Pm Harper and The U.N.

[nicky10013]

Martin did it when he was finance minister, but you have to admit external factors played a part in Harper's spending. It's a global economy now.

The government was in deficit before the recession.

[Moonlight Graham]

Is it just me or did Chretien and Martin run massive surpluses and actually executed on Conservative promises of paying down debt? Oh yeah, that's right, pretty much the only government in the past 40 years to run balanced budgets; surpluses Harper eliminated in a year.

Incorrect. Before the Harper gov ran a budget deficit in 2008-2009, the last time any federal government, including the Harper gov, ran a deficit was 1997.

Stats are your friend: Dept. of Finance Canada

[nicky10013]

Incorrect. Before the Harper gov ran a budget deficit in 2008-2009, the last time any federal government, including the Harper gov, ran a deficit was 1997.

Stats are your friend: Dept. of Finance Canada

You do realize that I made the argument that the only government to run a surplus was the Chretien/Martin governments. Nothing I said goes against what was said here.

[Bob]

Although very brief and general, I fully agree with the article posted in the OP. A dis from today's UN is, generally speaking, a badge of honour. I also really like this phrase from Keepitsimple, "Let's face it, Canada's exclusion says more about the UN than it does about Canada." Bingo. The cynic in me is still occasionally sceptical of Harper's sincerity with respect to his support for Israel, but I believe him more often than not. Supporting Israel, generally speaking, is the moral position to take with respect to the Israel-Arab conflict. Unfortunately, it is also almost always the most politically precarious position given the widespread ignorance of much of the public on this issue and the frighteningly common knee-jerk sympathies from leftists to the Arab and Muslim narrative.

[nicky10013]

Although very brief and general, I fully agree with the article posted in the OP. A dis from today's UN is, generally speaking, a badge of honour. I also really like this phrase from Keepitsimple, "Let's face it, Canada's exclusion says more about the UN than it does about Canada." Bingo. The cynic in me is still occasionally sceptical of Harper's sincerity with respect to his support for Israel, but I believe him more often than not. Supporting Israel, generally speaking, is the moral position to take with respect to the Israel-Arab conflict. Unfortunately, it is also almost always the most politically precarious position given the widespread ignorance of much of the public on this issue and the frighteningly common knee-jerk sympathies from leftists to the Arab and Muslim narrative.

If being rejected by the UN is a badge of honour, why bother with putting up the time and capital required to try and win a seat? The notion that this is a badge of honour is partisan spin to make a serious defeat look less odious.

As for the "moral" position on Israel, I don't know how moral a position can be if we favour one group of people who committ human rights abuses over the other. Just because one group elects the people who committ the absusers and the others don't doesn't make it any more or less moral. Both sides are at fault in the conflict and anything less than neutrality between the two on both sides (people like to automatically take that as being pro-Palestinian, I'm not, I'm anti both sides)is merely playing favourites in a war of cyclical violence both willingly engage in. I'm not an expert but tht's not exactly a moral position, is it?

[Army Guy]

Is it just me or did Chretien and Martin run massive surpluses and actually executed on Conservative promises of paying down debt? Oh yeah, that's right, pretty much the only government in the past 40 years to run balanced budgets; surpluses Harper eliminated in a year. Gee, what an economist.

Lets not forget that both parties are responsiable for the entire debt, thats right the liberals and the conservatives both parties ran up our debt like a coal miner in a whore house....They are both to blame....as for pinning the medal of deficit redution on the liberals only that is a myth, take a look at the programs that the Cons put in place before leaving office, so one can hardly just pin that on the liberals....

As for the huge deficit we now face, we can't blame that on Harper alone either...all the parties wanted to spend our way out of the recession....Yes Liberals , cons, and NDP....we all wanted to ride the gravy train, spend spend spend was shouted from the roof tops in parliment each party had their own agenda but all of them included spending huge amounts....so lets grow up, suck back and re load...can we really blame this on one party alone i don't think so....

Paul Martin was Canada's finance minister from 1993 to 2002. He saw Canada post spectacular surpluses before he resigned. He is every businessperson's darling for fiscal prudence, but he really didn't do all that much. Most of the spending cuts and tax changes which can be credited for the change of our fiscal position took place under the Conservative government. The Conservatives can also be credited (if such a word can be applied) for accelerating the economic changes that turned Canada from an industrial economy to an information based one.

By signing the Free Trade Agreement and by launching NAFTA, the Conservatives subjected our aging industries to competition from the American south and Mexico, and bankruptcies bloomed. The ring of impoverished neighbourhoods that now surrounds Toronto's downtown used to be strong working class industrial neighbourhoods killed by Free Trade. A lot of pain can be laid at the Conservatives' door, but it can be argued that a lot of these losses would have occurred anyway, if perhaps over a longer period of time. On the other hand, Canada's information economy would have had less access to the international market and this sector wouldn't have been so prosperous through the 1990s.

Thus Paul Martin can only receive limited credit for Canada's surplus. As finance minister, he happened to be in the right place at the right time, and he was sensible enough not to go on a spender bender when the fiscal balance turned around so suddenly.

[Bob]

If being rejected by the UN is a badge of honour, why bother with putting up the time and capital required to try and win a seat? The notion that this is a badge of honour is partisan spin to make a serious defeat look less odious.

As for the "moral" position on Israel, I don't know how moral a position can be if we favour one group of people who committ human rights abuses over the other. Just because one group elects the people who committ the absusers and the others don't doesn't make it any more or less moral. Both sides are at fault in the conflict and anything less than neutrality between the two on both sides (people like to automatically take that as being pro-Palestinian, I'm not, I'm anti both sides)is merely playing favourites in a war of cyclical violence both willingly engage in. I'm not an expert but tht's not exactly a moral position, is it?

It was worth going for a seat in order to utilize our influence in a possibly positive way. Either way, Keepitsimple has already made it clear that it is a rigged system, and the reason for the rejection of Canada's bid was simply the anti-Israel Arab and Muslim countries coming together to punish Canada because of Harper's strong support for Israel's basic rights: to exist as the Jewish homeland and to defend itself from harm.

The rest of your post is just typical moral relativism. You make it think that you are building an image of yourself as "fair and balanced" and being opposed to "both sides", but all it does it either demonstrate your ignorance or deceit. Any honest or moral examination of the Israel-Arab conflict instantly reveals that much more blame lies with one side. One side lives and breathes values that resonate with Canadians, the other lives and breathes values that are contrary to those of Canada. I don't want to get into a whole derailment about Israel, but Canada's support of Israel's fundamentals purpose and basic rights is the moral, and unfortunately unpopular, position. Canada holds the moral highground while it loses the seat.

At the end of the day, the seat is pretty insignificant, anyways. Veto power remains with the "big five".

[Army Guy]

Is it just me or did Chretien and Martin run massive surpluses and actually executed on Conservative promises of paying down debt? Oh yeah, that's right, pretty much the only government in the past 40 years to run balanced budgets; surpluses Harper eliminated in a year.

Incorrect. Before the Harper gov ran a budget deficit in 2008-2009, the last time any federal government, including the Harper gov, ran a deficit was 1997.

Stats are your friend: Dept. of Finance Canada

You do realize that I made the argument that the only government to run a surplus was the Chretien/Martin governments. Nothing I said goes against what was said here.

Correct me if i'm wrong here Cretien / martin was in power from 1993 until 2006, that being said it took the liberals until 1998 to run a surplus. thats 5 years of running deficits.

[nicky10013]

It was worth going for a seat in order to utilize our influence in a possibly positive way. Either way, Keepitsimple has already made it clear that it is a rigged system, and the reason for the rejection of Canada's bid was simply the anti-Israel Arab and Muslim countries coming together to punish Canada because of Harper's strong support for Israel's basic rights: to exist as the Jewish homeland and to defend itself from harm.

So when we can win the seat, it's positive, when we can't the system is rigged. Funny, considering we've never lost a vote before and we've always supported Israel's right to exist, seems to me like a good excuse right wingers can latch on to.

The rest of your post is just typical moral relativism. You make it think that you are building an image of yourself as "fair and balanced" and being opposed to "both sides", but all it does it either demonstrate your ignorance or deceit. Any honest or moral examination of the Israel-Arab conflict instantly reveals that much more blame lies with one side. One side lives and breathes values that resonate with Canadians, the other lives and breathes values that are contrary to those of Canada. I don't want to get into a whole derailment about Israel, but Canada's support of Israel's fundamentals purpose and basic rights is the moral, and unfortunately unpopular, position. Canada holds the moral highground while it loses the seat.

At the end of the day, the seat is pretty insignificant, anyways. Veto power remains with the "big five".

I can't see how I'm the one practicing moral relativism. I'm not the one who is trivializing war crimes committed by Israel. If we're going to have a truly moral policy, shouldn't we be applying it to everyone despite what kind of governance they practice? We should be basing our policy by how nations act rather than what they claim to be. If we're willing to give one of two countries a pass that behave the exact same way, that's neither moral nor does that country actually share our values.

[nicky10013]

Correct me if i'm wrong here Cretien / martin was in power from 1993 until 2006, that being said it took the liberals until 1998 to run a surplus. thats 5 years of running deficits.

They still cut which is more than any Conservative party ever did. Which is ironic, because apparently Liberals are tax and spenders yet they're the only party in memory to actually have cut with any meaning. Mulroney spent the most, and taxed the most. Now we have a model of spending hikes and tax cuts which is even more destructive. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but Harper was in deficit before the recession even started, before any stimulus program. He managed to wipe out a 13 billion dollar surplus in 2 years before the economy went in the tubes.

[Army Guy]

They still cut which is more than any Conservative party ever did. Which is ironic, because apparently Liberals are tax and spenders yet they're the only party in memory to actually have cut with any meaning.

I already explain this just up the page, The liberals party bringing about a great surplus is partially a myth, if you look at the programs that the Cons brought in before leaving office, you'll see that all the liberals had to do was keep from spending , everything else was already in play...all they had to do was sit and wait, make a few adjustments take some existing programs and carry them even further....

Mulroney spent the most, and taxed the most.

Actually both parties spent almost equal, keeping in mind the liberals were in power that much longer...

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but Harper was in deficit before the recession even started, before any stimulus program.

by what 5 bil thats huge.....get the rope...

He managed to wipe out a 13 billion dollar surplus in 2 years before the economy went in the tubes.

restoring some of the depts that needed it...But we could piss into the wind all day....my party is bigger than your party...in the End both parties are responsiable for our record debt today, due to poor spending practices, and the last couple years, all parties including the NDP are responsiable for spending to get out of the recession....each had a role to play in spneding that 100 bil we are looking at now..... But we can't have a concenus in Canadian polictics we must find someone to blame this on...because that is the Canadian thing to do....I'd like to fire the whole bunch of them...and start over...

[nicky10013]

I already explain this just up the page, The liberals party bringing about a great surplus is partially a myth, if you look at the programs that the Cons brought in before leaving office, you'll see that all the liberals had to do was keep from spending , everything else was already in play...all they had to do was sit and wait, make a few adjustments take some existing programs and carry them even further....

So, now the argument isn't that the Liberals slashed, but it was everything Mulroney did before the Liberals. You may argue this, but funny enough, other Conservatives also argue against how the Liberals slashed transfers and yes, the military budget. Everything was indeed cut. You already noticed that CAFTA and NAFTA caused the economy to do bettter. You're surely right, it did. However, the uptick in GDP was fairly steady through the mid-90s, so a sudden surge in tax revenue simply due to Free Trade isn't likely. Canada by far gained the most with Free Trade to the US. That wasn't signed in 1994 but 1987 with CAFTA. The money found and used to pay down the debt was from deep cuts that still aren't popular today, as most conservatives here will attest.

Actually both parties spent almost equal, keeping in mind the liberals were in power that much longer...

by what 5 bil thats huge.....get the rope...

From a party that "Defends the Canadian taxpayer" saying 5 billion doesn't mean that much is a telling sign of the true nature of how conservatives really think on fiscal issues. Wow.

restoring some of the depts that needed it...But we could piss into the wind all day....my party is bigger than your party...in the End both parties are responsiable for our record debt today, due to poor spending practices, and the last couple years, all parties including the NDP are responsiable for spending to get out of the recession....each had a role to play in spneding that 100 bil we are looking at now..... But we can't have a concenus in Canadian polictics we must find someone to blame this on...because that is the Canadian thing to do....I'd like to fire the whole bunch of them...and start over...

No one ever said both parties weren't responsible. I just find it hilarious that the right tries to pepper the left with labels of fiscally irresponsible when there's only been one example of fiscal responsibility in recent memory, and funny enough it's been from the center-left. I'd understand if this example was 30 years ago. However, it wasn't. The guy who did it only left office 4 years ago.

[Army Guy]

So, now the argument isn't that the Liberals slashed, but it was everything Mulroney did before the Liberals. You may argue this, but funny enough, other Conservatives also argue against how the Liberals slashed transfers and yes, the military budget. Everything was indeed cut.

No thats not the piont, I all my posts i have clearly shown that both parties are equally responsiable for running up the debt, I also clearly shown it was all parties that had a hand in spending the over 100 bil in recession spending....

As for the budget surpluses well i clearly showed that it was a combined effort, Cons policys and programs that were set up prior to leaving, Yes the liberals did twqeak them carry them alittle bit further but without one or the other there would be no surplueses we had seen. So tech it was not all the liberals doing which created the surplueses.

To Sum up both parties put us in a mess, and both parties had a role to play in the recovery...and it was all parties that have us in the current bind...

You already noticed that CAFTA and NAFTA caused the economy to do bettter. You're surely right, it did. However, the uptick in GDP was fairly steady through the mid-90s, so a sudden surge in tax revenue simply due to Free Trade isn't likely. Canada by far gained the most with Free Trade to the US.

Not so fast, By signing the Free Trade Agreement and by launching NAFTA, the Conservatives subjected our aging industries to competition from the American south and Mexico, and bankruptcies bloomed. A lot of pain can be laid at the Conservatives' door, but it can be argued that a lot of these losses would have occurred anyway, if perhaps over a longer period of time. On the other hand, Canada's information economy would have had less access to the international market and this sector wouldn't have been so prosperous through the 1990s.

Canada did very well in the information economy and while it may not have shown in directly in the GDP figures, Wages where higher, the stock market took way off, yes many lost thier shirts, but more made fists full of cash in the right investments, if you look at the whole picture houseing starts , basic wages it all spells out the money is flowing, for most people....

From a party that "Defends the Canadian taxpayer" saying 5 billion doesn't mean that much is a telling sign of the true nature of how conservatives really think on fiscal issues. Wow.

5 bil in todays world is peanuts and you know that, crap we spent a bil on the games a bil on the summit, 5 bil perhaps on reconstruction of the parliment.

No one ever said both parties weren't responsible.

Actually if you look at the posts they are all defending thier parties, everyones cock is in thier hands proving thier's is bigger, all i was trying to do was get everyone to put them back in their pants and agree, to that very thing both parties are equally responsiable....

Edited November 17, 2010 by Army Guy

[Moonlight Graham]

You do realize that I made the argument that the only government to run a surplus was the Chretien/Martin governments. Nothing I said goes against what was said here.

Yes it does. The Harper gov ran a budget surplus in fiscal years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, before the recession. And their surpluses were greater than most of the Liberal surpluses. But i give great credit to Chretien/Martin for turning around the debt-spiral.

[nicky10013]

No thats not the piont, I all my posts i have clearly shown that both parties are equally responsiable for running up the debt, I also clearly shown it was all parties that had a hand in spending the over 100 bil in recession spending....

I never disputed that.

As for the budget surpluses well i clearly showed that it was a combined effort, Cons policys and programs that were set up prior to leaving, Yes the liberals did twqeak them carry them alittle bit further but without one or the other there would be no surplueses we had seen. So tech it was not all the liberals doing which created the surplueses.

I disagree. Canada's economy was doing quite well through the mid 90s. A balanced budget didn't return until the Liberals cut.

To Sum up both parties put us in a mess, and both parties had a role to play in the recovery...and it was all parties that have us in the current bind...

The world economy gave us a mess. We export 80% of our goods to the US. When they go into recession, so do we. Neither of the two parties put us into a recession. What gave us the mess we're in today is the stupid GST cut. No economist endorsed a GST cut, but it was politically popular so there ya go. It eliminated giant amounts of revenue, revenue that could've gone towards reducing the debt. The recession we went through was clearly visible a year away. Everyone saw it coming when the housing bubble burst in the US in 2007. Harper could've used that extra money he pissed away by paying down debt and putting money towards re-training programs and EI reform before it even hit. No, though, he decided to not do any of that. The economist that he is in the 2008 election denied that a recession would ever take place despite the stock market crashes a month earlier. By that time we were already in deficit anyway. He took our sound financial position which Paul Martin created through smart regulation and the refusal to allow banks to merge and shattered it. We've had a terribly slow recovery ever since. We're doing alright, but we're not doing very well, near the bottom of the pack for the G8. We could've been in a much better position coming out of this.

No one is denying the ownership over stimulus either. The Liberals NDP and Bloc absolutely wanted stimulus. The CPC didn't. No wonder none of the money was spent when it was actually needed to be spent.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Much+stimulus+funding+untouched+last+year/3827542/story.html

Instead of actually funding projects that would've created jobs and updated vital infrastructuer, of which we run a horrendous deficit of investment, most of it went to prok projects in conservative ridings and non-conservative swing ridings.

Would the Liberals have done the same? Maybe. Unfortunately, though, this isn't about what the Liberals did or didn't do, this is about the CPC record. Unfortunately, it wasn't handled very well.

Not so fast, By signing the Free Trade Agreement and by launching NAFTA, the Conservatives subjected our aging industries to competition from the American south and Mexico, and bankruptcies bloomed. A lot of pain can be laid at the Conservatives' door, but it can be argued that a lot of these losses would have occurred anyway, if perhaps over a longer period of time. On the other hand, Canada's information economy would have had less access to the international market and this sector wouldn't have been so prosperous through the 1990s.

I don't disagree at all. My only point was the economy was blooming already. The economy was growing at about a 3.5% clip per year. The country was still in deficit. Martin cut federal spending by 4 percent which is a pretty huge number.

Canada did very well in the information economy and while it may not have shown in directly in the GDP figures, Wages where higher, the stock market took way off, yes many lost thier shirts, but more made fists full of cash in the right investments, if you look at the whole picture houseing starts , basic wages it all spells out the money is flowing, for most people....

5 bil in todays world is peanuts and you know that, crap we spent a bil on the games a bil on the summit, 5 bil perhaps on reconstruction of the parliment.

I know that, but that wasn't my point. If you want to say 5 billion dollars is nothing, you best not use the term "fiscally responsible" when talking about yourself or "tax and spender" when it comes to Liberals.

Actually if you look at the posts they are all defending thier parties, everyones cock is in thier hands proving thier's is bigger, all i was trying to do was get everyone to put them back in their pants and agree, to that very thing both parties are equally responsiable....

For the debt, I guess. However, for fiscal responsibility, one cock is indeed bigger whether you'll admit it or not.

[Bob]

So when we can win the seat, it's positive, when we can't the system is rigged. Funny, considering we've never lost a vote before and we've always supported Israel's right to exist, seems to me like a good excuse right wingers can latch on to.

I can't see how I'm the one practicing moral relativism. I'm not the one who is trivializing war crimes committed by Israel. If we're going to have a truly moral policy, shouldn't we be applying it to everyone despite what kind of governance they practice? We should be basing our policy by how nations act rather than what they claim to be. If we're willing to give one of two countries a pass that behave the exact same way, that's neither moral nor does that country actually share our values.

The system is rigged whether or not Canada secures the seat. Canada would have had an opportunity to advance a positive agenda within the system, but alas, Canada was denied based on anti-Israel politicization. Strangely, it ve seems that you are rejecting the obvious: that the anti-Israel crowd came together to oppose Canada's bid in a move to punish Canada for Harper's strong support for Israel.

Certainly Canada has always supported Israel's right to exist, but this position has been expressed with mixed signals. Without going into specifics, one cannot genuinely support Israel's right to exist (as the Jewish state) in one breathe while undermining its right to self-defence in the next breathe. Canada has not always been a solid supporter of Israel, and has occassionally skirted the untenable position of equating the morality of both sides, with absurd statements that implied equal culpability for the current situation on both sides.

Your "war crime" comment isn't worth addressing.

[nicky10013]

The system is rigged whether or not Canada secures the seat. Canada would have had an opportunity to advance a positive agenda within the system, but alas, Canada was denied based on anti-Israel politicization. Strangely, it ve seems that you are rejecting the obvious: that the anti-Israel crowd came together to oppose Canada's bid in a move to punish Canada for Harper's strong support for Israel.

Ok, so let's take a step back and take stock of the entire situation. Germany and Portugal are staunch defenders of Israel as well. Ironically, Germany is Israel's largest trade partner and they have a long history of larger military cooperation. If it's ALL about Israel, then why did Germany have a chance?

Certainly Canada has always supported Israel's right to exist, but this position has been expressed with mixed signals. Without going into specifics, one cannot genuinely support Israel's right to exist (as the Jewish state) in one breathe while undermining its right to self-defence in the next breathe. Canada has not always been a solid supporter of Israel, and has occassionally skirted the untenable position of equating the morality of both sides, with absurd statements that implied equal culpability for the current situation on both sides.

Your "war crime" comment isn't worth addressing.

It isn't worth addressing because it's true and undermines your entire line of argument. No one here is arguing that Israel shouldn't be able to defend itself. People critique the way in which it defends itself. Destroying entire apartment blocks because one person who attacked Israel is collective punishment and only makes things worse. What about the use of white phosphorous? What about the bombing of hospitals? Considering how technically advanced the Israeli Army is, they have options. I had a friend who went back to Lebanon. His village is on the Lebanese-Israeli border. HE went down to the ocean where the border fence is visible and the IDF shot at him.

Don't get me wrong, Israel has a right and should be able to defend itself. However, both sides provoke each other every day. There is no right in this conflict, only wrong.

As for Canada's position, it was always what it should have been. If we're going to condemn criminal behaviour, we should be condemning it evenely regardless of what country they may be. If we don't, what's the point of having standards at all?

[Army Guy]

No thats not the piont, I all my posts i have clearly shown that both parties are equally responsiable for running up the debt, I also clearly shown it was all parties that had a hand in spending the over 100 bil in recession spending....

I never disputed that.

I'm easy to confuse so bear with me, you agree here that both parties are responsiable for running up the debt, but at the end of your post you say one party was more fiscal responsiable than the other.....

I think what you won't admit is that Mulrony government did sset in place the foundations to fiscal responsibilities and the liberals took it a step further....

For the debt, I guess. However, for fiscal responsibility, one cock is indeed bigger whether you'll admit it or not.

disagree. Canada's economy was doing quite well through the mid 90s. A balanced budget didn't return until the Liberals cut.

the question should be why was Canada's economy doing quite well, and lets face it cuts were needed to some extent, but the liberals did pounce on some easy targets such as the PS pension, and UI surplues....easy money and can account for almost half of claimed fiscal debt reduction....

One more question while we are on target , what was their plan to recover from the cuts...i mean one can only cut for so long then one needs to reinvest into depts that were cut...i'm just curious...or perhaps that failing fell to the cons...

The world economy gave us a mess. We export 80% of our goods to the US. When they go into recession, so do we. Neither of the two parties put us into a recession.

SO we had all our eggs into one basket, does that sound like fiscal responsibilty to you, just a question. Having a huge debt load during a recession can't be a plus, i would think it would be a big minus, so really both parties failed to plan for the rainy day...such as a recession i mean they come and go, fairly often, don't you agree we should atleast have a plan....

What gave us the mess we're in today is the stupid GST cut. No economist endorsed a GST cut, but it was politically popular so there ya go. It eliminated giant amounts of revenue, revenue that could've gone towards reducing the debt.

Really how much revenue is generated off the GST, federal figures don't show it as a huge money maker, but i will agree with you it was not a smart move,

No one is denying the ownership over stimulus either. The Liberals NDP and Bloc absolutely wanted stimulus. The CPC didn't. No wonder none of the money was spent when it was actually needed to be spent.

I personal don't think it's a smart way to do bussiness, spending your way out of a recession....i mean since we all take ownership then we all can blame us for this current deficit....I do agree with you that this money could have been better spent, however when in a minority government you have alot of hands out...and alot of demands being made...by all parties....

[bloodyminded]

but alas, Canada was denied based on anti-Israel politicization. Strangely, it ve seems that you are rejecting the obvious: that the anti-Israel crowd came together to oppose Canada's bid in a move to punish Canada for Harper's strong support for Israel.

You keep saying this, but offer exactly zero evidence.