......then his "solution" is going to be remarkably like the Conservatives - isn't it? Let's put aside the usual "we'll find efficiences"......Dobbin - do you see any magical solution outside those parameters?

Why not it is how Dobbins Liberals promised to do in NS just 3 months ago. Why would he think it is wrong now.

[jdobbin]

As I said, I don't expect many to believe that economic growth alone will fairly quickly get us out of deficit.....but if Mr. Ignatieff is not going to raise taxes, not going to cut transfers, and not going to cut programs.......then his "solution" is going to be remarkably like the Conservatives - isn't it? Let's put aside the usual "we'll find efficiences"......Dobbin - do you see any magical solution outside those parameters?

I haven't seen any indication that Ignatieff said he won't cut programs. I also haven't heard from his mouth that transfers are off the table. I heard the finance critic mention it but not Ignatieff.

What we do know is that Harper doesn't cut spending and when he does, it is spending in areas he doesn't like. The only cuts that are going to work are broad based spending cuts. We haevn't heard Harper try to limit those. He can't even limit spending in the PMO. It was a 14% increase this year and 14% last year.

[punked]

I haven't seen any indication that Ignatieff said he won't cut programs. I also haven't heard from his mouth that transfers are off the table. I heard the finance critic mention it but not Ignatieff.

What we do know is that Harper doesn't cut spending and when he does, it is spending in areas he doesn't like. The only cuts that are going to work are broad based spending cuts. We haevn't heard Harper try to limit those. He can't even limit spending in the PMO. It was a 14% increase this year and 14% last year.

Here we go.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0903?hub=Canada

[Machjo]

So Ignatieff supports more government spending on the stimulous, no tax increase, and pay off the debt.

Well, something's got to give. Will that be inflation owing to printed money to pay for this?

[Smallc]

He supports spending until growth really resumes. After that, I would expect cuts.

[kimmy]

I am of the suspicion that this deficit is not as daunting as it appears. I suspect that a substantial portion of it is not "structural" but rather non-recurring stimulus spending, as well as a result of temporarily depressed revenues. I suspect that both Harper and Ignatieff believe that eliminating the deficit will be a realistic promise that they can win brownie-points for delivering on once the economy is back on its feet.

The whole idea of campaigning against the deficit seems disingenuous to me, however. "Look at this outrageous deficit the government has racked up!" Do they think the voters are so dumb as to recall who demanded the stimulus spending? (It's a serious question. The voters might well be that dumb.)

I think they should be campaigning on: "WE saved the economy. Harper wasn't going to spend money to stimulate the economy until WE demanded it! WE made this government spend the money to fight the recession!"

-k

[Wilber]

It's politics kimmy, not to be confused with reality, honesty or integrity.

[nicky10013]

I am of the suspicion that this deficit is not as daunting as it appears. I suspect that a substantial portion of it is not "structural" but rather non-recurring stimulus spending, as well as a result of temporarily depressed revenues. I suspect that both Harper and Ignatieff believe that eliminating the deficit will be a realistic promise that they can win brownie-points for delivering on once the economy is back on its feet.

The whole idea of campaigning against the deficit seems disingenuous to me, however. "Look at this outrageous deficit the government has racked up!" Do they think the voters are so dumb as to recall who demanded the stimulus spending? (It's a serious question. The voters might well be that dumb.)

I think they should be campaigning on: "WE saved the economy. Harper wasn't going to spend money to stimulate the economy until WE demanded it! WE made this government spend the money to fight the recession!"

-k

I agree generally. I think most Liberals are concerned with the fact that the money wasn't handed out equitably. Not surprisingly, 80% of the projects approved were in Conservative ridings which is more than a coincidence. I think the other thing that upsets Liberals is that the money didn't get out until two weeks ago. I've said this before and I'll say it again but I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives underspend (when Flaherty at the G20 just a couple days ago said we need MORE stimulus) to make themselves like competent fiscal managers. I also think the fact that it was originally going to be a 30 billion dollar deficit, then a 52 billion dollar deficit is what in the end they're talking about in terms of wild overspending. Yes, the Liberals wanted stimulus but the deficit ballooned way past expectations.

Would THAT argument resonate? I'm not so sure. You questioned the voter's intelligence and I guess I'm doing it in a different way. When it comes down to "liberals are lying thieves" or "Conservatives are the devil" in the end you're probably best setting your message to the lowest common denominator.

[kimmy]

I agree generally. I think most Liberals are concerned with the fact that the money wasn't handed out equitably. Not surprisingly, 80% of the projects approved were in Conservative ridings which is more than a coincidence.

Considering that many Liberal ridings are concentrated in small geographic areas (urban Toronto, urban Montreal, urban Vancouver) I think it's kind of inevitable.

I think the other thing that upsets Liberals is that the money didn't get out until two weeks ago.

I am skeptical of this claim. I have seen large federal projects all summer all over Interior BC.

-k

[justme]

Do they think the voters are so dumb as to recall who demanded the stimulus spending? (It's a serious question. The voters might well be that dumb.)

sad but true

[nicky10013]

It's politics kimmy, not to be confused with reality, honesty or integrity.

Honestly, reality, honest and integrity, or the lack there of in politics can be squarely blamed on the people who vote. Most people who vote don't understand politics, economics, health etc. By demanding that politicians elected or otherwise unfailingly comply with their wishes or else, of course you're going to get a babbling bunch of people willing to say anything to get elected. Politicians are too afraid to stand up and actually speak their mind for fear of being turfed. They're ridiculed for not being nice and then are lambasted the next day for smiling too wide and kissing babies. When they do try to bring in new initiatives, people go crazy because it "wasn't promised" even if it's a good initiative. In the end, politicians are what we make of them. Most of them get into it because they truly honestly believe they can make a difference and in most cases they do make a difference whether we actually recognize it or not. Most people who get in give up a lot of money in other careers to make some sort of a change in the world they see and of course they take the most guff for it. Politics is truly one of the most under-appreciated jobs in Canada.

Edited September 6, 2009 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Considering that many Liberal ridings are concentrated in small geographic areas (urban Toronto, urban Montreal, urban Vancouver) I think it's kind of inevitable.

I am skeptical of this claim. I have seen large federal projects all summer all over Interior BC.

-k

I'm talking about all ridings. NDP and the Bloc claim large swaths of territory. If you heard in the news about Gerard Kennedy's attempts to track down and figure out what money has been spent and where, I actually was working on that a couple weeks back. We had a master list of all projects and went down the list calling the municipalities that received funding. In Ontario, only about 200 of 1200 projects had received money. A lot of municipalities did indeed start construction, but were using their own funds or borrowed funds until the federal money arrived.

[justme]

We don't have the ships, and no one has any plans to build such ships. In fact, last year the Liberal finance critic, destined to be finance minister in any Liberal government, said he would be cutting money from the military. He didn't say it openly, of course. He said it in a secret conference call with Liberals which someone taped.

Plans to build the JSS have been around for years, and if you think about it, with all the money being spent to stimulate the economy, it'd be the perfect time to get it started. It'd create jobs and help the navy at the same time -- kill two birds with one stone.

[nicky10013]

Ok, now I'm confused.

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

[Wilber]

Honestly, reality, honest and integrity, or the lack there of in politics can be squarely blamed on the people who vote. Most people who vote don't understand politics, economics, health etc. By demanding that politicians elected or otherwise unfailingly comply with their wishes or else, of course you're going to get a babbling bunch of people willing to say anything to get elected. Politicians are too afraid to stand up and actually speak their mind for fear of being turfed. They're ridiculed for not being nice and then are lambasted the next day for smiling too wide and kissing babies. When they do try to bring in new initiatives, people go crazy because it "wasn't promised" even if it's a good initiative. In the end, politicians are what we make of them. Most of them get into it because they truly honestly believe they can make a difference and in most cases they do make a difference whether we actually recognize it or not. Most people who get in give up a lot of money in other careers to make some sort of a change in the world they see and of course they take the most guff for it. Politics is truly one of the most under-appreciated jobs in Canada.

Excuses based on contempt for the people who do vote. The public is stupid therefore I am justified in saying anything I want in order to get elected. I do however agree that most who go into it are well meaning, at least in the beginning.

[nicky10013]

Excuses based on contempt for the people who do vote. The public is stupid therefore I am justified in saying anything I want in order to get elected. I do however agree that most who go into it are well meaning, at least in the beginning.

It's not that the public is stupid, just misinformed. The way to change it is better education. However, it can't be argued that right now populism ISN'T a problem. People wonder why politicians play to the lowest common denominator and then get pissed off as to the reason why. Yet ANOTHER reason why populism is a bad influence. Introduce populist (mostly reform party) reforms and you get the ability for stuff like recall. The last thing we need is a Canadian Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Wilber]

It's not that the public is stupid, just misinformed. The way to change it is better education. However, it can't be argued that right now populism ISN'T a problem. People wonder why politicians play to the lowest common denominator and then get pissed off as to the reason why. Yet ANOTHER reason why populism is a bad influence. Introduce populist (mostly reform party) reforms and you get the ability for stuff like recall. The last thing we need is a Canadian Arnold Schwarzenegger.

How do you inform people by lying to them?

[nicky10013]

How do you inform people by lying to them?

On the surface things look horrible, but underneath, situations change. You get into government and see briefs normally you aren't privy too. No one knew that a 5 billion dollar deficit was around the corner waiting for McGuinty. I don't know what the situation was for Flaherty's income trust fund. In the end, no matter how much you explain something like Free Trade to a populace, time in the media goes to the wackos. Run against free trade to placate people, win a majority, implement it and guess what. Today people cringe at the thought of the repeal of NAFTA. In the end, whether that was actually the case, sometimes you have to do things that people don't like but what you know is best. Society doesn't usually act in a rational way which in the end is the primary reason why populism is bad. The population doesn't get the entire story yet assign strong beliefs to it even though they may not know the actual story.

Edited September 6, 2009 by nicky10013

[Wilber]

On the surface things look horrible, but underneath, situations change. You get into government and see briefs normally you aren't privy too. No one knew that a 5 billion dollar deficit was around the corner waiting for McGuinty. I don't know what the situation was for Flaherty's income trust fund. In the end, no matter how much you explain something like Free Trade to a populace, time in the media goes to the wackos. Run against free trade to placate people, win a majority, implement it and guess what. Today people cringe at the thought of the repeal of NAFTA. In the end, whether that was actually the case, sometimes you have to do things that people don't like but what you know is best. Society doesn't usually act in a rational way which in the end is the primary reason why populism is bad. The population doesn't get the entire story yet assign strong beliefs to it even though they may not know the actual story.

Wouldn't know about Ontario politics but out here in BC people just aren't buying the idea Campbell didn't know the the deficit was going to increase by over six times in just three months since the election, nor are they buying the claim that he wasn't negotiating on HST with the feds during the election even though he was denying it at the time. They didn't just get into government, they had been the government for eight years.

It isn't a matter of optics but blatant dishonesty and people are not amused.

This attitude reminds me of Roger Abbot's character on Air Farce. "I'm Gilbert Smythe and I'm smarter than you". To me, Ignatief comes across much the same way.

[jdobbin]

I am of the suspicion that this deficit is not as daunting as it appears. I suspect that a substantial portion of it is not "structural" but rather non-recurring stimulus spending, as well as a result of temporarily depressed revenues. I suspect that both Harper and Ignatieff believe that eliminating the deficit will be a realistic promise that they can win brownie-points for delivering on once the economy is back on its feet.

We had a spending problem even before the economy turned downward. So much of our ability to get these massive surpluses was due to large corporate returns. I don't think that will be happening in this recovery.

There are quite a few economists that are saying tax increases or spending cuts will be the only way to it in a way that doesn't let the problem fester.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/hike+lik...6526/story.html

The federal government needs to acknowledge it cannot return to surplus as early as it projected, and that tax hikes -- even temporary ones -- or deep spending cuts need to be incorporated to complete the task, said a report Friday from a leading fiscal forecaster.

Ignatieff was not about to give Harper his main issue which would have been taxes. He also appears not to be about to fall into the trap about cuts to transfers.

That leaves large cuts.

If Harper has already said those areas are impossible and that the deficit is a problem, he had better have a plan about how the deficit will be eliminated, especially if disagrees on cuts in spending. This election is shaping up on what sort of cuts will take place following the recovery.

If Harper believes nothing needs to be done aside from a slight tightening of the belt, I think he will face a challenge of that fact from more than just the Liberals.

Edited September 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

This attitude reminds me of Roger Abbot's character on Air Farce. "I'm Gilbert Smythe and I'm smarter than you". To me, Ignatief comes across much the same way.

At very least, if the argument is that Harper is smarter, he had better show some of those smarts by addressing the issue of the deficit. We have heard a lot of talk from them that it is bad but the plan is not really clear. It is worth a debate. It is worth having an election on.

The argument that federal spending and reno tax credit will come to an end is being scoffed at by even the experts. I doubt that it can be sustained without some financial, economic and political experts calling them on that.

[Machjo]

He supports spending until growth really resumes. After that, I would expect cuts.

But he's said already that he wants to promote economic growth. That can only mean putting more money into the economy or making the money already available circulate faster. He could borrow to do this, but he says he wants to pay off the debt. He could raise taxes to do this, but he opposes tax increases. So really, what's left? The only way left that I could see is inflation. Hang on tight 'cause on this ride inflation's going up, up and away.

[Machjo]

I fully understand the frustration I read about stimulous funding going to Conservative ridings. I was shocked last federal election when at an all-candidates debate, our local Conservative candidate actually used the threat that if our constituency did not have a Conservative candidate to represent us 'in government', that we'd ahve no voice! I wanted to challenge him on that comment, but owing to a full audience, never had the chance. I can't believe that people voted for him. Instead of questioning his implication that his party would systematically discriminate against non-Conservative ridings, we voted him in! We truly have idiots in this riding.

Anyone with the most basic understanind og democracy should understand that even if party X should form a majority, all MPs ought to have equal access to the government, an equal say in teh government, and the government ought to be there to represent the entire nation, not just their ridings.

I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. Harper is probably the most partisan PM we've ever had. His party likewise.

[Wilber]

At very least, if the argument is that Harper is smarter, he had better show some of those smarts by addressing the issue of the deficit. We have heard a lot of talk from them that it is bad but the plan is not really clear. It is worth a debate. It is worth having an election on.

The argument that federal spending and reno tax credit will come to an end is being scoffed at by even the experts. I doubt that it can be sustained without some financial, economic and political experts calling them on that.

The best quote I heard today was "We need an election because the Conservatives are spending too much too slowly".

I'm taking full advantage of the reno tax credit before it ends.

[jdobbin]

The best quote I heard today was "We need an election because the Conservatives are spending too much too slowly".

I'm taking full advantage of the reno tax credit before it ends.

As am I. To tell you the truth though, I probably would have done the renovations anyway.

Given how many people are using it, it is going to be very expensive in the end. And no, I don't think an election is going to end it or keep it from passing.

Edited September 7, 2009 by jdobbin