What's it going to cost?

[Argus]

Anyone have any idea? I mean, if, with Layton's pressure, he actually does impliment Kyoto, that's going to be tens of billions all by itself. National daycare, once put in place, will never go away, and that'll be billions every year. Home car, pharmaceutical coverage, senior care, environmental incentives (windmills?), more for hospitals and general health, defence (I don't expect them to keep that one), plus the added cost of making sure their future thefts are more carefully hidden from scrutiny. And then anything else the NDP decides it will insist on throwing into the mix for their votes.

I see big tax increases on the horizon.

[idealisttotheend]

I think the Liberal platform was costed out at 28 billion (much cheaper than the Cons). The NDP doesn't have the clout to push them to the left (and the Cons can push them to the right) so I guess it is more likely to go down than up.

Especially since unless a recount favours either the Liberals or the NDP it should be nearly impossible to pass any legislation at all in the House. But then there will be no tax cuts either. Balance will be maintained even if it's just really paralysis.

[kungfusion]

FISCAL PROJECTIONS AND DEBT

LIBERALS

- $28 billion in new promises over five years, while existing government spending is expected to grow by four per cent annually;

an annual $3-billion contingency reserve would go toward the debt.

- Reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio to 25 per cent within 10 years.

CONSERVATIVES

- $57-billion five-year platform, arguing the federal budget "is no longer a realistic assessment of the amount of fiscal room available."

- At least $5 billion annually as a contingency fund.

- Introduce legislation that sets a target debt-to-GDP ratio.

NDP

- $61-billion five-year platform.

- Allow debt-to- GDP ratio to fall gradually, without extra debt payments.

BLOC QUEBECOIS

- $55 billion in spending over three years.

- Annual surplus of approximately $3 billion.

GREEN

- The Green party platform contains $57.4 billion in total new spending over five years.

- A mid-term referendum would be held asking Canadians how to spend an additional $30 billion, ranking options such as tax cuts, debt payment or new spending.

[Bro]

Let's call in Dalton "I won't raise your taxes" from Ontario.

Another great liberal,who is so very good at budgeting without increased costs to the working taxpayer.NOT!

His knowledge of knowing what the books say,would be

very beneficial to the fed libs,they could lie once again and still look like they are working on behalf of the average working Canadian.

[Bro]

I guess no Liberal voters actually checked in to any stats on the cost of voting the liberals in again.

Does that mean you agree,or you won't complain until you see it affect your pocket ?Either way,the liberals will be free to spend,spend,and spend on everything except the basics,starting with healthcare again probably being the victim,but it is easy to blame the Provinces that way.

[caesar]

Give me a break Bro. The Liberals have the lowest spending planned. Paul Martin has been a very good money manager as finance Minister. He paid off a lot of the debt that Mulroney ran up.

Hopefully, daycare will get shelved. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for looking after working parent's children. Let's get Health Care back working adequately. That everyone needs and uses.

We have government daycare here in BC. As soon as Campbell cut the subsidies; the place emptied out and has plenty of vacancies. Mind you, one legal secretary brought her 3 kids to work claiming she couldn't afford daycare. Legal secretaries make around $30 per hour here in BC Why am I subsidizing her daycare????

I would prefer parents are encouraged to have one paren stay home and raise their own kids; at least until kindergarden.

I am tired of the nagging about the missing money. It will be accounted for. It is not like this is that unusual in government contract; the Liberals are not the only party that lines their own pockets; if it is true.

The government should have little trouble passing any legislation. They may not have a majority but they do have a large minority with no other party close to their numbers. Any party that brings on a vote of non confidence better pick their decision carefully. You prevent improvement to health care or other causes supported by the public; they will ensure the Liberals a majority at the next election.

[Bro]

.

one legal secretary brought her 3 kids to work claiming she couldn't afford daycare. Legal secretaries make around $30 per hour here in BC Why am I subsidizing her daycare????

The answer my friend,is because you voted liberal.

When people need help,and I was there at one time,it should be available.The liberal philosophy is though,everyone should be entitled,keeps those votes coming in.Do you Liberal supporters just refuse to see

what is quite obvious to the 60% of Canadians who did not vote liberal?

[caesar]

You presume, too much, Bro. Actually the NDP put in the daycare; Liberals cut the funding. We keep paying for these swings from one government to the next. I support no party. I only vote for whichever one seems to be going in the best direction at the time. There are many issues; no one party has everything I like; none have everything wrong, either. The Conservatives are not in favour of daycare, either. I agree with them on one point. Not enough to vote for. However, I do believe that the Liberals are much better at controlling spending. I don't want my grandchildren to be paying our bills. Despite the money that went astray; our debt load has been decreased. The NDP has many great ideas; the problem is how much can we afford. I am for bringing in most of these programs in steps that we can afford.

The Federal government should not be in the daycare field. That should be a Provincial choice; an add on of education for those who can afford the programs

[playfullfellow]

He paid off a lot of the debt that Mulroney ran up.

Caesar, obviously you have ignored the quotes and links that have appeared here showing that Trudeau also ran up huge national debt way before Mulroney, unfortunately which he continued on with. There are 2 definite people to blame our debt on, both Trudeau and Mulroney. Yes, Martin lowered our debt but exactly how did he do it? He cut transfer payments to the provinces during a time of huge productivity and income increases. An infinite number of monkeys could do the same.

Do you really expect Martin to keep any promises he has made? He is in the position of power now and has to suck up to the people who didn't vote for him. How is he going to do this? Buy them off as always.

[Bro]

Liberals cut the funding.

You are very correct,mostly to healthcare though,which

negatively affects most of us.On the other hand,we have an enormous wealth of funds for bilingualism,adscam,gay pride days,money for hostile nations,etc.I really like the way those liberals can prioritize and buy votes at the same time.

[caesar]

BRO: Right wing Provincial Liberals; same ilk and ideas as Harper's not Federal Liberals; completely different. Harper planned on spending enormous sums on a military designed to back Bush and co in their ill advised aggressive campaigns. Harper had ideas of privatization of Health care. Harper thinks spending beyond control is ok.

Mulroney gave us the GST; He brought in the Free Trade agreement tilted in favour of the USA and all sorts of hanky panky.

[Bro]

Mulroney's name wasn't on my ballot,was it on yours?

[Bro]

In any event,the GST was created to clear up Trudeaumania expenses,deal with the recession,and bring our national debt down.If the liberals are such great caretakers of our money,why are we still paying a tax which they vowed to abolish in their 1993 election campaign.And they still cut 25 BILLION to healthcare besides that.Are we in trouble or what?

[caesar]

We were in trouble. thanks to Mulroney. Martin has brought that debt down tremendously. Harper wanted to increase that debt again. The GST was not brought in to clear up Trudeau excesses; the Conservatives under Mulroney did a great job or putting us in debt.; they made no attempt to pay off any deficit. There was a tax previously at the manufacturing level. The gst just made items pay the gst many times before they reach the consumer and made accountants rich.

[playfullfellow]

You fail to get it caesar, the whole mess was not started by mulroney, yes it was perpetuated by him but the whole freaking mess was started by trudeau and his buying of votes. He left a debt of over 200 billion dollars and a whack of programs that mulroney had to continue to pay for during one of the worst economic times since the 30's. I am not a fan of mulroney but if you are going to blame everything on him, then maybe you need to look at what started the whole problem. It took the politicians and the Canadian electorate until martins time to figure out we were in deep doodoo and our way to bankruptcy.

[caesar]

Playful; Where did you get those figures; I just read one scathing report of Trudeau that put it at 128 Billion. He brought in many social programs and dealt effectively with the FLQ crisis. Mulroney's shorter term in office; quickly tripled that figure. And for what. A lopsided Free Trade agreement that allows the USA more control of our resources. The GST that is a nightmare and an accountants get rich sheme. Not only does it put more money in government pockets; most companies pay dearly for the accounting of this ridiculous tax. Taxing at the manufacturing level; that was in place before was easier and less aggravating.

Harper and his mentor Mulroney would again run theat debt up while dropping any social nets for Canadians.

For what? Building any army to support the USA in its path to destruction.

[idealisttotheend]

The real deficit culpurit was OPEC. Countries all over the world went into deficit as they subsidized energy prices in what they thought was a cyclical problem (short term) not a structural (long term) problem. Treduea went right along and while he was wrong so was most of the world. Mulroney was unwilling to make really hard choices (significantly raising taxes or axing spending) which is why he was culpable, though the interest rates didn't help. Of course, high interest rates were Mulroney's own policy (in the war on inflation) so he can be blamed for that.

As to the topic, people are forgetting that as interest rates rise government surplusses will fall considerably. Therefor the Liberals are being by far more fiscally responsible while the conservatives are trying the same trick that they have tried all over the world for the last thirty years. Project economic growth you can't guarantee and isn't very probable or reasonable and then pretend you can cut taxes and raise spending (especially on defence) at the same time. Very silly.

[August1991]

OPEC, but something more pernicious too.

The 1970s were a period of no economic growth in the US and Canada. In part, this was due to oil price increases in 1973 and 1978. But it was primarily due to the US Fed (and the Bank of Canada) losing control of the money supply, or believing they could control the economy through changes in the money supply.

By 1979, inflation was high and nominal interest rates were high.

Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker to the US Fed and things changed dramatically. Volcker stopped printing new money. In the short run, this provoked very high noimnal interest rates and a severe recession. But within about five years, inflation was down to low levels. But nominal interest rates truly fell to and stayed at historic levels only in the early 1990s.

The Bank of Canada's policies followed the US Fed. Our recession caused the federal deficit to balloon. The high interest rates meant we were paying upwards of 30 billion a year in debt charges.

This is the world Mulroney inherited in 1984.

He set out to reform UIC (no success) and reform the MST, a crazy tax created in 1926. The GST was not intended to generate more revenues than before.

Mulroney also wanted to protect Canada against the US Congress (FTA) and solve the Liberal constitutional mess of 1982 (Meech Lake). Lastly, I think he wanted to make amends for Riel and make the Conservatives a viable force in Canadian politics again.

Just to hold the line as Wilson and Mulroney did through the 1980s was an achievement.

The US economy performed admirably in the 1990s and nominal interest rates are now low and stable. The US Fed is preoccupied primarily with price stability now. The interventionist types of the 1960s and 1970s no longer exist in the US Fed's inner circles, thank God.

Alan Greenspan reads Ayn Rand. You can live in a fantasy world for awhile but eventuallly reality imposes itself.

[playfullfellow]

Playful; Where did you get those figures; I just read one scathing report of Trudeau that put it at 128 Billion.

In 1968, the year trudeau took over, our debt was 16.7 billion dollars. When he left power in 1984, or national debt was 200 billion. He went from an annual budget of 43 billion per year in 1977 to spending 109 billion per year by 1984.

check it out yourself

government expenditures

The numbers are there and it is an official governement site.

[Bro]

Harper and his mentor Mulroney

LOL.Do you remember history at all?I am beginning to think all liberals are illiterate and just get their facts from the CBC national news.

Think about what you just said.Harper is not one of Brian's biggest fans.