Finance Minister Jim Flaherty Resigns

[hitops]

It was a CPC strategy that was ideologically astute as their GST cut, which is really what blew their budgets out the window.

The policy was stupid, but had nothing to do with ideology. There is nothing conservative about, it is pure left-wing government interventionism, with the classic predictable unintended consequences that go with it.

The C in CPC doesn't automatically make everything they do conservative. True conservative policy would be not only to be very conservative with CMHC rules, but to actually get rid of the CMHC. They did the opposite.

Edited March 24, 2014 by hitops

[hitops]

This is where I'd go as far as saying the only reason we've had an ok economy is *because* of the housing market and all the productivity that has gone into development and purchase. It's smoke and mirrors, they just prolonged the inevitable and it's going to hurt worse, way worse, than in would've had they just let the full correction happen in 09 the way most of the world experienced the era.

I would have lost half the equity in my condo, but I still think we'd be in a better place as a country than we are today with this mess of a housing market. I really do.

Exactly, it would have been far healthier to let the market correct when it was supposed to. And the downside of you avoiding loss at that time - you're not really avoiding it, you will still lose equity on your condo eventually over the next few years (unless you sell).

Classic to form, the social engineers at the time wanted to use government power to make housing affordable and attainable for some. The results are that it has never been more unaffordable.

Edited March 24, 2014 by hitops

[eyeball]

The C in CPC doesn't automatically make everything they do conservative. True conservative policy would be not only to be very conservative with CMHC rules, but to actually get rid of the CMHC. They did the opposite.

Yup, the right wing is a direction, not a place.

[Michael Hardner]

You're saying the government tilted the playing field away from the banks? I guess that explains the 27 billion dollar in profits the banks made when they were taken advantage of.

Less profit than if the government hadn't charged them a juicy piece for what you're calling a 'bailout'.

[hitops]

Yup, the right wing is a direction, not a place.

All 'wings' in the political spectrum are a direction. The CPC seems to have no real direction at this point, they are kinda just going in different directions. The CMHC loosening the rules in 2006 and using taxpayers credit to balloon liabilities, and the sudden decision to force telecom companies into certain rules, are nothing but pure left-wing policy. And both have, as expected, resulted in large costs to all Canadians and failed to help anyone. In the former case, housing is now the most expensive ever, and most over-valued in the world. In the latter, cell phone plans are now both much worse, and more expensive than previously. Both policies could easily have the Tom Mulcair stamp of approval.

Dumb left ideas don't prove the conservative party is dumb. It just proves they are dumb when they pursue left ideas.

Full disclosure: I do endorse some 'lefty' ideas in principle.

Edited March 24, 2014 by hitops

[cybercoma]

That report is a pile of crap - it's a Left Wing think tank that hates all things Conservative

The definition of an ad hominem argument.

[Topaz]

So when the Tories get their surplus, will they leave it there like the Liberals did, no, they will spend it in their ridings to buy more votes. As far as income-splitting, only the middle-upper incomers will benefit, which I guess the MP's and their families qualify.

[Keepitsimple]

The definition of an ad hominem argument.

In retrospect, I should not have opened my post with that remark. I admit, I was a little frustrated at the quality of the study and I blurted it out. Lets call it a moment of weakness. I stand by the rest of my post.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

So when the Tories get their surplus, will they leave it there like the Liberals did, no, they will spend it in their ridings to buy more votes.

When did the Liberals leave it there?

[hitops]

So when the Tories get their surplus, will they leave it there like the Liberals did, no, they will spend it in their ridings to buy more votes. As far as income-splitting, only the middle-upper incomers will benefit, which I guess the MP's and their families qualify.

This is in no way a conservative policy. We should not give tax breaks to one select group (married with one person working), at the expense of everyone else.

Now that said, this benefit to those with a two-parent single income, is a drop in the bucket compared to the benefits to the poor. It's not even close.

[TimG]

This is in no way a conservative policy. We should not give tax breaks to one select group (married with one person working), at the expense of everyone else.

Then we should get rid of the tax deduction for childcare. If they really wanted to be fair allowing income splitting for parents with kids up to the maximum allowed childcare deduction would make the tax system neutral.

[cybercoma]

You know what Jim Flaherty gets to take credit for? Inheriting Liberal fiscal policy and telling Canadians repeatedly that the government is going to "stay the course." What course is that? The course the Liberals set out upon.

[On Guard for Thee]

When did the Liberals leave it there? why when they handed it to Harper. And guess what the conservatives did with it! They may achieve a balanced budget next time around but look at the whopping debt they have amassed.

[Smallc]

When did the Liberals leave it there? why when they handed it to Harper. And guess what the conservatives did with it! They may achieve a balanced budget next time around but look at the whopping debt they have amassed.

Yes, lets ignore the fact that the Liberals spent every surplus, as well as the world context in which Canada ran it's most recent string of deficits.

[On Guard for Thee]

If they had spent it, it wouldn't be a surplus. Not sure I get what you are trying to say with the rest.

[cybercoma]

Yes, lets ignore the fact that the Liberals spent every surplus, as well as the world context in which Canada ran it's most recent string of deficits.

The domestic context is that they slashed billions in revenue by cutting the GST, at a time when the world context that you speak of would dictate that government revenues would drop while government expenses would increase (more people became unemployed [lower revenues] and require services like EI [greater expenses]). Otherwise, Flaherty's mantra was that the government needed to "stay the course." He did nothing creative or constructive at all in his time at the helm.

Edited March 25, 2014 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

If they had spent it, it wouldn't be a surplus. Not sure I get what you are trying to say with the rest.

They spent every surplus that they had. They didn't use it to reduce debt or to cut taxes, they used it to buy votes in their own way.

[Smallc]

The domestic context is that they slashed billions in revenue by cutting the GST, at a time when the world context that you speak of would dictate that government revenues would drop while government expenses would increase (more people became unemployed [lower revenues] and require services like EI [greater expenses]). Otherwise, Flaherty's mantra was that the government needed to "stay the course." He did nothing creative or constructive at all in his time at the helm.

I don't like the GST cut, but in the other hand, its effect would be stimulative to the economy, as it gave consumers more spending power. There would have been a large deficit regardless, and it's clear now that the deficit is not structural.

[The_Squid]

They spent every surplus that they had. They didn't use it to reduce debt or to cut taxes, they used it to buy votes in their own way.

So the debt went down in the 2000's how? Magic debt fairies?

Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975. For the next 12 years it grew on average over 20% per year. It surpassed $100 billion in 1981, $200 billion in 1985, $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion in 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked at $563 billion in 1997, before then declining to $458 billion by 2008.

With a recession, and an increase in federal spending from 2008, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and is expected to grow by $55.9 billion in 2009-10. Large annual deficits since 2008 has Canadian debt surpassing the $600 billion mark by November 2012, making it larger than the 1997 peak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt

[Smallc]

There was a small debt reduction payment applied by the Liberals. The Harper Conservatives applied 3 - 4 large payments before the recession started. The conservatives never spent their surpluses.

[On Guard for Thee]

Take a look at the books. Martin handed Harper a 13 billion dollar surplus. Harper has has parlayed that into a slightly larger number, only it's in red.

[Accountability Now]

Take a look at the books. Martin handed Harper a 13 billion dollar surplus. Harper has has parlayed that into a slightly larger number, only it's in red.

I guess you like cherry picking as you seem to leave out Chretien's years. Sure...he had surpluses but if you add up all of his surpluses and deficits (in adjusted for inflation numbers) you get -74.7 billion. You do the same to Harper and you see that he's at -158 billion but one of these guys dealt with the greatest recession since the Great Depression and the other enjoyed boom years where even the US turned surpluses. I'll let you figure out who was who.

[overthere]

You're right, my wording was very unclear while I was actually talking about both. The Liberals paid down the debt with surplus after surplus and while the CPC came in with the same idea that policy went out the window and the debt mushroomed after so many straights deficits.

And I stand by what I say - you can't compare it to a government that didn't exist. Their record speaks only for itself.

This is where I'd go as far as saying the only reason we've had an ok economy is *because* of the housing market and all the productivity that has gone into development and purchase. It's smoke and mirrors, they just prolonged the inevitable and it's going to hurt worse, way worse, than in would've had they just let the full correction happen in 09 the way most of the world experienced the era.

I would have lost half the equity in my condo, but I still think we'd be in a better place as a country than we are today with this mess of a housing market. I really do.

The Liberals paid down some small portion of the national debt with two main 'strategies': by making provinces assume costs for core programs like healthcare/slashing defence costs and by taking advanatge of lower interest rates on the debt(rates they lucked into).

They just transferred debt to other levels of govt and fooled a lot of people, including you apparently.

Oh, and Alberta has had a pretty crappy real estae market as compared to Canada since 2007, and still the economy prospers in spite of that. Real estate markets in Canada are very regional.

[On Guard for Thee]

What you have just described is exactly what Harper/Flaherty have down. It just hasn't worked so well this time around.

[Keepitsimple]

What you have just described is exactly what Harper/Flaherty have down. It just hasn't worked so well this time around.

How so???????