Just how fiscally conservative are these Conservatives?

[Archanfel]

Glad to see you agree...

...but that's where we differ on what's true. Our government is doing it all the time.

All the government has to do to help human beings in their struggle against corporations is to transfer it's responsibility to charter a corporation, the legal document that breathes life into them, to governments at a regional district or municipal level. This way they will be closer to the chain of accountability that starts with local taxpayers and in the case of corporations who extract natural resources, the people who live in the same ecosystems these resources are extracted.

It's a lot harder for someone to stab you in the back when they're sitting across the table from you in your home community but real easy when they're in Ottawa. Even our provinces are too large to entrust the business of chartering corporations to provincial governments.

Oh, great idea.

Let's see how that will play out. Let's say a region has a lot of trees. A company can just come in and say I will give each one of you a million dollar to let me cut all of them down. Sure, it will cause huge environmental problems, not only for the region but for all theirs neighbours, not to mentions global warming for everybody else. Do you think the local population will care? They will just take the money and move to Florida. That's assume the company was very ethical and didn't just bribe the government officials.

How about labour resource? Surely a local government can handle that? Well, guess what, any local government with stingy labour laws and high minimum wages will quickly lose businesses. Before long, you will see thousands of municipalities competing for sweat shops.

Even the federal government is sometimes at a disadvantage against multiple nationals, you hope a local government can effectively stand up to them? See what Walmart did? They just closed shops in any towns where a union was formed. And that's a service company that has to be local. Manufacture and technology companies will just move to China and even the Canadian government can't do a damn thing without protectionism. Unfortunately, protectionism does not work that well when you are small.

With greater power comes greater responsibilities. If you want a total free market without any regulation (i.e. the government has absolutely no power), that's fine by me. It will be brutal for many people, but the market eventually will balance out. But you can not ask for power without taking up the responsibilities.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Archanfel

[cybercoma]

Yeah, and look at the free spending New Democrats elsewhere...

That's just not the case. The NDP is the most fiscally conservative party in the country. Their provincial arms have more balanced and surplus budgets than any other.

[cybercoma]

Americans' corporate taxes are still insanely high compared to ours. Ours are working out much better for us because they are much lower.

And yes, our unemployment is much better now than it has been during times when other countries were experiencing economic troubles.

Interesting comment considering the most recent news has the US unemployment rate dropping, while ours is going up.

[cybercoma]

You understand politics the way my neighbour watches hockey. For you and him, it's all about "teams".Manning never became PM. Harper did.

The irony of a Conservative criticizing someone for seeing politics as being about teams is just too much to handle.

[eyeball]

Oh, great idea.

Let's see how that will play out. Let's say a region has a lot of trees. A company can just come in and say I will give each one of you a million dollar to let me cut all of them down.

Now your company will have to give thousands and maybe millions of people a million bucks each as opposed to just paying off a handful of officials. I doubt this strategy will be very sustainable for very long.

Sure, it will cause huge environmental problems, not only for the region but for all theirs neighbours, not to mentions global warming for everybody else. Do you think the local population will care? They will just take the money and move to Florida. That's assume the company was very ethical and didn't just bribe the government officials.

Speaking of assumptions why are you assuming local people would call every shot when it comes to their environment? I certainly didn't suggest they should. I think they should have more latitude in decisions affecting their environment but not the total authority you're suggesting.

How about labour resource? Surely a local government can handle that? Well, guess what, any local government with stingy labour laws and high minimum wages will quickly lose businesses. Before long, you will see thousands of municipalities competing for sweat shops. Even the federal government is sometimes at a disadvantage against multiple nationals, you hope a local government can effectively stand up to them?

Not alone no, I don't think any federal or municipal government on the planet can stand up to them on their own. Together they might but both need to be empowered to do so.

See what Walmart did? They just closed shops in any towns where a union was formed. And that's a service company that has to be local. Manufacture and technology companies will just move to China and even the Canadian government can't do a damn thing without protectionism. Unfortunately, protectionism does not work that well when you are small. With greater power comes greater responsibilities. If you want a total free market without any regulation (i.e. the government has absolutely no power), that's fine by me. It will be brutal for many people, but the market eventually will balance out. But you can not ask for power without taking up the responsibilities.

I don't want a total free market without any regulation. Your entire argument is pretty much based on the fiction that I did.

[Charon]

135 mill per jet fighter, the fiscal conservatism bit is a farce.

[Argus]

135 mill per jet fighter, the fiscal conservatism bit is a farce.

Jet fighters cost what they cost. They're not an extravagance, and it was the Liberals, you might remember, who initiated the contract in the first place.

[Argus]

Interesting comment considering the most recent news has the US unemployment rate dropping, while ours is going up.

You know, the economic theory behind the $11.5 billion cut in corporate taxes was that this would enhance their profits (good for shareholders) which would lead them to expand (good for the economy) and hire more workers (good for unemployment.

So what a great idea!

So how come a year later the stock market is going nowhere (so much for shareholders) the economy is going downhill and unemployment is rising? Maybe we need to rethink that economic theory and raise corporate taxes.

[cybercoma]

You know, the economic theory behind the $11.5 billion cut in corporate taxes was that this would enhance their profits (good for shareholders) which would lead them to expand (good for the economy) and hire more workers (good for unemployment.

So what a great idea!

So how come a year later the stock market is going nowhere (so much for shareholders) the economy is going downhill and unemployment is rising? Maybe we need to rethink that economic theory and raise corporate taxes.

I'm not sure why it's not obvious, but companies don't expand when there's no demand for their product. "They" say that tax credits allow them to hire more people which creates more demand, but that's putting the cart before the horse. You need demand to hire people, otherwise you're doing taking a huge gamble. This means that obviously the best way to encourage industrial growth is to put money in the hands of the customers by giving them tax breaks and credits. With more disposable income, the lower tax brackets consume more. Companies will respond by hiring more people and expanding to meet the increased demand. It quite simply does not work the other way and makes even less sense theoretically.

Edited April 20, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

I thought I’d bump this thread instead of starting a new:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/28/sluggish-growth-wont-keep-ottawa-from-balancing-budget-by-2015-budget-office/

The finance minister says the government is well on its way to eliminating the deficit by the target date despite what he acknowledges is a weaker-than-expected economy.

Flaherty was responding to a Parliamentary Budget Office report that predicts balancing the budget in the critical 2015-16 fiscal year will be a close shave, with a relatively small $200-million surplus, lower than the March budget estimate of $800-million.

But of course:

The report notes that the calculations may be subject to adjustments. The office notes that it did not attempt to include the impact of the throne speech promise to freeze operating budgets going forward.

In my view, that’s probably a wise decision, in that in doing so, it allows a slight financial parachute to soften the shock associated with cuts freezes to the public service and of course, any ensuing "negative" transitions ........I’m also optimistically pessimistic when it comes to financial maters, and as the old adage plays out with regards to counting chickens….So a probably prudent move.

The estimates, however, do incorporate last week’s surprise announcement that the deficit in the just-completed 2012-13 fiscal year was $7-billion lower than projected at $18.9-billion. As a result, the budget office says this year’s shortfall will come in at $14.7-billion, about $4 billion lower than forecast in the government’s March budget.

But of course, this news, like the EU free trade deal plays less into the lives of Canadians then does a scandal surrounding a Senator With improper expenses and the ensuing “uproar” when said money owed is paid………It’s the “process” I know, so I digress…

But since this is Politics, the most important angle:

Meeting the 2015-16 target is critical to the Harper government heading into a fall election in 2015 because it would enable the Conservatives to campaign on having fulfilled their pledge to introduce income splitting for households, but only once the budget is in balance.

The reason why the Conservatives will return in 2015 with a Majority Government........Beer and popcorn issues actually mater to Canadians that vote.

[cybercoma]

I find it funny that Flaherty said they wouldn't balance the budget and now they're saying they are. It's like they have no clue whatsoever what their revenues and expenses are.

[Guest Derek L]

I find it funny that Flaherty said they wouldn't balance the budget and now they're saying they are. It's like they have no clue whatsoever what their revenues and expenses are.

Or the offered prior conservative projections……..

[Smallc]

The economic conditions have been very hard to predict, but, they're doing pretty good. The Liberals ended up with larger surpluses than projected all of the time.

[Guest Derek L]

The economic conditions have been very hard to predict, but, they're doing pretty good. The Liberals ended up with larger surpluses than projected all of the time.

Exactly........and then, like now, only a Hyper-Partisan would find fault in that.

[jacee]

I find it funny that Flaherty said they wouldn't balance the budget and now they're saying they are. It's like they have no clue whatsoever what their revenues and expenses are.

Maybe they're calculating on 3 less senators now.

[cybercoma]

The economy is still unstable, you say? So much for economic stability from the Tories then. I guess that plank rotted out of their platform, just like the accountability one.

[PIK]

...

Edited October 29, 2013 by PIK

[PIK]

I find it funny that Flaherty said they wouldn't balance the budget and now they're saying they are. It's like they have no clue whatsoever what their revenues and expenses are.

When did he say that, all I ever heard was it would be balanced by 15??

[Smallc]

I don't really credit the Conservatives with stability.