Ignatieff pledges to erase deficit with no new taxes

[madmax]

How do you think the Tories are going to do it? Will they do it?

Just so I understand...

Increase Spending to stimulate the economy, but make cuts, to eliminate the deficit.

Sounds like Bullshit.

[jdobbin]

Not sure , i don't think it will be as aggressive as the liberals plan....

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

Hey, but we keep hearing from Tory quarters that the recession is easing and they'll probably do us the honor of an election after the Olympics.

Edited September 2, 2009 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Just so I understand...

Increase Spending to stimulate the economy, but make cuts, to eliminate the deficit.

My understanding is that the Tory overspending in their own ridings will be targeted and redistributed.

Sounds like Bullshit.

I think it is safe to say that transfer payments will be cut.

[nicky10013]

You seem to think that PM Harper knows everything that is going on at all times. Do you understand how huge the government is and how many people it employs?

It employs this amount of people because of the massive amounts of different little things that need to be done. PM Harper cannot be expected to know whats going on, in minute detail, every second of everyday. It's impossible no one could.

The decision you're speaking of had nothing to do with the PMO what so ever. So he could have done nothing to stop it. Your issue should be with the embassy office that made this decision and the local police where this transgression took place.

/off topic rant

@OP This is more evidence that the man has zero plan and wishes to do so with shoelaces and bubble gum. Now that PM Harper has done the hard work and the economy hs showed signs of recouping he thinks he'll just come in and steal the Tories thunder?

Not going to happen. Ignatieff has yet to lead the PM in any poll yet he thinks he'll magically win.

When he loses will he pout and try to form a coalition government again?

In the end, every single person the government refuses to bring back has been a person of colour. 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. We can debate what citizenship should merit, but until the tenents of citizenship are changed, Harper has the sovereign duty to help nationals stranded abroad. To contrast this example is the ONLY case of a citizen stranded abroad speedily brought home was that woman CONVICTED in Mexico (a democratic state, before abuse starts being hurled toward their court system). She was whisked away from those pesky Mexicans and brought home to a hero's welcome and she just happened to be a white Christian woman from Alberta.

Furthermore, it DOES have a lot to do with the PMO. Decisions of this nature are, believe it or not made at the ministerial level. The immigration minister and the Prime Minister have the ability to stay deportations, get immigration through period etc. Examples of this scale would be dealt by the minister's office. That's how it works and considering how tightly he controls his cabinet, Harper is responsible.

As for the original posting I think people are biting at fallacies. How can you spend and reduce the deficit? Well, you can. In the end, the stimulus money is temporary which is exactly what Ignatieff asked for to begin with. If all things go well, it gets the economy going, tax revenues will go up and the deficit comes down in addition to the these billions of dollars coming off the books for the next year. Here in lies the problem. NONE of the money has gotten out yet and these projects are waiting to start or communities have had to take out loans to start work before the construction season ends. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Conservatives are using recovery money for political gains, in that they're going to underspend (causing slower recovery) and claim this as sound fiscal management with tax payers. They never believed we were going into recession and never believed we needed stimulus and considering the fact that though countries are re-emerging from recession now (apparently) and Canada has the slowest growth rate in the G7 is proof of this politically motivated handling of our economy. It's a joke, really.

The reason why Ignatieff needs to come up with a plan is because Harper, with his unwise tax cuts created structural deficits. The point is and will be that Canada was officially in deficit BEFORE the recession stimulus spending. People seem to forget that convenient fact. Now, Conservatives conveniently can point to the recession and say..."it wasn't our fault" and people will eat that up as well when it isn't really the point. The fact is these clowns have been mismanaging the economy since the day they entered office. "Oh no" says Harper "of course there won't be a recession, here!" Anyone with a brain knows that if the US goes into recession so do we. Even supposed economists. Clearly Harper dropped out of U of T a little too early.

Edited September 2, 2009 by nicky10013

[Army Guy]

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

I don't think all that stimulas cash is even all spent yet, most of it should be still tied up in the procument process still....yes it's planned to be spent but is it spent yet i don't think so....which may give the cons an ace when annoucing the true figures at years end....

[Moonbox]

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?

Hey once again we agree at least on what SHOULD be done, just not who's more likely to do it.

The way Canada's going to get out of the deficit is by having the economy improve and stimulus stop. Perhaps Harper or the LPC (whoever wins) will need to decrease public spending. I'm alright with that.

Either way, Ignatieff saying he'll eliminate the deficit without raising taxes is like saying the sun will set tomorrow. As long as spending doesn't increase, of course you can make the deficit go away. We were running surpluses before the recession even WITH Harper's increased spending. GDP growth will kill the deficit on its own.

The main thing we have to consider is who's most likely to NOT increase structural program spending over the upcoming years. On one hand, we have Harper who's admittedly not been able to do this. On the other hand, we have Ignatieff who has declared that we need increased spending on TOP of what Harper's done. It's kind of a pick your poison sort of situation.

[jdobbin]

I don't think all that stimulas cash is even all spent yet, most of it should be still tied up in the procument process still....yes it's planned to be spent but is it spent yet i don't think so....which may give the cons an ace when annoucing the true figures at years end....

We have heard Harper say this but their own figures show a lot of the money is out the door and will still be spent during any election.

Elections themselves stimulate the economy as the government stats have also shown.

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

[madmax]

Either way, Ignatieff saying he'll eliminate the deficit without raising taxes is like saying the sun will set tomorrow.

Ignatieff like Harper/Flaherty are relying heavily on the increased catchment area of the HST when applied to Ontario, British Columbia and possibly according to jdobbin, Manitoba.

This will provide some of the increased revenue.

Edited September 2, 2009 by madmax

[jdobbin]

Hey once again we agree at least on what SHOULD be done, just not who's more likely to do it.

Show me a plan to cut.

The Liberals now say the deficit is a priority. Judge them on that.

The way Canada's going to get out of the deficit is by having the economy improve and stimulus stop. Perhaps Harper or the LPC (whoever wins) will need to decrease public spending. I'm alright with that.

Either way, Ignatieff saying he'll eliminate the deficit without raising taxes is like saying the sun will set tomorrow. As long as spending doesn't increase, of course you can make the deficit go away. We were running surpluses before the recession even WITH Harper's increased spending. GDP growth will kill the deficit on its own.

My personal feeling is that taxes have to be considered but the Liberals won't mention them.

They will fight the election on the issue of cuts.

The main thing we have to consider is who's most likely to NOT increase structural program spending over the upcoming years. On one hand, we have Harper who's admittedly not been able to do this. On the other hand, we have Ignatieff who has declared that we need increased spending on TOP of what Harper's done. It's kind of a pick your poison sort of situation.

Guess we'll have to see how the Liberals will reduce the deficit.

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

[madmax]

Elections themselves stimulate the economy as the government stats have also shown.

It whopper day.

[jdobbin]

Ignatieff like Harper/Flaherty are relying heavily on the increased catchment area of the HST when applied to Ontario, British Columbia and possibly according to jdobbin, Manitoba.

That will be the job of a new premier now in Manitoba. The NDP have both said they won't do it but at the same time they have a report in the Finance ministry to analyze the benefits.

The Free Press is asking for that report to be released.

This will provide some of the increased revenue.

It could. However, no matter how you slice it, a plan for cuts has to be talked about.

[jdobbin]

It whopper day.

So you don't think the last election had an impact whatsoever? Certainly the stats showed it did.

Edited September 2, 2009 by jdobbin

[ba1614]

We have heard Harper say this but their own figures show a lot of the money is out the door and will still be spent during any election.

Elections themselves stimulate the economy as the government stats have also shown.

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

Care to share those stats?

[jdobbin]

Care to share those stats?

Sure:

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

The public sector replaced the private sector in leading job growth between September and October. Most of the gain in public administration reflects temporary jobs related to the federal election.

[madmax]

So you don't think the last election had an impact whatsoever? Certainly the stats showed it did.

You suggested that an election, such as last years creates economic growth.

I fully and completely disagree with you.

I will agree that an election campaign creates short term employment.

As we are well aware, the economy can grow while employment declines and visa versa.

[jdobbin]

You suggested that an election, such as last years creates economic growth.

They usually do... short term as it is.

Employment numbers go up, ad revenue for radio and TV go up.

I fully and completely disagree with you.

I will agree that an election campaign creates short term employment.

As we are well aware, the economy can grow while employment declines and visa versa.

It isn't like this hasn't been talked about before. Elections create a short term burst of public spending.

It isn't the recommended way to stimulate an economy but to say it doesn't do anything for it is statistically shown otherwise.

[Moonbox]

Show me a plan to cut.

Nobody has one.

The Liberals now say the deficit is a priority. Judge them on that.

You and I both know better. Ignatieff was just recently saying that Harper needed to do MORE to stimulate the economy. I've already judged him on his demands for more and faster stimulus as well as more and easier to access EI. Now he's pulled a complete 180 and thus I'm left with the VERY distinct impression that he's just firing shots out into the dark and waiting to see what the polls say.

My personal feeling is that taxes have to be considered but the Liberals won't mention them.

I think whoever proposes tax increases, before or after the election, will fare VERY poorly moving forward. We've had one year of stimulus spending and our national debt is still VERY manageable. There's no reason to increase taxes and slow growth when simply reversing some of Harper's silly spending increases.

They will fight the election on the issue of cuts.

I'm no media spin man myself, but I don't think it would be very hard to flay Ignatieff alive if he tried that. I could drown in the quotes and media clips that the CPC could show where he was demanding more stimulus. It wouldn't be hard to make him look like a used car salesman.

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

Hey I don't mind it being an election issue. I'd love to see reduced spending.

[fellowtraveller]

No it going to be on not making tough decisions or laying out clear plans. This time only the NDP will have a platform. The Conservatives and Liberals will bounce from town to town promising hockey rinks for all, no deficit, no debt, strong GDP, new Roads, no new policy, unless it is tough on crime and terrorists. This is getting old I liked that Dion had a plan, I liked the red book, I don't like being lied too. That goes for Harper too.

Dude, you have to move past this delusion that the NDP is even on the horizon for Canadians.

[jdobbin]

Nobody has one.

Which is good enough for me for an election. I've been concerned about spending and deficits for some time. I'd like to see what the various plans are.

You and I both know better. Ignatieff was just recently saying that Harper needed to do MORE to stimulate the economy. I've already judged him on his demands for more and faster stimulus as well as more and easier to access EI. Now he's pulled a complete 180 and thus I'm left with the VERY distinct impression that he's just firing shots out into the dark and waiting to see what the polls say.

Yes, more on stimulus and not on pet projects in Tory ridings.

I think whoever proposes tax increases, before or after the election, will fare VERY poorly moving forward. We've had one year of stimulus spending and our national debt is still VERY manageable. There's no reason to increase taxes and slow growth when simply reversing some of Harper's silly spending increases.

Which is why it is out there right now that taxes are not on the agenda. The debate will be on cutting.

I'm no media spin man myself, but I don't think it would be very hard to flay Ignatieff alive if he tried that. I could drown in the quotes and media clips that the CPC could show where he was demanding more stimulus. It wouldn't be hard to make him look like a used car salesman.

To whit, the question will be put right back in Harper's face about what his own plans for the deficit are.

Hey I don't mind it being an election issue. I'd love to see reduced spending.

It is a major issue. The Tories will counterattack but in this case they will really be held to task about what their own plans are.

[Moonbox]

That's all fair, though I do feel that $300 million is a steep cost to develop a budget plan where the election results will likely be the same as last time, or at least another useless minority.

To be honest, if Ignatieff would back the f off of the EI issue and promise not to start throwing money around, I'd probably vote for him just to get Harper out of there and show leaders on the right that excessive spending is NEVER okay.

[gc1765]

I'd like to know how Ignatieff plans to get out of deficit without raising taxes. If he has a plan to get us out of deficit, why doesn't he share it? What is Ignatieff planning to cut?

[jdobbin]

I'd like to know how Ignatieff plans to get out of deficit without raising taxes. If he has a plan to get us out of deficit, why doesn't he share it? What is Ignatieff planning to cut?

My guess? Everything.

No one will mention taxes in this election. I certainly would keep it as a option but it is political poison so it will never be mentioned.

[Jack Weber]

No the Candian tax payer, paid 45 billion dollars of debt down, with major cuts to programs , and services.....

Lets all not forget we spent most of the current harper debt to keep us out of the resession....a plan that all parties agreed to or had similar plans....

I for one am not ready for another liberal plan to reduce debt...

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.....

Edited September 3, 2009 by Jack Weber

[jdobbin]

That's all fair, though I do feel that $300 million is a steep cost to develop a budget plan where the election results will likely be the same as last time, or at least another useless minority.

And yet I'm fairly certain that we headed to election in the next months whether Harper or Ignatieff instigated it.

To be honest, if Ignatieff would back the f off of the EI issue and promise not to start throwing money around, I'd probably vote for him just to get Harper out of there and show leaders on the right that excessive spending is NEVER okay.

I certainly think that we are going to hear restrined plans on spending. As far as EI goes, we'll see if there is any changes from what we saw in the spring.

[justme]

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.

Kinda like how William Sampson was imprisoned for 2.5 years and tortured in Saudi Arabia? Oh wait, he's white....

Nov. 6, 2003

Testifying at a Commons committee, Sampson lashes out at Canada's Foreign Affairs Department, saying officials offered no support while he was imprisoned in a Saudi jail. While thanking the Canadian public for their support, Sampson calls on Ottawa to launch a public inquiry into his case.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sampson/

Fact is that when you enter another country, you're subject to their rules and Canada is limited in what it can do, which is why you should know the risks you take before entering another country.