Conservative Economic Competence

Bryan · April 5, 2011

2004 called and wants its election talking points back.

Soldiers. In Our Streets. With. Guns.

RNG · April 5, 2011

Soldiers. In Our Streets. With. Guns.

No, silly, that's Conservative soldiers. Don't you know anything???///??

ironstone · April 5, 2011

Hey TTM this was fun!Now can you write something about Liberal honesty,integrity and trust? :lol:

TTM · April 6, 2011

That's an exaggeration.

Agreed. I wasn't certain of my memory of that one, and it was late. That's why it was 0 rather than 1. I will remove it.

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

So you don't think governments should run surpluses and pay off debt during the "good" times? When should they perform these actions? Are they to be barred by law from running debts during recessions? I don't see anything invalid with the comment.

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

So I did. Also good policy. Doesn't help me as I have a tax-free savings vehicle attached to a UL policy from before the introduction of the TFSA.

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.

When it is poor economic policy. Government provides a number of fundamental services. Money isn't always worth more in the citizens hand rather than the govt's. There is a cost/benefit to any taxation decision. This one was mostly cost to little benefit.

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

Any tax decision is requires a cost/benefit analysis. It is also a complex problem, and I don't claim to know what the right taxation rate is 18%, 15.5.%, 50%, 2%. So I come at the problem from basic logic. If lowering the rate has a significant effect, then either it isn't competitive, or you've lowered it so far that you hope to win a race to the bottom. Also, the tax rate isn't the only thing companies look at when investing in Canada. To think that a percentage or two plus or minus is going to have companies flocking to or leaving in droves is unrealistic. It might nudge them one way or another, but I doubt in most cases it is the deal maker or breaker. Unless the rate is uncompetitive.

This became a serious issue when the Tories happened to be in government. The whole thing was not their fault -

Perhaps because they said definitively they would not tax the trusts, thereby effectively signaling open season.

and BTW, income trust popularity puts a lie to your argument above about corporate taxes.

I didn't say companies didn't like lower taxes. I said done wrongly, tax breaks are expensive and inefficient. The fact that the Conservatives closed that loophole proves me right.

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

Government spending/revenues are best viewed by whatever terms makes your party look good or the other party look bad

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.

And yet we now have debt levels higher than the US. Mostly due to increased house purchasing. Mostly due to low interest rates and relaxed lending rules.

You are re-writing history here.

Nope

The stimulus package, by international standards, was modest and appropriate.

So he you agree he was wrong not to introduce a package, and the opposition was right to force him into it?

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.

I did, and I am. But that's not what he meant. He was trying to tell Canadians there would be no crash, their money was safe. Blowing smoke up our collective asses is not helpful.

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

The Liberals are entirely to blame for the choppers (unless you know something I don't). The jet deal has all the hallmarks of that definition of insanity... (or if you prefer, those who do not study history...)

Anyway, government deficits don't matter like household deficits do.

Says every government that runs up a deficit. How are Greece and Ireland doing? and the rest of the PIGS. How much interest are we paying on the debt?

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.

Should the Liberals form a minority, they can govern just as the Conservatives have. And the Conservatives will be placed in the same position as the Liberals have for the last 5 years. It is entirely possible that a number of the spendthrift promises would be jettisoned on the alter of "compromise" with the Conservatives. It makes the Liberals look fiscally competent, and yet most of the blame for broken promises is deflected onto the Conservatives.

Also, you really shouldn't mention Trudeau, without counterbalancing Mulroney and Cretien.

TTM · April 6, 2011

Explain why our manufacturing base has been shrinking for the last decade, despite our lower tax rate.

Goes to show the limits of tax policy

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

Everybody around him seemed to know. His opponents seemed to know. Most economists seemed to know. For a supposed economist himself, it doesn't speak well to his competence.

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.

No I criticize him for taking credit for policy that wasn't his. And for weakening the governments finances for populist tax gimmicks.

cybercoma · April 6, 2011

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?

Think about it though. It's brilliant. When the next left-leaning party gets into power, they'll be so far in debt that they won't possibly be able to implement any of their social policies. This will make them ineffectual and lead people back into the arms of the Conservatives. Genius.

WWWTT · April 6, 2011

Excellent thread TTM

Two of Harpers big wig economic specialists are Clement and Flarety who have a bad track record out of the Harris mess up.

Clement couldn't even win a seat for like three or four elections in a row and Harper gives this guy a high profile potfolio,no wonder we have the largest deficit in Canadian history.

Who needs the big taxing and spend NDP when you have the reckless shortsighted Harper conservatives.At least with the NDP your tax dollar will be spent on infrastructure,education,health care and long term solutions.

But ultimately they are not to blame.

After all we live in a democracy,the blame belongs to the people who voted for the conservatives!

WWWTT

cybercoma · April 6, 2011

After all we live in a democracy

We live in a democratic country, yes. But let's be clear here, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a parliamentary monarchy.

charter.rights · April 6, 2011

We live in a democratic country, yes. But let's be clear here, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a parliamentary monarchy.

Technically,yes. However practically it is an oligarchy.

M.Dancer · April 6, 2011

Technically,yes. However practically it is an oligarchy.

Technically, yes. However it is a democratically elected oligarchy.

Bryan · April 6, 2011

Canada to lead growth, says OECD

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/Canada+lead+growth+says+OECD/4560813/story.html

Canada is set to lead all Group of Seven countries in real GDP growth in the first half of 2011, said the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Tuesday in an interim economic outlook

In an analysis of G7 countries, Canada leads the pack – as it expects annualized first-quarter GDP growth of 5.2% and 3.8% in the April-to-June period, besting projections from its peers. In its last full economic forecast in November, the OECD had forecast that Canada would record annualized growth of 2.4% in the first quarter and 2.6% in the second.
Economists say Canada is on track for first-quarter growth in the 4%-plus range after a strong January report.

Out pacing the G7, outpacing most economists forecasts too. Kevin page? Ha! Remember what our economy was like under the Liberals whenever the US economy took even a slight downturn? The saying was "they get a cold, we get pneumonia".

ToadBrother · April 6, 2011

Canada to lead growth, says OECD

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/Canada+lead+growth+says+OECD/4560813/story.html

Out pacing the G7, outpacing most economists forecasts too. Kevin page? Ha! Remember what our economy was like under the Liberals whenever the US economy took even a slight downturn? The saying was "they get a cold, we get pneumonia".

As I've been saying, status quo is good. Another Tory minority, no one can f*** things up because everyone is preoccupied with political battles.

Moonbox · April 6, 2011

Think about it though. It's brilliant. When the next left-leaning party gets into power, they'll be so far in debt that they won't possibly be able to implement any of their social policies. This will make them ineffectual and lead people back into the arms of the Conservatives. Genius.

That's exactly what Trudeau did coincidentally.

Bonam · April 6, 2011

In an analysis of G7 countries, Canada leads the pack – as it expects annualized first-quarter GDP growth of 5.2% and 3.8% in the April-to-June period, besting projections from its peers.

That's a really quick growth rate for a developed country. Good to see that we are out of the recession and back into prosperous boom times.

blueblood · April 6, 2011

As I've been saying, status quo is good. Another Tory minority, no one can f*** things up because everyone is preoccupied with political battles.

And the status quo was falling corporate tax rates.

According to you a tory minority means the govt lasts 30 days until the throne speech where ignatieff votes non confidence with a good chance of the other party's following suit. And we all know what the gong show wants to do with the govt coffers...

But let's have another minority and more wasteful games.

ToadBrother · April 6, 2011

And the status quo was falling corporate tax rates.

According to you a tory minority means the govt lasts 30 days until the throne speech where ignatieff votes non confidence with a good chance of the other party's following suit. And we all know what the gong show wants to do with the govt coffers...

But let's have another minority and more wasteful games.

It's not like the Tories were any major spendthrifts, but if the economy is doing so well while everyone plays Parliamentary leapfrog, then I say keep the politicians busy.

bloodyminded · April 6, 2011

It's not like the Tories were any major spendthrifts, but if the economy is doing so well while everyone plays Parliamentary leapfrog, then I say keep the politicians busy.

!!!!!

Why, that's quite a good point.

Since the positive economics have occurred under a minority government (in which, as we're repeatedly reminded by Harper's supporters, the Opposition parties must share much of the blame--and, presumably, the credit)....why in hell would we assume a majority government would be an improvement?

The devil you know is better than the speculative, partisan majority fantasy you don't.......

blueblood · April 6, 2011

It's not like the Tories were any major spendthrifts, but if the economy is doing so well while everyone plays Parliamentary leapfrog, then I say keep the politicians busy.

This isn't the same landscape as when harper first got in. If harper gets a minority, it won't be harper being able to bully the liberals into passing legislation. Ignatieff crossed the rubicon on his policy and what he plans on doing in parliament. Its a tory majority or a gong show.

ToadBrother · April 6, 2011

!!!!!

Why, that's quite a good point.

Since the positive economics have occurred under a minority government (in which, as we're repeatedly reminded by Harper's supporters, the Opposition parties must share much of the blame--and, presumably, the credit)....why in hell would we assume a majority government would be an improvement?

The devil you know is better than the speculative, partisan majority fantasy you don't.......

Pretty much every other government in the industrialized world during 2008-2009, when the major collapse was happening, were either majorities or stable coalitions. Canada was unique in the fact that we had a minority government largely involved in Parliamentary pissing contests with the Opposition. During this time, Canada still managed to do rather well compared to its G20 peers. We, of course, had a firm foundation bequeathed to us by the 1980s Tory government and the 1990s Liberal government, but I can't help but think the fact that there was no capacity for anyone to ram things through without having to go through considerable debate, and yes, partisan wrangling, played no small part.

ToadBrother · April 6, 2011

This isn't the same landscape as when harper first got in. If harper gets a minority, it won't be harper being able to bully the liberals into passing legislation. Ignatieff crossed the rubicon on his policy and what he plans on doing in parliament. Its a tory majority or a gong show.

Oh, it's frickin' campaign promises. Good grief, I wasn't aware that anyone took them seriously, particularly Liberal campaign promises.

What the Tories have demonstrated is a deep contempt for our democratic institutions. I see no reason that they should be delivered a majority. Perhaps if they or even some of their supporters would say "You know what, Parliament is our boss." I might feel differently, but you guys don't. You continue to defend unconstitutional actions and blame the Opposition for them.

So why should I vote Tory?

Edited April 6, 2011 by ToadBrother

cybercoma · April 6, 2011

That's exactly what Trudeau did coincidentally.

Yes. Trudeau was a bastard [/Will_Ferguson] too.

cybercoma · April 7, 2011

I think this is as good a place as any for this article:

"F-35s cost more than $100M each: U.S. official"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/29/cv-f35-costs.html

$1 Billion on G-20

Over $6.5 Billion on 65 F-335 jets

That's $7.5 Billion dollars of taxpayers money and what do we have to show for it? What could nealry $8 Billion dollars do for Canadian families? There isn't even a word strong enough to describe how appalling this is.

charter.rights · April 7, 2011

I think this is as good a place as any for this article:

"F-35s cost more than $100M each: U.S. official"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/29/cv-f35-costs.html

$1 Billion on G-20

Over $6.5 Billion on 65 F-335 jets

That's $7.5 Billion dollars of taxpayers money and what do we have to show for it? What could nealry $8 Billion dollars do for Canadian families? There isn't even a word strong enough to describe how appalling this is.

Add to that the $8 billion wasted on corporate tax cuts that do not create jobs or spur growth.

Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth, analysis reveals as election pledges fly

What could $16 billion do for Canadian families?

Smallc · April 8, 2011

That's $7.5 Billion dollars of taxpayers money and what do we have to show for it? What could nealry $8 Billion dollars do for Canadian families? There isn't even a word strong enough to describe how appalling this is.

So you don't think we need the capability to protect our own airspace? You don't think that we need to be part of the G8/G20? You think that any of the other parties would or should change that? You would be wrong on all accounts. Isolationism gets you nowhere.

GWiz · April 8, 2011

So you don't think we need the capability to protect our own airspace? You don't think that we need to be part of the G8/G20? You think that any of the other parties would or should change that? You would be wrong on all accounts. Isolationism gets you nowhere.

While I agree, none of that boils down to a zero sum question...