One of the reasons I won't be voting for Harper: Economic record

[angrypenguin]

Don't waste your time, he will never stop spreading the same out of context talking points, he cares only for a liberal win, he doesn't care about the means to that end.

Yeah I joined yesterday. Starting to learn who's who around here :-)

[waldo]

Trudeau has said that deficits are bad under Harper, yet he wants to run 3 years worth of deficits. And we don't need to at this point. There is no global recession crisis at this point. And when he uses that line in the debates about...."wouldn't you borrow when the rates are low?" - that screams idiocy to me. Micro and macro economics are two completely different topics.

no - as I'm aware, Liberal leader Trudeau has repeatedly reminded Harper of his 6 consecutive deficits... particularly when Harper presumes to speak to the "evils of deficits"! When those individual 'micro-level' infrastructure projects are collectively tallied, what level are you speaking to?

[Argus]

Except they did need to spend it and by not doing so they robbed deserving people, such as vets, of services, and only to throw numbers around that their head in the sand supporters have allowed themselves to be convinced is now a surplus.

You people have no idea how government works. I can tell you that the worst crime any senior mandarin can ever commit in the public service is going over his or her yearly budget. With that in mind, all DMs and commissioners ensure that they don't budget too close to their limits so that unexpected events don't throw them into deficit. Outspending your budget is a VERY BIG DEAL in government. It means the DM has to go to Treasury Board and explain himself to a very unhappy and unforgiving audience. Treasury Board is not made up of nice people. Ex's at all levels tremble at the thought of their anger. You might be a big wheel at your department but you're chum in the water if Treasury Board decides you screwed up in your fiscal work.

Of course, you don't want to have too much money left over at the end of the year, either. That can make you look bad, too careful, not making proper use of the resources allotted you. Also, if you got by on less last year, maybe they'll decide you can get by on less next year too. The way this used to be handled is fairly well known even to those of you outside government (it certainly was to vendors). As the end of year approached government departments and agencies would suddenly find a pressing need for a huge pile of new computers or furniture or whatnot, anything to spend down the excess. The public hated that, though, and the Tories have been reasonably successful in curtailing the practice. So at the end of the year the extra money gets returned.

[Argus]

Wow, you sure missed the point there. Shutting down services and then saying, oh we didn't need the money after all, is nothing short of dishonest. Harper is well known for it.

Services are shut down to save money on an ongoing basis, not just this year. The fact you have a surplus of funds THIS year doesn't mean you will next year, so you shut down services to keep within budgets over the coming years.

[Argus]

no - as I'm aware, Liberal leader Trudeau has repeatedly reminded Harper of his 6 consecutive deficits... particularly when Harper presumes to speak to the "evils of deficits"! When those individual 'micro-level' infrastructure projects are collectively tallied, what level are you speaking to?

Isn't the entire basis for young Mister Trudeau's leadership that his father was PM? Didn't dad have 11 deficits while quadrupling spending? Doesn't young Mister Trudeau speak a lot of his admiration for the elder Mister Trudeau?

[waldo]

Isn't the entire basis for young Mister Trudeau's leadership that his father was PM? Didn't dad have 11 deficits while quadrupling spending? Doesn't young Mister Trudeau speak a lot of his admiration for the elder Mister Trudeau?

really? I'm shocked that you would deflect/distract a focus away from Harper and target long-past governments and long-dead former leaders... do you do this quite frequently?

[Argus]

really? I'm shocked that you would deflect/distract a focus away from Harper and target long-past governments and long-dead former leaders... do you do this quite frequently?

I'm not shocked you would misunderstand the entire thrust of my post. It is young Mister Trudeau I am addressing, your boy, the guy running for office, and his two faced position on deficits. They were great when daddy was running them. They'll be great when he runs them. But Harper running them was a threat to the very survival of the human species!

[waldo]

I'm not shocked you would misunderstand the entire thrust of my post. It is young Mister Trudeau I am addressing, your boy, the guy running for office, and his two faced position on deficits. They were great when daddy was running them. They'll be great when he runs them. But Harper running them was a threat to the very survival of the human species!

your revisionism and perpetual want to deflect/distract the focus away from Harper is noted... you continually bring up past references to prior long-past/long-dead Liberal governments/leaders. You can't actually speak to or rationalize positions and actions taken by Harper... without your perpetual "but the Liberals, but the Liberals" routine.

[WIP]

Hell, the main reason I am voting Conservative is because of the economic record and the economy!

Trudeau will sink us back into deficits, and I do not believe 1 iota from him about a surplus in Year 4.

Mulcair is like a snake oil salesman. He's selling something to everyone and he promises to balance the budget. Yeah, right

Devil I know and all. Plus, I hope people actually look at how quickly and how aggressively the Conservatives balanced their budget YoY since that massive spend in 2008.

AND, last time I voted Liberal!

I won't be voting Conservative, primarily because....after the changes Harper has made so far in our government, I don't believe we will be able to dislodge this kind of Neoliberal/corporate-friendly government again even when the Conservatives are out of power!

We've seen this process unfold over the last 30 years or so in the US, where the Republicans went from being the minority party in Congress and in most state houses, to being the Party that runs local government all across America....even in many of the more liberal states; mostly because of gerrymandering of districts, but also because "money equals speech for corporate "persons.""

No doubt we will end up with the same crap in this Country after another Harper term finds ways of reducing the size of the voting public, expanding thought control under Bill C-51, and essentially making us the 51st state once the TPP, TISA and TTIP get rammed through.....another issue that doesn't seem to be able to be brought to public attention. Good thing the dairy farmers came along this time and actually got TPP back in the news cycle, and what the repercussions will be after 2nd stage NAFTA goes through.

When it comes to the economy: you're dreaming if you think things are going to be better next year! Regardless of who's in power, a resource export-dependent economy like Canada's is going to get whacked by a continuing economic malaise where trillions in accumulated debt are crushing demand for oil and other commodities. I'm betting the storms on the horizon were the reason why Harper called the election now, in the first place! Maybe the Liberals nor the NDP will be able to do a better job managing an economy during times of reduced demand for oil and metals....but at least their not fascists like the modern day Conservative Party!

[Argus]

your revisionism and perpetual want to deflect/distract the focus away from Harper is noted... you continually bring up past references to prior long-past/long-dead Liberal governments/leaders. You can't actually speak to or rationalize positions and actions taken by Harper... without your perpetual "but the Liberals, but the Liberals" routine.

Don't you ever get tired of whining about how unfair it is for people to talk about your party leader and his failures of leadership and integrity?

Trudeau loves deficits! His father had 11 of them and he loved them! He's planning on running more of them! Neither of those can be denied.

So why would he keep bitching about Harper's deficits?

[dialamah]

Services are shut down to save money on an ongoing basis, not just this year. The fact you have a surplus of funds THIS year doesn't mean you will next year, so you shut down services to keep within budgets over the coming years.

So there I am, farming away on my little quarter section and I notice that I need to get more seed for next years crop. But wait, I promised the wife we'd have a little extra this year! What to do, what to do?? I know! I'll only get half as much crop as I need, so that I'll have a little extra THIS year AND a little extra next year!

Yup, that'll work.

So why would he keep bitching about Harper's deficits?

Same reason Harper keeps harping about Trudeau's planned deficits without mentioning his own historical deficits. And either way, they're both fudging the other side: Harper creates fear by claiming Trudeau plans to go into unlimited debt forever, which is simply not true; Trudeau conveniently fails to acknowledge that there was a bit of a financial crisis at the beginning of Harper's term.

I have to say though, that I get all the FB feed from all three parties, and Harper goes on a lot more about the Trudeau's deficit plan than Trudeau goes on about Harper's past deficit policy.

Trudeau loves deficits! His father had 11 of them and he loved them! He's planning on running more of them! Neither of those can be denied.

Unfortunately for this Conservative argument, Trudeau and his father are NOT clones. And using your "logic", I guess since Harper has already managed 6 deficits, I guess it's time for me to shout-out "HARPER LOVES DEFICITS! HE'S RUN SIX OF THEM!" and to really take a page out of the Conservative handbook I'll add "AND HE'S GOING TO RUN MORE BECAUSE HE RAN THEM IN THE PAST'

But even you can see how stupid that would be, eh?

Edited September 30, 2015 by dialamah

[dialamah]

When it comes to the economy: you're dreaming if you think things are going to be better next year! Regardless of who's in power, a resource export-dependent economy like Canada's is going to get whacked by a continuing economic malaise where trillions in accumulated debt are crushing demand for oil and other commodities. I'm betting the storms on the horizon were the reason why Harper called the election now, in the first place! Maybe the Liberals nor the NDP will be able to do a better job managing an economy during times of reduced demand for oil and metals....but at least their not fascists like the modern day Conservative Party!

+1

[ToadBrother]

Don't you ever get tired of whining about how unfair it is for people to talk about your party leader and his failures of leadership and integrity?

Trudeau loves deficits! His father had 11 of them and he loved them! He's planning on running more of them! Neither of those can be denied.

So why would he keep bitching about Harper's deficits?

Harper must love deficits as well. He ran enough of them.

[angrypenguin]

I won't be voting Conservative, primarily because....after the changes Harper has made so far in our government, I don't believe we will be able to dislodge this kind of Neoliberal/corporate-friendly government again even when the Conservatives are out of power!

We've seen this process unfold over the last 30 years or so in the US, where the Republicans went from being the minority party in Congress and in most state houses, to being the Party that runs local government all across America....even in many of the more liberal states; mostly because of gerrymandering of districts, but also because "money equals speech for corporate "persons.""

No doubt we will end up with the same crap in this Country after another Harper term finds ways of reducing the size of the voting public, expanding thought control under Bill C-51, and essentially making us the 51st state once the TPP, TISA and TTIP get rammed through.....another issue that doesn't seem to be able to be brought to public attention. Good thing the dairy farmers came along this time and actually got TPP back in the news cycle, and what the repercussions will be after 2nd stage NAFTA goes through.

When it comes to the economy: you're dreaming if you think things are going to be better next year! Regardless of who's in power, a resource export-dependent economy like Canada's is going to get whacked by a continuing economic malaise where trillions in accumulated debt are crushing demand for oil and other commodities. I'm betting the storms on the horizon were the reason why Harper called the election now, in the first place! Maybe the Liberals nor the NDP will be able to do a better job managing an economy during times of reduced demand for oil and metals....but at least their not fascists like the modern day Conservative Party!

So in your mind, you are saying Canada's screwed financially.

Ok, I buy that. It could be a possibility.

So at this point, you're going to vote for two parties that want to spend/waste BILLIONS of $. That's poor logic.

The whole 6 consecutive deficit argument is getting old. Libs/NDP's do this over and over again. 2008 was not a "bump", it was a HUGE one off.

Edited September 30, 2015 by angrypenguin

[ToadBrother]

So in your mind, you are saying Canada's screwed financially.

Ok, I buy that. It could be a possibility.

So at this point, you're going to vote for two parties that want to spend/waste BILLIONS of $. That's poor logic.

The whole 6 consecutive deficit argument is getting old. Libs/NDP's do this over and over again. 2008 was not a "bump", it was a HUGE one off.

Why is it getting old? The fact is that the Tories for 2/3s of their time in power had no problem with deficits. It's only as they faced a difficult electoral cycle that suddenly they're the deficit busting government.

It reminds me more of a death row conversion than a legitimate new position for the Tories.

Edited September 30, 2015 by ToadBrother

[angrypenguin]

Why is it getting old? The fact is that the Tories for 2/3s of their time in power had no problem with deficits. It's only as they faced a difficult electoral cycle that suddenly they're the deficit busting government.

It reminds me more of a death row conversion than a legitimate new position for the Tories.

Because they needed to recover from the 2008 recession, they dumped in huge spending, and then kept reduced it year after year. I posted about this last night. I strongly believe no other government would have gotten us out of a deficit.

[dialamah]

So at this point, you're going to vote for two parties that want to spend/waste BILLIONS of $. That's poor logic.

Are you saying that money spent on infrastructure and social programs is a waste? If so, why do you think that way?

The whole 6 consecutive deficit argument is getting old. Libs/NDP's do this over and over again

Harper rotates two main messages on my FB feed - security (national and international) and the economy: 'deficits are bad, and Trudeau plans to run a massive deficit forever and ever. NDP don't know what they're doing and will raise taxes on everybody. Only the Conservatives will lower taxes and keep a balanced budget". So, maybe when Harper/Conservatives stop repeating how awful Trudeau/Deficits are or how incompetent NDP is, maybe the other parties will stop reminding Harper (and his supporters) that he ran six deficits in a row. So when you feel exasperated at that same tired argument, remember - we're all tired of yours, too.

. 2008 was not a "bump", it was a HUGE one off.

So, if 2008 was a HUGE one-off why wasn't there a balanced budget in 2009? Or even in 2010? Why did it take Harper so long to return to a balanced budget? What was he 'wasting' money on?

[angrypenguin]

Are you saying that money spent on infrastructure and social programs is a waste? If so, why do you think that way?

Harper rotates two main messages on my FB feed - security (national and international) and the economy: 'deficits are bad, and Trudeau plans to run a massive deficit forever and ever. NDP don't know what they're doing and will raise taxes on everybody. Only the Conservatives will lower taxes and keep a balanced budget". So, maybe when Harper/Conservatives stop repeating how awful Trudeau/Deficits are or how incompetent NDP is, maybe the other parties will stop reminding Harper (and his supporters) that he ran six deficits in a row. So when you feel exasperated at that same tired argument, remember - we're all tired of yours, too.

So, if 2008 was a HUGE one-off why wasn't there a balanced budget in 2009? Or even in 2010? Why did it take Harper so long to return to a balanced budget? What was he 'wasting' money on?

Look at how quickly and aggressively the Conservatives managed to pay down the deficit.

As in, actually Google it. You can't pay off that amount of deficit in 1 year. It's impossible.

The Cons have spent $84 billion on Infrastructure - the HIGHEST in the history of Canada. The Liberals want to TRIPLE that. Look, I get the point of investing in Infrastructure, but Trudeau is buying votes by whoring the Canadian economy.

Most G7 countries are STILL in a deficit when we have finally dug ourselves out of one, without raising taxes. How do you think the liberals and/or the NDP will fund their $20 billion promises.

Here's a hint. By raising taxes. I wish people would actually go research stuff instead of spewing off party lines.

Edited September 30, 2015 by angrypenguin

[Argus]

So there I am, farming away on my little quarter section and I notice that I need to get more seed for next years crop. But wait, I promised the wife we'd have a little extra this year! What to do, what to do?? I know! I'll only get half as much crop as I need, so that I'll have a little extra THIS year AND a little extra next year!

I don't understand your attempt at a comparison. It makes no sense.

If a department has to cut its budget over the long term and knows that a particular office or department or group is the one it's going to cut it doesn't wait until the last year of the budget year to do it. It cuts it when it cuts it.

Same reason Harper keeps harping about Trudeau's planned deficits without mentioning his own historical deficits.

But they are historical. Trudeau's are planned. And Harper's were due to the recession. Trudeau's are so he can promise more free goodies to people in order to get himself elected.

I have to say though, that I get all the FB feed from all three parties, and Harper goes on a lot more about the Trudeau's deficit plan than Trudeau goes on about Harper's past deficit policy.

Because Trudeau is busily talking up all the goodies he's going to give you. AND IT COSTS NOTHING! JUST A LITTLE ENTRY IN SOME ACCOUNTING BOOKS! DON"T EVEN WORRY YOUR LITTLE HEADS!

Unfortunately for this Conservative argument, Trudeau and his father are NOT clones.

Aren't they? I think Pierre's last campaign was something like "Look at all the goodies I'm going to give you! AND IT COSTS NOTHING! JUST A LITTLE ENTRY IN SOME ACCOUNTING BOOKS!

[Argus]

The Cons have spent $84 billion on Infrastructure - the HIGHEST in the history of Canada. The Liberals want to TRIPLE that.

Actually, they only SAY they want to. As Andrew Coyne pointed out in his last column, very little of the borrowed money Trudeau wants to make use of will go for real infrastructure.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-liberal-fiscal-plan-thats-all-for-show

[Argus]

So, if 2008 was a HUGE one-off why wasn't there a balanced budget in 2009? Or even in 2010? Why did it take Harper so long to return to a balanced budget? What was he 'wasting' money on?

Is that a joke question? You think the world-wide recession was over in one year? 2009 was almost worse than 2008. A lot of countries still haven't recovered. The unemployment rate is still in double digits in much of Europe.

[angrypenguin]

Actually, they only SAY they want to. As Andrew Coyne pointed out in his last column, very little of the borrowed money Trudeau wants to make use of will go for real infrastructure.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-liberal-fiscal-plan-thats-all-for-show

Well thank gosh. It means if the Liberals do get a minority government, that at least it's all for show (for the most part).

On the downside though, it means the Liberals are doing what they do best, LIE.

[ironstone]

I wonder how many people in Ontario who are also critical of Harper's economic record gleefully voted for Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty?

[blueblood]

I wonder how many people in Ontario who are also critical of Harper's economic record gleefully voted for Kathleen Wynne and Dalton McGuinty?

Enough that the liberals have a shot of winning the election. Oh well people believe that spending deficits is the path to prosperity. Hell we are still cleaning up daddy dearest trudeau srs spendinf spree!!