Does Stephen Harper suffer from Hero Syndrome?

[Tilter]

Thomas Mulcair appeared on the March 27th edition of As It Happens and responded to the Conservative claim that the NDP are tax-and-spend party that will destroy the country. To that, Mulcair likened the Conservatives to a firefighter that is praised for putting out fires until it's later found out that he was the one setting the fires. The Conservatives are putting out fires by proposing fiscal restraint, but it was the Conservatives that set the fire with $50,000,000,000 in corporate tax cuts, thereby undermining the fiscal capacity of the government. How can you criticize a party for being tax-and-spend when your party has squandered fiscal surpluses and plunged the country into debt with absolutely nothing to show for it? Stephen Harper created the debt crisis and now he proposes cutting services to Canadians at a time when they need them most as the solution. Does he suffer from Hero Syndrome; is he the arsonist-firefighter?

50 BILLION in corporate tax cuts????????????????????????????????

[cybercoma]

There's people who are quick to defend Harper. But, then there are also people who'll easily ignore the influence of other people, parties, and factors simply to make it easier to malign the man.

This is true on both sides. He'll ignore other factors just to take all of the credit for Canada's position in the depression.

[cybercoma]

Recessions always lead to at least temporary deficits. Because your economy shrinks instead of it growing. There was no policy or procedure that could have prevented the Canadian economy from contracting amid the world economy. To suggest otherwise is pure falacy.

So just to be clear, a recession necessarily leads to deficits because the economy shrinks and the response to that from the CPC is to hinder the government's fiscal capacity, thus aggravating the situation. Sounds like mismanagement to me.

[cybercoma]

Bad Thread Title.

Regardless the Conservatives have never had a handle on balancing books let alone cutting spending.

I wouldn't be so presumptous to by into the narrative the CPC that the NDP lack fiscal prudence. The NDP has a stronger track record Provincially then any other goverment.

More balanced budgets then Conservatives.

Economists and the Professors whom teach them can argue theory in their glass towers. And they can choose to ignore or promote whatever data they wish.

The Conservative cut spending on programs and services they don't like..the Conservatives increase spending on things they do like.

The Conservatives have not been fiscally responsible since coming to power.

But they talk a good game.

The problem is that the Conservatives damaged the government's fiscal capacity and are trying to swoop in like heroes by cutting services.

[Shady]

So just to be clear, a recession necessarily leads to deficits because the economy shrinks and the response to that from the CPC is to hinder the government's fiscal capacity, thus aggravating the situation. Sounds like mismanagement to me.

No, cutting taxes, during a recession is a type of Keynesian stimulus. Personally, I'm not a big fan of so-called stimulus of any kind. However, since Canada's economy is largely dependent on exports, taking into consideration corporate tax rates, and other tax rates is paramount to make sure Canada remains competitive in the global economy. Doing that actually saves jobs, now and especially in the long run.

[Moonbox]

The problem is that the Conservatives damaged the government's fiscal capacity and are trying to swoop in like heroes by cutting services.

but nothing the other parties were proposing would have left us in a better position. The NDP's proposals, in fact, would have left us in much worse shape. That's my problem. Please, present an alternative to me - one that doesn't pander to the unions, public sector employees and EI abusers. I'll listen. I'm not even being sarcastic.

[Shady]

The problem is that the Conservatives damaged the government's fiscal capacity and are trying to swoop in like heroes by cutting services.

Complete nonsense. The government's fiscal capacity was damaged due to a severe recession. If not for the recession, our so-called fiscal capacity would be right around a balanced budget, plus or minus a little bit, exactly where it should be.

[madmax]

I'd love to see solid citations for that.

Those citations have been posted and ignored many times.. and you will ignore them too.. as I know I have posted them in other threads you participated in over the years.

Provinces with New Democrat governments are more likely to have surplus budgets than governments of any other political party, a new report from the Government of Canada indicates.

At a time when the Harper Conservatives are projecting a record $56 billion deficit, the report shows that New Democrat governments have been, and continue to be strong financial managers, while delivering a better quality of life for ordinary people.

The numbers speak for themselves:

New Democrat governments produced budgets that were in surplus 51 percent of the time covered by the report.

Conservative governments ranked second, while Liberal governments fell far short; producing surplus budgets only 30 percent of the years they governed.

Included in the strong record of New Democrat fiscal management is the Romanow government who dug-out Saskatchewan from years of deep Conservative deficits, as well as eight balanced budgets in Manitoba under former-Premier Gary Doer.

The Fiscal Reference Tables are produced annually by the federal Department of Finance.

they are from Stats Canada. The data Does not Include TommyDouglas

and 17 Balanced Budgets.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/tommy-douglas-the-pragmatic-socialist/article1806775/?service=mobile

"When Mr. Douglas took office in 1944, Saskatchewan had a debt of $218-million – 38 per cent of provincial GDP. By 1949, he had reduced the debt to $70-million. By 1953, he had eliminated it. By 1961, when he left office, he had produced 17 successive budget surpluses. By reducing the debt, and thereby reducing interest costs, he was able to spend more on public services – without raising taxes."

I don't know about the rest of Canada, but that's categorically false as far as Canada's biggest province is concerned. The short track record the NDP has here looks pretty aweful...McGuinty aweful.

For Every Bob Rae.. there is one or more Grant Devine...

Bob Rae record stands.. and has been judged accordingly.

Which leaves us back to the stats... which does include the Rae Era and Doesn't include the Tommy Douglas era which would really skew the stats in favour of the NDP.

To put in Perspective... what the 1990s Liberals did to fix the cumlative debt and deficits of the two previous governments Mulroney and Trudeau.. the NDP have done in West on more then one occassion cleaning up Conservative Messes.

Therefore.. one would expect that successful parties will not repeat the mistakes of the past.

For some.. the Parties had to disband.. and go into hiding for a decade or two.. Which is why its often difficult to find the PCs in Western Canada... and a new party forms with all the same players and sometimes with a better playbook.

Go through these threads on this forum from 2006 forward and you will not find any praise for fiscal wisdom by the Current Government.

I predict they will never balance their books.

That's kind of a useless comment. You could say that about anything really.

You quote above me is with regards to economist and you are correct.. which was the point I was making and you got it. Because I believe the reverse is also true.

I'll take whatever cuts they give us. Criticize their spending all you want, because that's fair. Presenting the NDP's platform as an alternative, however, would be adding to the problem. The whole platform is based on the expansion of oft-abused EI benefits, pension benefits and green money-burning energy.

I can only go by the platform of the 2011 NDP campaign. I think it has more potential then the Conservative Platform. The NDP platform focused on a Balanced Budget the Conservatives plan had been on Deficit Spending.

Its hard to say EI was "ABUSED" considering it had accumulated a $56Billion dollar surplus.

That was moneys put in by the EMPLOYEES and the EMPLOYERS. But the Surplus monies were not returned to those whom put into it nor was it put into programs or support for unemployed.

It was given away in the form of tax cuts from the General Revenues to Corporations.

Some would consider that Abuse of the system.

If you tax me more.. provide less services ... then give the surplus to others... that is exaclty what both the Liberals and Conservatives did.

The Liberals used part of the surplus to run balanced budgets.. the Conservatives just blew the bank.

Had nothing in the coffers when EI was needed.. thus having no choice but to go into deficit.

As for Green "Money Burning Energy" the EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program was the other program the NDP had the CPC implement.

It took people OFF of EI and put them to work. It took the underground contractor on the same playing field as the legitimate contractor because they had to be registered for homeowners to receive the credit. It generated revenue back to the government.

It was a damn good program and I have a number of Conservative Contractors in my area who had no idea that Harper had been wanting to kill the program.. didn't want it renewed , and only offered it as an election bone last year. Then they didn't renew it.

We have really good coffee in the morning now.

However.. I must say... that NDP does have its work cut out for it in Ontario.

That said.. The Conservatives are more interested in Large Expenditures and reduced Revenues... and it will lead to the same outcome it lead to in the United States and Greece.

Larger Deficits.. More "Austerity" lol

[cybercoma]

No, cutting taxes, during a recession is a type of Keynesian stimulus. Personally, I'm not a big fan of so-called stimulus of any kind. However, since Canada's economy is largely dependent on exports, taking into consideration corporate tax rates, and other tax rates is paramount to make sure Canada remains competitive in the global economy. Doing that actually saves jobs, now and especially in the long run.

We've seen since 1980 just how many jobs are "saved" by cutting corporate taxes. The Reaganites got it wrong. Money needs to be put into the hands of the people that buy from the companies. A real free-marketer would support people having the money and allowing them to vote with their wallets which companies will stay afloat. Can't afford to pay your corporate taxes? Well, I guess your business model just wasn't as good as you thought it was. Sorry about your luck.

Edited March 29, 2012 by cybercoma

[TwoDucks]

The economists, by a VERY VERY VERY large margin, favour Harper over Mulcair and the NDP, and have done so for a very long time.

No, the economists favour Mulcair by a very, very, very, VERY large margin and will do so forever and ever. Now that we've gotten that ridiculousness out of the way, do you have anything to back up your claims? I would speculate that economists think taxing and spending are preferable to not taxing and but still spending followed by frantic cutting to try and right the ship.

[PIK]

We've seen since 1980 just how many jobs are "saved" by cutting corporate taxes. The Reaganites got it wrong. Money needs to be put into the hands of the people that buy from the companies. A real free-marketer would support people having the money and allowing them to vote with their wallets which companies will stay afloat. Can't afford to pay your corporate taxes? Well, I guess your business model just wasn't as good as you thought it was. Sorry about your luck.

You tax the corp they pass it on to us. Very simple but some people just don't get it.

[PIK]

No, the economists favour Mulcair by a very, very, very, VERY large margin and will do so forever and ever. Now that we've gotten that ridiculousness out of the way, do you have anything to back up your claims? I would speculate that economists think taxing and spending are preferable to not taxing and but still spending followed by frantic cutting to try and right the ship.

Under a NDP goverment, means the oil sands are done, say good bye to everything. The NDP will have to come to the centre and get rid of the libbey's in the party and then maybe they will have a chnace to lead the country, properly.

[eyeball]

You tax the corp they pass it on to us.

Leaving room for innovators to under-bid the corp that does.

Very simple but some people just don't get it.

The uber-wealthy do, they always get theirs, even when it's not.

[cybercoma]

You tax the corp they pass it on to us. Very simple but some people just don't get it.

Guess what, you cut the taxes of the corporations, the costs of administration are passed on to us. Oh and the companies still close their doors and move somewhere they can pay people 3 cents a day plus a bowl full of rice. Very simple, but some people just don't get it.

[Shady]

We've seen since 1980 just how many jobs are "saved" by cutting corporate taxes. The Reaganites got it wrong.

More nonsense. Yep, the 700,000 jobs created per month under the Reagan administration sure got it wrong.

[Shady]

Guess what, you cut the taxes of the corporations, the costs of administration are passed on to us. Oh and the companies still close their doors and move somewhere they can pay people 3 cents a day plus a bowl full of rice. Very simple, but some people just don't get it.

Look, your big government, statist, high tax, high service way has already been tried, many times in a contintent called Europe. They're currently fighting through a massive debt crisis, with the possible collapse of several countries. Move there if that's the system you seek to impose on us. It's a proven failure.

[cybercoma]

More nonsense. Yep, the 700,000 jobs created per month under the Reagan administration sure got it wrong.

That must be why there was a homelessness crisis in the 80s, eh? All of those jobs out there waiting to be had.

[TwoDucks]

Look, your big government, statist, high tax, high service way has already been tried, many times in a contintent called Europe. They're currently fighting through a massive debt crisis, with the possible collapse of several countries. Move there if that's the system you seek to impose on us. It's a proven failure.

Despite what you seem to think, Europe is not a monolithic bloc. Germany, The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries all have triple A credit ratings without oilsands backing them. The countries with problems either tied themselves to the banking industry, which crashed, or are full of corruption, which frankly seems a good fit for the CPC.

[TwoDucks]

Under a NDP goverment, means the oil sands are done, say good bye to everything. The NDP will have to come to the centre and get rid of the libbey's in the party and then maybe they will have a chnace to lead the country, properly.

You realize if the oil sands are the only reason we aren't belly up, then the government's not been plotting a very good course, right?

[Moonbox]

Those citations have been posted and ignored many times.. and you will ignore them too.. as I know I have posted them in other threads you participated in over the years.

My participation in this forum is sporadic. I don't really participate in the provincial forums either, so I likely never saw it.

For Every Bob Rae.. there is one or more Grant Devine...

Bob Rae record stands.. and has been judged accordingly.

which is what we in Ontario remember.

Which leaves us back to the stats... which does include the Rae Era and Doesn't include the Tommy Douglas era which would really skew the stats in favour of the NDP.

To put in Perspective... what the 1990s Liberals did to fix the cumlative debt and deficits of the two previous governments Mulroney and Trudeau.. the NDP have done in West on more then one occassion cleaning up Conservative Messes.

Tommy Douglas took over at the end of WW2. Governments prior to that had to deal with a couple of interesting phenomena, particularly the Great Depression, followed by WW2. Tommy Douglas took over in time for the baby boom and probably the most prosperous time North America's ever seen. I don't know a ton about the man, but I'm sure those had something to do with his record.

I can only go by the platform of the 2011 NDP campaign. I think it has more potential then the Conservative Platform. The NDP platform focused on a Balanced Budget the Conservatives plan had been on Deficit Spending.

What part of the NDP platform was going to bring us a balanced budget exactly? Green Energy, which has worked out for us fantastically in Ontario? I actually read it, believe it or not, and didn't see much in there that would help out our economy (aside from tax credits for creating jobs) and vague promise to keep Canadian provincial+federal taxes below the USA's (which isn't hard).

Aside from that I don't really see much there that's going to help the economy. For a few examples we have:

1)Strengthening federal and provincial pensions (people who don't save a dime their whole life should love that)

2)VASTLY increased parental and family leave benefits

3)More publicly funded daycare

4)More public funding for university tuition (which young Canadians are increasingly finding isn't getting them anywhere...yay Communications major )

5)Utility Bill tax credits

6)Limits to credit card interest rates (5% above prime). If you know anything about the banking industry, you'd know that this was a bald-faced lie on their platform and they'd never have a chance to implement it effectively.

7) More child tax benefits for families in poverty (because, you know, we need more unemployed people having kids so they have more spending money...)

This was all from section ONE out of SEVEN in the NDP platform. The rest looks much the same, I'm just not going to reprint it here lol.

Its hard to say EI was "ABUSED" considering it had accumulated a $56Billion dollar surplus.

That was moneys put in by the EMPLOYEES and the EMPLOYERS. But the Surplus monies were not returned to those whom put into it nor was it put into programs or support for unemployed.

It's not at all hard to say that. The fact that it's overfunded means that people were paying far too much into it for what they collected, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't rampant abuse of the system. I think (hope) that you and I can agree that EI was started so that hardworking Canadians who lose their jobs have something to get them back on track. The fact that we pay benefits to seasonal workers (landscapers let's say) so that they can snowboard most of the winter was not really part of the equation. The system is a mess. Someone who works steadily for 20 years and whose company goes bankrupt gets the same benefits as someone who works for a year.

If you tax me more.. provide less services ... then give the surplus to others... that is exaclty what both the Liberals and Conservatives did.

The surplus didn't just go to corporations, and what did go to the corporations didn't just go into Dick Cheney's bank account. There were benefits all around, including a more favorable business climate for investors. Personally, I'd prefer that then to wealth distribution to the poor, but that's an idealogical thing on my part.

The Liberals used part of the surplus to run balanced budgets.. the Conservatives just blew the bank.

Recession.

As for Green "Money Burning Energy" the EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program was the other program the NDP had the CPC implement. .

It was money down the toilet. If it was worth it to renovate to make your house more energy efficient, people would just do it, and it wouldn't need a tax credit. It was a feel-good incentive during the recession that helped get people working, but it still just ended up costing Canadians money.

That said.. The Conservatives are more interested in Large Expenditures and reduced Revenues... and it will lead to the same outcome it lead to in the United States and Greece.

Larger Deficits.. More "Austerity" lol

In that you and I can agree. I'll re-iterate again that I'd love to see an alternative who didn't promise to spend money frivolously. If someone were to promise to increase taxes solely for the purpose of paying down the debt, I'd vote for that. Unfortunately, Canadians seem too dumb (both in terms of household and federal finances) to realize that you can't spend more than you earn forever.

[Shady]

That must be why there was a homelessness crisis in the 80s, eh? All of those jobs out there waiting to be had.

Well, there certainly was a homelessness issue as a result of the bad recession in 79/80. It took a few years of record job growth to see things improve significantly. Don't you know, that the media only focuses on the homeless when Republicans are President. When it's a Democrat, they're pretty silent on the issue.

[Evening Star]

Come on, section 1 was the section on social programmes! Section 2 is the section on job creation.

Even there, I agree that it's a little bit slim, even compared to the Liberal platform, but I do think there is much more to it than your post gives credit for.

What part of the NDP platform was going to bring us a balanced budget exactly? Green Energy, which has worked out for us fantastically in Ontario? I actually read it, believe it or not, and didn't see much in there that would help out our economy (aside from tax credits for creating jobs) and vague promise to keep Canadian provincial+federal taxes below the USA's (which isn't hard).

Aside from that I don't really see much there that's going to help the economy. For a few examples we have:

1)Strengthening federal and provincial pensions (people who don't save a dime their whole life should love that)

2)VASTLY increased parental and family leave benefits

3)More publicly funded daycare

4)More public funding for university tuition (which young Canadians are increasingly finding isn't getting them anywhere...yay Communications major )

5)Utility Bill tax credits

6)Limits to credit card interest rates (5% above prime). If you know anything about the banking industry, you'd know that this was a bald-faced lie on their platform and they'd never have a chance to implement it effectively.

7) More child tax benefits for families in poverty (because, you know, we need more unemployed people having kids so they have more spending money...)

This was all from section ONE out of SEVEN in the NDP platform. The rest looks much the same, I'm just not going to reprint it here lol.

It's not at all hard to say that. The fact that it's overfunded means that people were paying far too much into it for what they collected, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't rampant abuse of the system. I think (hope) that you and I can agree that EI was started so that hardworking Canadians who lose their jobs have something to get them back on track. The fact that we pay benefits to seasonal workers (landscapers let's say) so that they can snowboard most of the winter was not really part of the equation. The system is a mess. Someone who works steadily for 20 years and whose company goes bankrupt gets the same benefits as someone who works for a year.

The surplus didn't just go to corporations, and what did go to the corporations didn't just go into Dick Cheney's bank account. There were benefits all around, including a more favorable business climate for investors. Personally, I'd prefer that then to wealth distribution to the poor, but that's an idealogical thing on my part.

Recession.

It was money down the toilet. If it was worth it to renovate to make your house more energy efficient, people would just do it, and it wouldn't need a tax credit. It was a feel-good incentive during the recession that helped get people working, but it still just ended up costing Canadians money.

In that you and I can agree. I'll re-iterate again that I'd love to see an alternative who didn't promise to spend money frivolously. If someone were to promise to increase taxes solely for the purpose of paying down the debt, I'd vote for that. Unfortunately, Canadians seem too dumb (both in terms of household and federal finances) to realize that you can't spend more than you earn forever.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Evening Star

[huh]

Its late, maybe i missed it, but can one of you geniuses explain the psychology of the opposition that screamed the stimulus wasnt big enough and not long after screamed the deficit was too large?

Do they suffer from just being idiots? Or are they just politicians? Which are you?

[Moonbox]

Come on, section 1 was the section on social programmes! Section 2 is the section on job creation.

Even there, I agree that it's a little bit slim, even compared to the Liberal platform, but I do think there is much more to it than your post gives credit for.

Section two was a joke in terms of job creation. A tax credit to businesses for new hires with additional credits for having them stay employed for 12 months. Hmm...No way that would contribute to frictional unemployement is there? There were subsidies for commuters...which makes no sense at all to me. Then there was something about ensuring that foreign investment creates Canadian jobs and net benefit for Canada, but it was so vague it's hard to even talk about. Regardless, I didn't see a lot of stuff in there that was going to be great for the economy and make up for even 1/20th of the cost of the promises from sections 1, 3 and 4.

Its late, maybe i missed it, but can one of you geniuses explain the psychology of the opposition that screamed the stimulus wasnt big enough and not long after screamed the deficit was too large?

Do they suffer from just being idiots? Or are they just politicians? Which are you?

That was brought up on the first page of this thread. That, my friend, is a combination of idiocy, hypocrisy, bad memory and ignorance with Canadians and a lot of posters here.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Moonbox

[g_bambino]

This is true on both sides. He'll ignore other factors just to take all of the credit for Canada's position in the depression.

True.