We can't afford Mulcair's NDP

[Jack Weber]

As I pointed out elsewhere, most conservatives support a certain big-ticket item called "healthcare."

The tough-on-crime" stance is explicitly a call for bigger government. The expressed wishes for greater surveillance powers (as well as their already-in-place expansions, which the Conservatives endorse) are unquestionably Big Government.

An expressed desire to commit to greater military expenditures?

that's big government, too. It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not...it remains a "big government" ideal.

Harper embraces big government...he only doesn't embrace social spending (which, contrary to extremely lazy claims, are not in and of themselves "big government", or not in the scary way of the scatter-brained pseudo-libertariasn among us, most of whom wish for a return of the death penalty! (THE biggest of "Big government" initiatives in existence, bar none.)

To a sadly large extent, much of the "big government" scaremongering is only about frigging taxes!

Authoritarianism is the bigger deal. Adn while the conservatives have made a couple of good moves on this front (the HRCs, for example, and Section 13) I don't think anyone's accusing the Tories of lacking in authoritarian tendencies.

Kudos....

Well said...

[TimG]

The tough-on-crime" stance is explicitly a call for bigger government.

Hardly since the intent it is to REDUCE crime in the long run. You can argue that it may not be effective but you cannot compare it to an entitlement program like cheap daycare which is designed to grow over time and consume an ever increasing amount of money.

The expressed wishes for greater surveillance powers (as well as their already-in-place expansions, which the Conservatives endorse) are unquestionably Big Government.

Is he creating massive new spending programs which eat up more and more of the economy? Or is he simply trying to make it cheaper to achieve policy objectives? I would say the latter which means such moves are not 'big government' at all.

An expressed desire to commit to greater military expenditures?

The DND budget was CUT in the last budget. New military hardware is a necessary expense unless you want to get rid of the military. If taken to the extreme support of military could be a 'big government' program but I see no evidence that the conservatives are doing that.

what kind of monstrously bloated "tax credit" allows a person to stop earning income?

One that recognizes that kids are best cared for by their own parents. Edited June 29, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

One that recognizes that kids are best cared for by their own parents.

That's a hell of a lazy dodge...the tax credit would have to be large indeed for any serious number of Canadians to be able to quit earning income.

You're also dodging the fact that it is an entitlement scheme.

In fact, you endorse it. Not only do you endorse the entitlements....you endorse a particularly elitist brand of it, since only the almost-wealthy-enough Canadians would benefit in the way you claim would be its entire point.

Which rather proves my point about Conservatives and "small Government."

[Jack Weber]

That's a hell of a lazy dodge...the tax credit would have to be large indeed for any serious number of Canadians to be able to quit earning income.

You're also dodging the fact that it is an entitlement scheme.

In fact, you endorse it. Not only do you endorse the entitlements....you endorse a particularly elitist brand of it, since only the almost-wealthy-enough Canadians would benefit in the way you claim would be its entire point.

Which rather proves my point about Conservatives and "small Government."

A conservative who's really a closet elitist and for legislative sops to socio/economic elites???

MMmnnoooo....Impossible....

[dre]

Hardly since the intent it is to REDUCE crime in the long run. You can argue that it may not be effective but you cannot compare it to an entitlement program like cheap daycare which is designed to grow over time and consume an ever increasing amount of money.

Is he creating massive new spending programs which eat up more and more of the economy? Or is he simply trying to make it cheaper to achieve policy objectives? I would say the latter which means such moves are not 'big government' at all.

The DND budget was CUT in the last budget. New military hardware is a necessary expense unless you want to get rid of the military. If taken to the extreme support of military could be a 'big government' program but I see no evidence that the conservatives are doing that.

One that recognizes that kids are best cared for by their own parents.

This is all just wishfull partisan thinking. The reality is that these mainstream parties that have presided over the last few decades of limitless magic money, are all big government statist parties.

Hardly since the intent it is to REDUCE crime in the long run. You can argue that it may not be effective but you cannot compare it to an entitlement program like cheap daycare which is designed to grow over time and consume an ever increasing amount of money.

Yes you can. You can compare any dollar spent with any other dollar spent. The size of government is the aggregate of ALL spending. Spending on the governments security apparatus is one of the hallmarks of big government statism.

[TimG]

You're also dodging the fact that it is an entitlement scheme.

I acknowledged that is was a spending scheme. I also made no claims to its effectiveness (most government programs are failures so arguing this point is futile).

I simply used it as an example to illustrate that spending money not the same as "big government". "big government" is about increasing the role that government has in the economy. The NDP not only does this - it is one of their core principals. The conservatives dislike government and want to minimizes its role. No matter what you think of the spending choices - giving money back to parents reduces the role of government.

Edited June 29, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

Spending on the governments security apparatus is one of the hallmarks of big government statism.

The issue at hand is whether the increases to the "security aparatus" are a one time increase to make up for decades of under funding or if it part of a plan to constantly increase the funding and scope of the "security aparatus". I see it as the former.

[dre]

The issue at hand is whether the increases to the "security aparatus" are a one time increase to make up for decades of under funding or if it part of a plan to constantly increase the funding and scope of the "security aparatus". I see it as the former.

It isnt a one-time increase. Growing the prison industry, and the military are long term spending obligations that will cost us money for many decades.

Manadatory minimum sentencing is a gigantic bottomless pit. Folks south of the border tried to warn us that it bankrupts states, cities, and municipalities. For each person incarcerated under this policy about 8 people have to work and pay income tax to fund it. The tax payer is now potentially on the hook to provide food, clothing, and shelter to minor soft drug offenders.

[TimG]

It isnt a one-time increase. Growing the prison industry, and the military are long term spending obligations that will cost us money for many decades.

We already spent X dollars/year. The conservatives increased this to X+Y/per year. Will it grow faster than inflation over time or not? You are assuming it will. I do not. If it does then it will need to be cut back too.

Manadatory minimum sentencing is a gigantic bottomless pit.

We have had manadatory minimums for decades. This is nothing new. 25 years for first degree murder IS a mandatory minimum - if you support this you have no business complaining about appropriate mandatory minimums or other crimes.

In any case, the problems in the US system are caused by 'three strike laws' which fill prisons up with lifers who committed minor crimes. Nothing the conservatives have done comes close to this. I would not support it if they did and I seriously doubt such a hair brained law would stand up to a charter challenge.

Edited June 29, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

We already spent X dollars. The conservatives increased this to X+Y. Will it grow faster than inflation over time or not? You are assuming it will. I do not. If it does then it will need to be cut back too.

We have had manadatory minimums for decades. This is nothing new. 25 years for first degree murder IS a mandatory minimum - if you support this you have no business complaining about appropriate mandatory minimums or other crimes.

In any case, the problems in the US system are caused by 'three strike laws' which fill prisons up with lifers who committed minor crimes. Nothing the conservatives have done comes close to this. I would not support it if they did and I seriously doubt such a hair brained law would stand up to a charter challenge.

What we have is worse. ONE strike laws incarcerating people for minor soft drug offenses.

ANyhow there is absolutely no difference between the mainstream parties re: size of government... besides rhetoric.

Edited June 29, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

Why because spending went up when a large chunk of that increase is due to long established entitlement programs? Not an argument. Conservatives have not created any new entitlement programs and have tried to hold the line on others.

This is wrong on every level. The Conservatives have created myriad entitlements in the form of tax credits. The amount of credits they've put into the tax code is actually staggering. Now if you want to talk about the actual size of government, Harper's cabinet may be the largest cabinet in Canadian history and he plans on adding 30 more seats to the House. If you want to talk about government size by looking at expenses, this government is also one of the largest in history. There is absolutely no way to say that the Conservatives are about limited government in anything other than false promises and dogmatic nattering.

[cybercoma]

"big government" is about increasing the role that government has in the economy.

Funny. I didn't see you getting up in arms when the Conservatives were "creating liquidity" for the banks. Our economy has been managed by governments since the middle of the 20th century. In fact, you're one of the first people to shake your pom-poms for Dear Leader when the labour numbers are positive. Moreover, you ignore the fact that "big government" is also about government intrusion into people's lives via crime and punishment laws and internet spying bills, but you don't criticize the Conservatives for that either. It's pretty obvious you take after your team by being more concerned with the perception of having values, but not actually standing behind them.

[TimG]

If you want to talk about government size by looking at expenses, this government is also one of the largest in history.

Inflation alone means every budget is the 'largest in history'. The statistic that matters is the percentage GDP due to government spending:

When it commandeered only 14.9 per cent of GDP in 2008, the Harper government achieved this country's best one-year fiscal victory (total expenditures as a percentage of GDP) in 50 years. Compare this percentage with 2004 when Liberal Paul Martin (in his first budget as prime minister) nationalized 16.3 per cent of GDP.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/harper-is-indeed-a-conservative-by-a-bit/article623878/?service=mobile

[socialist]

this thread title should read "We Can't Afford to NOT Elect Mulcair PM. The cpc is scared that's why they are attacking toms outstanding political integrity. you cons remind me of a whole flock of chicken littles. the ndp is rising and will be in power for decades after 2015. get used to it. if you don't like it move to a conservative country. oh sorry there are no more conservative countries because conservatism has been an epic failure evrywhere it infects. france figured it out.the usa figured it out. conservatives only appeal to the 1%. the ndp appeals to all us common people who werent born with daddys silver spoon. mulcair speaks for the little person. pat martin defend the little person. libby davis understands the hardships if the little person. those people understand me and my situation.

[cybercoma]

Inflation alone means every budget is the 'largest in history'. The statistic that matters is the percentage GDP due to government spending:

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/harper-is-indeed-a-conservative-by-a-bit/article623878/?service=mobile

With deficit spending. Is borrowing money your idea of reduced government?

[TimG]

With deficit spending. Is borrowing money your idea of reduced government?

What does deficit spending have to do with anything? The spending as a percentage of GDP is the same whether the money is borrowed or raised in taxes. The danger is perpetual deficits is they will cause the size of government to increase over time - they are not evil in themselves. That is why is very important to eliminate the deficit now - something which the conservatives are trying to do. Edited June 29, 2012 by TimG

[Topaz]

Well, you know what some journalist think of how the Tories will make a comeback. Right now, the Tories or Harper is doing all the dirty deeds to Canadians and when it gets closer to election time they start spreading the money out again, taxpayers money. I say, take the money and run to the voting booths and vote them out of power. Voters who are out of work will remember and voters being affecting by OAS down the road and EI won't forget either. BTW, I think Clements area has gotten enough money from him.

[Argus]

That one caught me off-guard as well.

Didn't catch me. August talks a lot about conservatism but at heart what he wants is power for Quebec. The NDP's power base right now is centred in Quebec.

And let's face it, the Conservatives are really not very conservative anyway.

[Argus]

It isnt a one-time increase. Growing the prison industry, and the military are long term spending obligations that will cost us money for many decades.

Manadatory minimum sentencing is a gigantic bottomless pit.

Given the cost of crime to every Canadian is estimated at over $90 billion a year (not counting police, courts and prisons) our society will almost certainly save quite a bit of money once we start locking away repeat offenders for longer periods of time.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Argus

[Guest Derek L]

Everyone does know a National shipbuilding Strategy has been a part of the NDP plateform for about 20 years now right? It has been supported time after time by NDP members. Why would Mulcair kill an idea which is the NDPs? Oh Yeah because people on this forum have no clue what the NDP stands for or the ideas Harper lifted from them.

NDP = No Defence Policy?

Joking aside, when the same methods applied to the F-35, are calculated into the costing of replacing the fleet, the sum will reach well over 100 billion dollars………Look at personal costs of 40 years……..If one adds the personal associated with the three remaining Destroyers and two AOR’s you have a similar number as to what it would take to man the two fighter squadrons……….Or look at fuel consumption, one Navy frigate running on her Gas Turbines drinks as much fuel in a day as a squadron of fighter jets………I can’t wait to hear the estimates of through life costing of 15 surface combatants, two tankers and 6-8 patrol vessels for 40+ years……….

[bleeding heart]

I acknowledged that is was a spending scheme. I also made no claims to its effectiveness (most government programs are failures so arguing this point is futile).

But you were defending it, even as you now imply that you were not.

"big government" is about increasing the role that government has in the economy.

No. I've countered this more thna once, and you ignore my point, which I argue on a philsophical basis, even as you contend it is a philosophical argument.

Big Government is not only the role that government has in the economy; Big government is about intrusion into people's lives (both warranted and not), and about authoritarianism.

Unless you'd wish to argue that relatively low-tax-friendly Mr.Pinochet did not run a "big government." It's preposterous.

The conservatives dislike government and want to minimizes its role.

No. they don't. That you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. Conservatives (or the ones to which we seem to be referring) wish for "small" government in terms of taxation, regulations, and so on; and large government in other ways.

No matter what you think of the spending choices - giving money back to parents reduces the role of government.

Entitlements are entitlements.

That's not my argument, by the way; that's the argument underpinning your detestation of social spending.

You can't have it both ways.

Edited June 30, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

Given the cost of crime to every Canadian is estimated at over $90 billion a year (not counting police, courts and prisons) our society will almost certainly save quite a bit of money once we start locking away repeat offenders for longer periods of time.

The idea that recidivism is a huge problem in Canada is a complete myth. Less than 10% of offenders re-offend and many of those are breach orders, rather than new crimes.

[Newfoundlander]

I'm just wondering where this lab is where these dangerous experiments are being conducted because it sure as hell isn't in the legislatures across the country. The NDP has the best fiscal record of all the major parties.

Has there actually been a real report done on this that gives details and reasoning? Someone sent me what they claimed to be a report once but it was just an article.

[Shady]

Mulcair would turn us into one of the European diasters, like Spain and Portugal. His policies are identical to theirs.

[BubberMiley]

Mulcair would turn us into one of the European diasters, like Spain and Portugal. His policies are identical to theirs.

Which specific policies are you referring to?