Does Stephen Harper suffer from Hero Syndrome?

[hardguy]

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?

the Conservatives were facing an economic meltdown in 2008 which accounts for a large part of the deficit

[hardguy]

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.

I guess you weren't around for the Liberal's administration. They chose to line their own pockets (adscam)

[hardguy]

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.

Quebec floats along on Alberta's 14bn/yr to finance their generous social programs

[Smallc]

Quebec floats along on Alberta's 14bn/yr to finance their generous social programs

Quebec doesn't get $14B in equalization.

[hardguy]

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.

the oilsands are carrying the ciountry and are providing thousands of jobs for those ptovinces that wish to close them down - hypocrits

[hardguy]

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.

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."

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.

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 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

the Liberals "fiscal prudence" was accomplished by simply downloading a lot of their expenditures om the provinces

[Tilter]

"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."

What were the figures for Alberta in the sama period???

I'd bet they were even better and Alberta is right next to Sask---- Do you thionk there MIGHT have been some mitigating factors in BOTH provinces????? <_<

[madmax]

I guess you weren't around for the Liberal's administration. They chose to line their own pockets (adscam)

I guess you missed the Liberals are out on their asses and experiencing life as the 3rd party.

I am following Conservative Bagman.. I have seen alot of Conservative Corruption in short period of time as well as questionable antics, many of which follow the Liberal pattern. Particularly their use of the Senate is also of interest to me. The Conservatives have the In and Out scam in their back pocket.. and as u recall.. the Liberals didn't have one "scandal" they had many, and these all took time to fester.. no different then the Mulroney government before them..

This government is well on its way...

Welcome to the Forum HardGuy

[g_bambino]

I guess you weren't around for the Liberal's administration. They chose to line their own pockets (adscam)

Quel non sequitur!

[cybercoma]

Quebec doesn't get $14B in equalization.

More importantly, Albertans don't transfer money to Quebec. Everyone pays the same federal income tax rate.

[Moonbox]

More importantly, Albertans don't transfer money to Quebec. Everyone pays the same federal income tax rate.

Point is that Albertans don't get the money back that they pay in terms of social programs. They're a net contributor and Quebec, for a very very long time, has been the biggest drain.

[huh]

More importantly, Albertans don't transfer money to Quebec. Everyone pays the same federal income tax rate.

And everyone gets the same transfers and services? So there is no truth at all to the common belief that the have provinces are supporting the have not's?

Stop trolling, you know exactly what was meant.

[cybercoma]

And everyone gets the same transfers and services? So there is no truth at all to the common belief that the have provinces are supporting the have not's?

Stop trolling, you know exactly what was meant.

Everyone gets the same federal services. Yes.

[jbg]

Well, he's certainly proven to be a Machiavellian shit-disturber who's real forte seems to be campaigning and winning elections. That said his ability to inspire a fear and loathing for things while positioning himself as the proverbial caped crusader that will protect us probably says more about the quality of people who look up at him - like children who look to their Poppa.

And Chretien was nice and straightforward? The only way he and Martin were "fiscally prudent" was by their downloading mandated expenses to the provinces.

[eyeball]

And Chretien was nice and straightforward?

No. He was as useless as tits on a bull too as far as I'm concerned.

[TimG]

Everyone gets the same federal services. Yes.

Trivially true but you are missing the bigger picture:

1) The average income of Quebequers is lower so they contribute less per capita to the federal treasury for the services it gets.

2) Quebec has numerous special deals with the federal government because it collects its own income tax.

So yes: the rest of Canada DOES subsidize Quebec.

Edited March 31, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

So what if the average income is lower than Alberta? Alberta's average income is lower than the NWT and Yukon. Does that mean the NWT and Yukon is subsidizing Alberta? When will Alberta stop freeloading off Canada's territories?

Quebec's special deals also mean they don't receive certain transfers that other provinces get.

In any case, the situation is not even remotely as simple as "Alberta gives money to Quebec."

Federal Government Revenue and Spending by Province: A Scorecard of Winners and Losers in Confederation? By S. West

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-010-x/00207/9586-eng.htm

Some points to consider:

Inter-provincial, as well as inter-governmental, economic relationships in Canada are complicated. While the federal government may, for example, transfer money to the Atlantic Provinces under the equalization program, that money might then be used to purchase medical equipment manufactured in Ontario. In this instance who benefits? Does defence spending on a naval base in BC only benefit the west coast?

...

Many federal programs are administered in one geographic area but benefit all Canadians: these programs range from providing public safety to developing policies to support for children, the sick and the elderly. In all these cases, the benefits flowing from the programs extend across the country and not just the province that directly receives the wages and salaries required to administer the program.

...

[D]ifficult statistical issues remain regarding the location of productive activity and the income taxes owed by multi-national and multi-provincial corporations.

These corporations can have operations in one or several provinces or territories and their head office in another. Consider the example of an integrated energy company that has its head office in Alberta, produces oil and gas in Alberta, conducts exploration activities offshore, has refineries operations in Alberta and Ontario, and sells gasoline across the country.

...

[T]ransfers to provinces do not necessarily reflect benefits. Governments implemented programs such as equalization payments and medicare because more equality of government services in all provinces was deemed a benefit to all Canadians, not just those in the provinces receiving the transfer. Indeed, most Canadians have friends and relatives that they care about spread all across the country.

In other words, revenues and expenditures by the federal government are not always a straightforward case of collecting from province A and spending in province B. This nonsense about Alberta giving money to Quebec ignose the complexities of our federal programs and their benefits.

[TimG]

So what if the average income is lower than Alberta? Alberta's average income is lower than the NWT and Yukon. Does that mean the NWT and Yukon is subsidizing Alberta? When will Alberta stop freeloading off Canada's territories?

Well first, the average family income in Alberta exceeds that of the Yukon. Second, the issue here is the difference in taxes paid vs. services received. My understanding is the NWT is heavily subsidized by the feds so I doubt the net contribution is greater than Alberta.

And yes, difference in programs mean the benefits are not geographically distributed which is why a province like Quebec is able to collect more than its share of federal programs because it suppresses its economy with punitive taxes and an regulations. This ensures that a greater number of people qualify for those programs.

Perhaps a better way to state it: if Alberta did not exists Quebec would receive less net benefit from the federal government. If Quebec did not exist Albertans would receive more in either reduced taxes or higher benefits.

Edited March 31, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Well first, the average family income in Alberta exceeds that of the Yukon.

No it doesn't.

Second, the issue here is the difference in taxes paid vs. services received. My understanding is the NWT is heavily subsidized by the feds so I doubt the net contribution is greater than Alberta.

Oh it's not. I'm just showing you how stupid the average income argument is.

And yes, difference in programs mean the benefits are not geographically distributed which is why a province like Quebec is able to collect more than its share of federal programs because it suppresses its economy with punitive taxes and an regulations. This ensures that a greater number of people qualify for those programs.

Clearly you don't understand what is being said here and frankly given your history of completely ignoring any sort of rational argument that conflicts with your biases, I can't be bothered wasting any more time explaining it to you. Read the link I provided or don't. If you don't understand that provinces don't transfer money to other provinces after that, I couldn't care less.

[TimG]

If you don't understand that provinces don't transfer money to other provinces after that, I couldn't care less.

I understand your argument. I just think it is irrelevant quibbling. What we are really talking about is the net benefit a province receives for the federal taxes that it pays. If one province receives a net benefit that is less than another then that province must be subsidizing the province receiving greater benefits. This is pretty basic math and it is not wrong to describe it a transfer from one province to another even those the exact mechanism is more complex. I am sorry that you reject math because it does not produce results that conform to your ideological prejudices. Edited March 31, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I understand your argument. I just think it is irrelevant quibbling. What we are really talking about is the net benefit a province receives for the federal taxes that it pays. If one province receives a net benefit that is less than another then that province must be subsidizing the province receiving greater benefits. This is pretty basic math and it is not wrong to describe it a transfer from one province to another even those the exact mechanism is more complex. I am sorry that you reject math because it does not produce results that conform to your ideological prejudices.

Obviously you don't understand what I'm saying, nor did you bother reading the quotes I posted let alone the entire article, if you're going to continue to talk about the net benefit provinces receive.

[TimG]

Obviously you don't understand what I'm saying, nor did you bother reading the quotes I posted let alone the entire article, if you're going to continue to talk about the net benefit provinces receive.

I read it and understood it and it completely supports the point I am making. The only difference is the writers tried to put a political spin on the data. Here is the actual data from your link minus the political spin:

Total per capita expenditures: Quebec 5,822, Alberta 5,133

Total per capita revenues: Quebec 5,540, Alberta 7,927

FWIW - I agree that the nature of federal programs means there will always be provinces that benefit more and there is no reason to expect equality or to demand it. But trying to deny that the inequality exists is quite ridiculous.

BTW: the data also supports my guess that the territories are heavily subsidized by the feds and are net recipients of federal funding even if their per capita contribution is higher.

Edited March 31, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I agree that the nature of federal programs means there will always be provinces that benefit more and there is no reason to expect equality or to demand it

Agree with who? That's certainly not what I'm saying.

But trying to deny that the inequality exists crosses a line.

No it doesn't.

Insisting that there's inequality shows that you don't understand the complexity of federal programs and why it doesn't make sense to attribute their costs and benefits to particular provinces.

[Smallc]

BTW: the data also supports my guess that the territories are heavily subsidized by the feds and are net recipients of federal funding even if their per capita income is higher.

That's because the territories don't have the same kinds of taxation power. They don't get resource revenues, for example, and that's much of their industry.

[TimG]

Insisting that there's inequality shows that you don't understand the complexity of federal programs and why it doesn't make sense to attribute their costs and benefits to particular provinces.

Nothing but spin. Close to 50% of non-debt interest federal spending is on direct transfers to provinces, cities or individuals. These costs can be assigned directly to a province. The remaining costs can be allocated on a per capita basis since they benefit everyone. Edited March 31, 2012 by TimG