Conservative Economic Competence

[TTM]

I'm not sure I understand how the Conservatives can run as the party of fiscal responsibility. A "brief" summery of their actions on the economy would seem to indicate middling competence at best:

(1) Inherited a government on sound financial footings with consistent surpluses on the order of ~$10 billion

(2) In opposition, they constantly railed against this as being an example of how Canadians are overtaxed, despite the obvious observation that if a country is not making surpluses and paying off debt in the good times, what happens in the bad?

(3) On getting in power, they implemented a populist and widely panned (by economists) tax cut -- the 2% GST reduction, estimated to cost on the order of 15 billion annually

(4) At the same time they were also lowering business taxes -- not necessarily a bad thing, but not necessarily a good thing. Lowering an uncompetitive rate should help grow the economy and increase the tax base. Lowering an already competitive rate is an inefficient and expensive measure.

(5) Closed income trust loophole. This was a good policy, though ham-fistedly implemented. Also, this was after railing against the Liberal party for trying to do the same thing. While coming to your senses is a good thing, when you're the last person to realize the problem, that doesn't say much for your abilities.

(6) At the same time as reducing the governments tax income, they were increasing government expenditures at well above the rate of inflation.

(7) Shortly before the American housing crisis caused the recession, greatly loosened the requirements for purchasing a home -- went from 10% down, 25 year term to 0% down for 40 year term. I remember because I was buying a house at the time. At the time I thought the idea of purchasing a house over 40 years was retarded.

(8) As the US economy started to go down the toilet, continually denied there would be a recession.

(9) Told Canadians now was a good time to be participating in the stock market. It then collapsed.

(10) Introduced a budget that contained no response to the recession, and instead contained petty partisan tricks

(11) Was forced by a combined opposition into introducing a stimulus package. This seems to be what most people point to when they talk about the Conservative response to the recession, and they had to be brought to it, kicking and screaming. And the massive deficit spending has got to stick in the craw if you are an actual fiscal conservative. At least it appears this package was implemented competently. I'm firmly of the belief that this spending was mostly unnecessary, and the soundness of the underlying economy are what got us through the economy relatively unscathed. And these fundamentals were primarily due to the policies of the Liberals and the PCs before them (see (0), (1), etc).

(12) Blew $1B+ on the G8/G20 meetings, in an attempt to shine our tarnished international rep, only to be snubbed in their bid to get a seat on the UN security council.

(13) In the ongoing fiasco to replace Canada's Sea Kings, the Liberals chose the CH-148 Cyclone, a manipulated contract to purchase an untested, bleeding edge helicopter. Supposed to be delivered in 2008, will now not be delivered to 2013 (I believe "interim" helicopters have been delivered). Including the cost of delays and changes, the initial $5B contract will end up costing billions more. Now history repeats with the CF-18 replacement.

(14) Instead of a mild deficit (see (2)), had the conservatives not implemented (3), (4), and (6) because Canadians were "overtaxed" , they instead managed to break all deficit records when the bottom dropped out.

(15) Realizing the idiocy of (7) due to the overheating housing market, and what happened in the US, but apparently not wanting to admit it, they partially reversed the changes to the minimum requirements, now 5% over 35years, and tweeked a few other lending rules. This didn't work, so they again went back and tweeked the rules. Time will tell if they have to revisit this a fourth time.

(16) They claim they will balance the budget by 2015, but with little or nothing in the way of tax increases or spending cuts, seems to be of the "and a miracle occurs" method of budgeting.

The Conservatives call the other parties "Tax-and-Spend". While not my preference (and somewhat misrepresenting the actual policies), it is much better than a consistent pattern of "Cut-and-Spend". Every conservative government that has tried it has failed, leaving it to their successors to clean up the mess.

Edited April 6, 2011 by TTM

[Bryan]

Where did you cut and paste this from?

[TTM]

Where did you cut and paste this from?

My brain. With some help from my appendages (not saying which ones...)

[Bryan]

My brain. With some help from my appendages (not saying which ones...)

Does your brain actually believe this list, or are you just trolling for arguments?

[TTM]

Does your brain actually believe this list, or are you just trolling for arguments?

Feel free to refute any of it. I posted it for comment, not because I think it looks pretty.

I've always been annoyed at the conventional wisdom that conservatives were better at managing a national economy, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Of the governments I have a passing familiarity with, we have Mulroney, Devine, Bush, and now (to a lesser extent) Harper. Compare to Cretien, Romanow, and Clinton. Not saying left-wing govt's are always better (obviously not), but they don't seem to get the free pass.

[RNG]

Feel free to refute any of it. I posted it for comment, not because I think it looks pretty.

I've always been annoyed at the conventional wisdom that conservatives were better at managing a national economy, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Of the governments I have a passing familiarity with, we have Mulroney, Devine, Bush, and now (to a lesser extent) Harper. Compare to Cretien, Romanow, and Clinton. Not saying left-wing govt's are always better (obviously not), but they don't seem to get the free pass.

I know this is what all kinds of apologists say, but still I think it is true in this instance. Harper had the misfortune of gaining power at the time of a world-wild recession. Sucks to he him. And still the Cons lead the polls. Must mean that Iggy and Jack really suck.

[TTM]

I know this is what all kinds of apologists say, but still I think it is true in this instance. Harper had the misfortune of gaining power at the time of a world-wild recession.

And yet most of my beefs with Harper are with his policies on the run-up to the recession, which I saw as short-sited, and his lack of a plan for how to get out of debt now.

Edited April 5, 2011 by TTM

[Oleg Bach]

Conservative economics are like the potential fighter jet deal - spend your money on a big club and lean it by your door just in case there is an aggressive intruder. Better safe than sorry. Not to spend money on a weapon could suddenly if not rarely become tragic...if you need it - it's there. It is not competent to spend money on things of no value or of poor quality...just to make your friends rich - like those 20 million dollar garbage cans with the twenty moving parts - that a provincial liberals stuck as with because they looked cool....a conservative would have used a twenty five dollar trash bin....and put the rest of the money in the bank - conserved it like a good conservative does.

[charter.rights]

I know this is what all kinds of apologists say, but still I think it is true in this instance. Harper had the misfortune of gaining power at the time of a world-wild recession. Sucks to he him. And still the Cons lead the polls. Must mean that Iggy and Jack really suck.

Harper became PM 3 years before the recession and in those 3 years had spent us into a $16 billion deficit from the $13 billion surplus he was handed by Paul Martin. The recession did add to it, but the stimulus does not include the $1 billion party he hosted, or the yet to be delivered $100 billion jets he purchase in contravention of the government purchasing laws. Those kinds of things will put us over the $75 billion deficit mark.

As far as deficits go, Harper has spent more money and created a bigger debt than any other Prime Minister in history - even more than Brain Mulroney. If he was such a good money manager how is it that he has reckless spent more than any other PM in history?

Edited April 5, 2011 by charter.rights

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe he relizes that money is worthless? That you should spend as much as you can print - and more...What difference will it make to manage what does not exist. Let papa Harper spend all the money...as long as he sends some your way and mine...If his spending only enriches a certain class - then papa Harper should stop being corrupt. Fairness is the key to anti-corruption...As my dad said..."there are others"....all must survive.

[Shakeyhands]

Does your brain actually believe this list, or are you just trolling for arguments?

I see that you don't know how this site works. Basically, someone types something, they back up what they are saying and then other posters attempt to refute the statements. it's kinda fun, go ahead and give it a whirl!

[Oleg Bach]

I see that you don't know how this site works. Basically, someone types something, they back up what they are saying and then other posters attempt to refute the statements. it's kinda fun, go ahead and give it a whirl!

Problem is if you want a good debate, it takes good research on the part of both parties. That's a lot of wasted energy and hard work in deed! My suggestion is to attempt to out logic the guy....or maybe even convince them that you know what you are talking about - a good con gains confidence though having confidence based in fraud.

[William Ashley]

Feel free to refute any of it. I posted it for comment, not because I think it looks pretty.

I've always been annoyed at the conventional wisdom that conservatives were better at managing a national economy, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Of the governments I have a passing familiarity with, we have Mulroney, Devine, Bush, and now (to a lesser extent) Harper. Compare to Cretien, Romanow, and Clinton. Not saying left-wing govt's are always better (obviously not), but they don't seem to get the free pass.

Don't mind Bryan he is a conservative troll/strawman

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Straw_Man

Edited April 5, 2011 by William Ashley

[August1991]

You make some good points, TTM.

(0) While in opposition, was in favor of deregulating the Canadian banking system.

That's an exaggeration. Indeed, the Tories are the only federal party to have made a serious attempt to unify Canada's financial regulation bodies.

(1) Inherited a government on sound financial footings with consistent surpluses on the order of ~$10 billion

(2) In opposition, they constantly railed against this as being an example of how Canadians are overtaxed, despite the obvious observation that if a country is not making surpluses and paying off debt in the good times, what happens in the bad?

You can judge households by their surplus/deficit but that's the entirely wrong way to judge the federal government.

As to taxes, you failed to mention the TFSA - a major innovation.

(3) On getting in power, they implemented a populist and widely panned (by economists) tax cut -- the 2% GST reduction, estimated to cost on the order of 15 billion annually

Since when is leaving money in the hands of citizens a "cost"? But look, I agree that the GST-cut was bad economics but it was very astute politics.

(4) At the same time they were also lowering business taxes -- not necessarily a bad thing, but not necessarily a good thing. Lowering an uncompetitive rate should help grow the economy and increase the tax base. Lowering an already competitive rate is an inefficient and expensive measure.

On what basis do you make this claim that "Lowering an already competitive rate is an inefficient and expensive measure"?

(5) Closed income trust loophole. This was a good policy, though ham-fistedly implemented. Also, this was after railing against the Liberal party for trying to do the same thing. While coming to your senses is a good thing, when you're the last person to realize the problem, that doesn't say much for your abilities.

This became a serious issue when the Tories happened to be in government. The whole thing was not their fault - and BTW, income trust popularity puts a lie to your argument above about corporate taxes.

(6) At the same time as reducing the governments tax income, they were increasing government expenditures at well above the rate of inflation.

That's debateable. Government spending/revenues are best viewed as a percentage of GDP - not in absolute terms.

The sad thing is that the default setting for modern government is to increase government share of GDP. It's a trend of the last 100 years or so.

(7) Shortly before the American housing crisis caused the recession, greatly loosened the requirements for purchasing a home -- went from 10% down, 25 year term to 0% down for 40 year term. I remember because I was buying a house at the time. At the time I thought the idea of purchasing a house over 40 years was retarded.

I have no problem with a 40 year mortgage. It depends on the circumstances. By and large, Canada's basic financial conservatism - not regulation or mortgage rules - protected us against a housing bubble.

(8) As the US economy started to go down the toilet, continually denied there would be a recession.

(9) Told Canadians now was a good time to be participating in the stock market. It then collapsed.

(10) Introduced a budget that contained no response to the recession, and instead contained petty partisan tricks

(11) Was forced by a combined opposition into introducing a stimulus package. This seems to be what most people point to when they talk about the Conservative response to the recession, and they had to be brought to it, kicking and screaming. And the massive deficit spending has got to stick in the craw if you are an actual fiscal conservative. At least it appears this package was implemented competently. I'm firmly of the belief that this spending was mostly unnecessary, and the soundness of the underlying economy are what got us through the economy relatively unscathed. And these fundamentals were primarily due to the policies of the Liberals and the PCs before them (see (0), (1), etc).

You are re-writing history here.

The stimulus package, by international standards, was modest and appropriate. Harper was right to encourage people to buy shares when he did. (Imagine if he had said the opposite.) Anyway, if you had followed his advice, you would be up about 50% by now.

(12) Blew $1B+ on the G8/G20 meetings, in an attempt to shine our tarnished international rep, only to be snubbed in their bid to get a seat on the UN security council.

I agree. I still don't know where the money went. About $200 million was in police overtime, I think.

(13) In the ongoing fiasco to replace Canada's Sea Kings, the Liberals chose the CH-148 Cyclone, a manipulated contract to purchase an untested, bleeding edge helicopter. Supposed to be delivered in 2008, will now not be delivered to 2013 (I believe "interim" helicopters have been delivered). Including the cost of delays and changes, the initial $5B contract will end up costing billions more. Now history repeats with the CF-18 replacement.

Both parties share some blame here but the Liberals more so.

I don't much about this but I trust Worthington's judgment.

(14) Instead of a mild deficit (see (2)), had the conservatives not implemented (3), (4), and (6) because Canadians were "overtaxed" , they instead managed to break all deficit records when the bottom dropped out.

We don't have a record deficit whether by historical or international standards. Anyway, government deficits don't matter like household deficits do.

The Conservatives call the other parties "Tax-and-Spend". While not my preference (and somewhat misrepresenting the actual policies), it is much better than a consistent pattern of "Cut-and-Spend". Every conservative government that has tried it has failed, leaving it to their successors to clean up the mess.

Shortly after taking office, the Conservatives faced a severe recession in the US.

First, it is striking for any government to get re-elected in the mdist of a recession. The Tories are well on their way to doing this. (Watch how difficult it is going to be for Obama to pull the same stunt in 2012.)

Second, as a fiscal conservative, what alternative do I have? Ignatieff just promised to spend $8 billion more. And his only hope to form a government will rely on NDP/Bloc support. It was in 1972-74 that Trudeau first earned his reputation as a spendthrift.

Edited April 5, 2011 by August1991

[Moonbox]

(0) While in opposition, was in favor of deregulating the Canadian banking system.

Yes. He wanted to allow foreign banks in to increase competition. That's not a bad thing. He also allowed for 40 year mortgages, which really didn't do anything but inflate the real estate market (Canada's default rates were minimal) and he's since reversed this all the way down to 30 years max.

(1) Inherited a government on sound financial footings with consistent surpluses on the order of ~$10 billion

and Harper maintained the surplus until the recession. What a stupid remark. As if Paul Martin could have avoided a deficit......

(2) In opposition, they constantly railed against this as being an example of how Canadians are overtaxed, despite the obvious observation that if a country is not making surpluses and paying off debt in the good times, what happens in the bad?

It all boils down to taxes. If we have less of a surplus because of lower taxes, I'm not worried. If we have less of a surplus because he's blowing his load like Trudeau on social programs, then I have a problem.

(3) On getting in power, they implemented a populist and widely panned (by economists) tax cut -- the 2% GST reduction, estimated to cost on the order of 15 billion annually

A good think. I like lower taxes.

(4) At the same time they were also lowering business taxes -- not necessarily a bad thing, but not necessarily a good thing. Lowering an uncompetitive rate should help grow the economy and increase the tax base. Lowering an already competitive rate is an inefficient and expensive measure.

Explain why our manufacturing base has been shrinking for the last decade, despite our lower tax rate. They need any advantage they can get. At any rate, I'm all for lower federal taxes. So much of the money collected just ends up getting sent to Quebec anyways so they can smoke and complain on welfare.

(5) Closed income trust loophole. This was a good policy,

Enough said.

(6) At the same time as reducing the governments tax income, they were increasing government expenditures at well above the rate of inflation.

True, and something I'm not happy about, but remembering Dion's election promises, as well as Ignatieff's claims that Harper wasn't spending enough to stimulate the economy, the critism is irrelevant in comparison.

(8) As the US economy started to go down the toilet, continually denied there would be a recession.

He didn't know. It didnd't hurt anyone either.

(9) Told Canadians now was a good time to be participating in the stock market. It then collapsed.

No, it had already collapsed. That's why he said it. It WAS a great time to participate in the stock market. I made 60% on my portfolio that year. Buy low and sell high.

(10) Introduced a budget that contained no response to the recession, and instead contained petty partisan tricks

LoLoL now you're really reaching. This criticism is nothing but hack partisan garbage.

(11) Was forced by a combined opposition into introducing a stimulus package. This seems to be what most people point to when they talk about the Conservative response to the recession, and they had to be brought to it, kicking and screaming.

You're double-dipping here, just like Ignatieff. You can't criticize Harper's deficits AND criticize him for not including large amounts of stimulus in his original budget. If what you're saying is true, then the deficit is the opposition's fault.

[ToadBrother]

You're double-dipping here, just like Ignatieff. You can't criticize Harper's deficits AND criticize him for not including large amounts of stimulus in his original budget. If what you're saying is true, then the deficit is the opposition's fault.

It's Parliament's fault.

[M.Dancer]

Feel free to refute any of it. I posted it for comment, not because I think it looks pretty.

Feel free to cite your claims

[Moonbox]

It's Parliament's fault.

What's your point?

[ToadBrother]

What's your point?

My point is that they're all to blame, if there's any blame to be made about the stimulus spending. Any party blaming any other party for it is being hypocritical.

[Moonbox]

My point is that they're all to blame, if there's any blame to be made about the stimulus spending. Any party blaming any other party for it is being hypocritical.

Yes sorry. That's kind of what I'm trying to say I can't disagree with that.

[charter.rights]

My point is that they're all to blame, if there's any blame to be made about the stimulus spending. Any party blaming any other party for it is being hypocritical.

No. I'm pretty sure that wasting $25 million on signs promoting Harper is not a decision of Parliament. As well Harper got to decide who got the money...and wouldn't you know it the bulk of the stimulus spending was done in Tory ridings. Parliament isn't responsible for that either.

[Tilter]

Feel free to refute any of it. I posted it for comment, not because I think it looks pretty.

I've always been annoyed at the conventional wisdom that conservatives were better at managing a national economy, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Of the governments I have a passing familiarity with, we have Mulroney, Devine, Bush, and now (to a lesser extent) Harper. Compare to Cretien, Romanow, and Clinton. Not saying left-wing govt's are always better (obviously not), but they don't seem to get the free pass.

In the past liberal governmental experiences show that the they do know how to manipulate money. Show us how they manipulated money that was best for Canada as a whole not a better for the liberal party as seen in ADSCAM .

The liberals have great experience as money handlers (among party members) but let's talk about money management with Canada as benefactor.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Tilter

[ToadBrother]

In the past liberal governmental experiences show that the they do know how to manipulate money. Show us how they manipulated money that was best for Canada as a whole not a better for the liberal party as seen in ADSCAM .

The liberals have great experience as money handlers (among party members) but let's talk about money management with Canada as benefactor.

2004 called and wants its election talking points back.

[Jack Weber]

2004 called and wants its election talking points back.

It's a Co-Opalition NOT a Coalition!!!

Got it???

Oh...wait a minute...

Edited April 5, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Shwa]

2004 called and wants its election talking points back.