2014 Federal Budget

[cybercoma]

There's social media buzz that fiscally responsible Conservatives once again have no idea how to balance a budget. Jim Flaherty has announced to reporters that its not going to happen this year. But don't worry, as we've heard before, it'll happen next year. Which is convenient since there's going to be an election then.

[Keepitsimple]

There's social media buzz that fiscally responsible Conservatives once again have no idea how to balance a budget. Jim Flaherty has announced to reporters that its not going to happen this year. But don't worry, as we've heard before, it'll happen next year. Which is convenient since there's going to be an election then.

What's your point - did you want more cuts and austerity so they could balance in 2014? That surprises me Cyber that you would advocate that - perhaps you're more Conservative than you let on. All kidding aside, they were once warning that it might take till 2016 to balance the budget - but since then, they've always promised 2015.

[cybercoma]

Yes. The only option is cutbacks or deficit spending. I see.

You know, it's funny how much Conservative supporters will go out of their way to rationalize spending money they don't have, only to criticize other governments for doing the same thing. If you want to be the "fiscally responsible party," you would think that under a majority government they would show some fiscal responsibility. Instead, they've torched their revenues with credits & perks to their favourite interests, made a meaningless vote-grabbing adjustment to the GST, and handed out corporate welfare to companies that haven't netted us as many jobs as over half of the OECD. A real fiscal conservative would be appalled by these Conservatives. Partisan hacks will continue to make excuses for the party not living up to their values.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I for one am glad that they didn't do a draconian round of cuts during this recession. Certainly they could have. They don't have my vote, but I at least appreciate this aspect of their governance.

[Shady]

What's your point - did you want more cuts and austerity so they could balance in 2014? That surprises me Cyber that you would advocate that - perhaps you're more Conservative than you let on. All kidding aside, they were once warning that it might take till 2016 to balance the budget - but since then, they've always promised 2015.

Good catch. He has no point, because he'd be the first one screaming against any cuts. Regardless, they forecasted a balanced budget ahead of what they first thought. Now it might be an extra year. So what? Take a look at the budget situations of other G20 countries. We're by far in the best shape, with the deficit shrinking significantly each year.

Anyways, it's funny to hear somebody reference "Internet buzz" on of all things social media.

[Topaz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the country be in a better place to pay off the deficit sooner rather than later? What the interest on that debt? As always, everything they do is for THEIR own good,election time, brag about the pay off and I hope voters realize at what cost to US.

[Bryan]

There's social media buzz that fiscally responsible Conservatives once again have no idea how to balance a budget. Jim Flaherty has announced to reporters that its not going to happen this year. But don't worry, as we've heard before, it'll happen next year. Which is convenient since there's going to be an election then.

2015 is what they've been projecting for quite some time.

[On Guard for Thee]

And the excuse next year will be well the Canada jobs act that doesn't exist but that we pissed away millions advertising kinda screwed up out books. On top of that the "economic action plan" F 35's and gazebos. Well you have to understand when we waste all that kinda money it's a bit hard to flog the old "fiscal conservative" agenda. But don't worry, we'll be right back.

[Keepitsimple]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the country be in a better place to pay off the deficit sooner rather than later? What the interest on that debt? As always, everything they do is for THEIR own good,election time, brag about the pay off and I hope voters realize at what cost to US.

Would you be part of the Liberals and NDP who wanted the government to spend more on the Stimulus (NDP) and spend it faster (Liberals)? Or were you a Conservative at the time?

[cybercoma]

Hey guys, KeepItSimple made up a bunch of stuff about the Liberals and NDP. So what do you think about that?

[Keepitsimple]

Hey guys, KeepItSimple made up a bunch of stuff about the Liberals and NDP. So what do you think about that?

You forgot to put a winking emoticom for sarcasm!

Here at home, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP Leader Jack Layton are calling on the Conservative government not to reduce the corporate tax rate next year - and to use this saving (perhaps $8-billion) to finance more stimulus spending. This would waste as much money as eight G8-G20 summits. Mr. Flaherty should stand firm, as he undoubtedly will.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/the-bad-economics-behind-stimulus-spending/article4323174/

Edited February 8, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Simple! Harper Conservative corporate tax cuts... under the guise of job creation. Just how did that work out? What corporate tax cuts... and what resulting job creation?

[Shady]

Would you be part of the Liberals and NDP who wanted the government to spend more on the Stimulus (NDP) and spend it faster (Liberals)? Or were you a Conservative at the time?

It's Orwellian that these amateurs attempt to take down the government for their lack of spending, and have the unmitigated nerve to complain about not reaching a balanced budget sooner.

[Jrtrader007]

Keepitsimple, on 07 Feb 2014 - 10:18 PM, said:

Would you be part of the Liberals and NDP who wanted the government to spend more on the Stimulus (NDP) and spend it faster (Liberals)? Or were you a Conservative at the time?

Exactly! We are still coming out of a huge recession where nearly every country in the world is running on huge deficits from stimulus packages trying to provide growth for the economy. The fact that these far left people actually think the Liberals or NDP wouldn't be running a deficit right now is laughable. Look at the Left wing run countries in Europe! they will be running deficits for years and years. It is quite the success to be one of the first in the g 20 to be running a surplus since the 2008 recession. Job well done!

[cybercoma]

Except for over half the OECD that has netted more jobs than Canada since 2008. Yeah. Harper has done great.

[TimG]

Except for over half the OECD that has netted more jobs than Canada since 2008. Yeah. Harper has done great.

Yawn. Jim Stanford is so desperate to trash the Conservative record that mines the available employment stats and finds one which does not look so good. He then cooks up a rationalization for why this particular stat is so important. Legions of NDP types take to the internet and repeat this dubious stat without context.

The particular stat you are looking at is the change in the employment rate - i.e. a country could be producing millions of jobs but if population growth outpaces it then the employment rate decreases. So your claim that "over half the OECD that has netted more jobs than Canada since 2008" is pretty dishonest because other countries produce fewer jobs but only do better on this stat because their populations are not growing.

Edited February 9, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

What's meaningless is trying to argue that it's no problem not having enough jobs for your growing population.

[TimG]

What's meaningless is trying to argue that it's no problem not having enough jobs for your growing population.

Again you are being dishonest. The employment rate does not tell us that there "aren't enough jobs" because there are many reasons for why people do not work. Staying home to take care of kids or going back to school are reasons that don't necessarily indicate a lack of jobs. The unemployment rate is supposed to tell us how many people can't find work that want it (it is not perfect but it is a better measure than employment rate)

If you look carefully at this stat you will note that it is still 2% HIGHER than when Liberals were in charge. So if you think this stat is so important then you must also conclude that the Liberals were worse than the Conservatives. If you look at the US you will see that that this stat has been in decline since Obama took charge and the CBO claims that Obamacare will cause it to drop even further as people no longer feel the need to work to maintain healthcare. Does that mean Obamacare is bad? If you look at Australia you will see that their employment rate is less than Canada even if it did increase slightly over the last 5 years. Does that mean Australia is doing worse than Canada?

In short, this stat is complex and cannot be reduced to a talking point.

Edited February 9, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Again you are being dishonest. The employment rate does not tell us that there "aren't enough jobs" because there are many reasons for why people do not work. Staying home to take care of kids or going back to school are reasons that don't necessarily indicate a lack of jobs. The unemployment rate is supposed to tell us how many people can't find work that want it (it is not perfect but it is a better measure than employment rate)If you look carefully at this stat you will note that it is still 2% HIGHER than when Liberals were in charge. So if you think this stat is so important then you must also conclude that the Liberals were worse than the Conservatives. If you look at the US you will see that that this stat has been in decline since Obama took charge and the CBO claims that Obamacare will cause it to drop even further as people no longer feel the need to work to maintain healthcare. Does that mean Obamacare is bad? If you look at Australia you will see that their employment rate is less than Canada even if it did increase slightly over the last 5 years. Does that mean Australia is doing worse than Canada?In short, this stat is complex and cannot be reduced to a talking point.

You know very well that people not looking for work are not considered unemployed nor are they considered part of the labour force, yet you call me dishonest? The dishonesty is all yours, defending a party for getting results that you would vocally criticize from any other.

[TimG]

You know very well that people not looking for work are not considered unemployed nor are they considered part of the labour force, yet you call me dishonest?

You should learn what the stats mean before you quote them - people not looking for work ARE part of the labour force working age population used to calculate the percentage.

http://economics.about.com/od/unemploymentrate/f/labor_force.htm

The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who:

Are employed

Are unemployed but looking for a job

Typically "working-age persons" is defined as people between the ages of 16-64. People in those age groups who are not counted as participating in the labor force are typically students, homemakers, and persons under the age of 64 who are retired.

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=13

The employment rate shows the percentage of Canadian adults (15 years of age and over) working for pay, and thus in a position to earn income to take care of themselves and their families.

The last link has a stat which completely undermines your claim that this stat is an indictment of Conservative policies:

Despite three recessions in the last 35 years, Canada's employment rate increased over time from 57.1% in 1976 to 61.8% in 2012. The employment rate decreased with the 2008-2009 recesssion, but considerably less than during the 1981-1982 and 1990-1992 recessions.

Edited February 9, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I should learn what stats mean? Really? You just quoted a bunch of stuff that says exactly what I just said. You're only part of the labour force if you're employed or actively looking for work. The stay-at-home mother is neither unemployed nor part of the labour force.

[TimG]

I should learn what stats mean? Really? You just quoted a bunch of stuff that says exactly what I just said. You're only part of the labour force if you're employed or actively looking for work. The stay-at-home mother is neither unemployed nor part of the labour force.

WTF are you talking about? The stats in question (i.e. the one Jim Stanford is harping about) are relative to the "working age population" not the labour force. There was a typo in my post but anyone with half a brain should have been able to understand the intent - especially given the two links provided.

If you had taken the time to think you would have realized that if the employment rate was what you claimed it would simply be (100 - unemployment rate). But it is not - it is usually in the 60s which says it must be based on something different than the group of people working or looking for work.

Edited February 9, 2014 by TimG

[Argus]

Except for over half the OECD that has netted more jobs than Canada since 2008. Yeah. Harper has done great.

You're being simplistic here, Cyber. Canada's job situation has more to do with the world economy than what Harper and his government do. We didn't fall nearly as far as much of the world in the recession, in large measure because China was still going well and buying lots of our resources. Now that China has slowed the last few years, resource demand and prices have tumbled, and that's costing us.

As for your belief we should not have cut taxes, I agree with you. I was against the GST cuts, and am against the corporate tax cuts now (though admitedly wasn't at the time). But in realpolitics there is no way the tories could raise the GST again. I do think we need to make some changes to our taxation for business, however, drastic changes which would not only draw in more money but reward good corporate behavior rather than bad corporate behavior, as is currently the case.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Canada's job situation has more to do with the world economy than what Harper and his government do.

I don't think for a minute that Harper was responsible for ruining the economy. He is responsible for not managing the situation better. As we were facing the worst recession in our lifetimes, he was cutting federal revenues and giving out credits to every pet interest he could think of.

As for your belief we should not have cut taxes, I agree with you. I was against the GST cuts, and am against the corporate tax cuts now (though admitedly wasn't at the time). But in realpolitics there is no way the tories could raise the GST again. I do think we need to make some changes to our taxation for business, however, drastic changes which would not only draw in more money but reward good corporate behavior rather than bad corporate behavior, as is currently the case.

There's a number of solutions. The GST created a huge problem alone, but the assault on revenues didn't stop there. It's easier to cut necessary programs when you destroy revenues and make simpletons believe that there's no other option but deficit or program cuts.

[TimG]

It's easier to cut necessary programs when you destroy revenues and make simpletons believe that there's no other option but deficit or program cuts.

The point you seem to be missing is you cannot control the costs of providing services if there is a belief that revenues are easy to come by because any additional revenue will go to pay for increased benefits and pay for existing public servants. Whether you like it or not starving the government of revenue is the only way to run a fiscally responsible government. Edited February 10, 2014 by TimG