Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey Penquin its your friend the Joker. I say w should spend trillions. See follow the reasoning. If we incur billions in debts because its a good thing, then trillions in debt must be even better. Silly you. Also you want a laugh? Besides Mrs. Justin Trudeau walking up the escalator? Try Mr. Mulcair. Ask him to add up his promises and explain how he will have a deficit. Lol. Its past idiotic. Its an orgy of retardation.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 439
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey Penquin its your friend the Joker. I say w should spend trillions. See follow the reasoning. If we incur billions in debts because its a good thing, then trillions in debt must be even better. Silly you. Also you want a laugh? Besides Mrs. Justin Trudeau walking up the escalator? Try Mr. Mulcair. Ask him to add up his promises and explain how he will have a deficit. Lol. Its past idiotic. Its an orgy of retardation.

When all else fails, just devolve into insane hyperbole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that would depend on what you meant by "plunging into deficit". As Andrew Coyne pointed out a couple of weeks ago, a small deficit isn't going to hurt in any significant way.

This is the problem with black-and-white rules like "NO DEFICIT". They certainly make great slogans, but as public policy they are at best worthless, or in some cases much worse than worthless.

Not that I actually think Trudeau's three year deficit plan is the least bit sensible, mainly because not even he is going to spend enough money to make that much of a difference. But then again, a lot of the Tories' tax cuts, like the GST cut early on, were equally idiotic moves. I have become, in my years as a political observer, very used to governments doing incredibly stupid things because they know it gets votes.

I said that there are times for deficits.

I'm all for GST cuts. It proportionally affects the poor the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. And I cannot think any other government could cut the deficit that quickly. Spending money is easy, getting out of that hole is not. Now is not the time to be plunging us back down into a deficit.

I disagree, a mild deficit would be defensible given the recession we're in now. The catch is that once the economy is better we have to run surpluses to pay down the debt that is spent in the "bad times", That's how Keynesian theory is supposed to work. But governments usually just want to spend-spend-spend to get votes, I have to give credit to the Chretien Liberals for actually running a surplus during the 90's when we had a strong economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said that there are times for deficits.

I'm all for GST cuts. It proportionally affects the poor the most.

VATs are good, and if you're worried about the poor, just increase the size of the rebate cheque and increase its frequency. VAT-style taxes are far superior to income taxes. If I was in charge, I'd cut income tax rates radically and increase the GST/HST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Toad I think you are being a bit harsh on yourself but yes I would say your comments about "little deficits not hurting anyone" is hyperbole, but idiotic hypberbole. Insane hyperbole arises when discussing hijabs and how freedom means the right to cover your face.

Hey now, spend away. Just do not use my tax money to do it. Oh I get people like you-its o.k. to be a little bit pregnant.Its o.k. to drink and drive if you only had a few. Hey now, a couple of bursts of radiation and your family jewels will be just fine. Go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the GST cut to 5% is an excellent example of an incredibly bad decision.

Then why haven't Muclair or Trudeau promised to reverse it? They have certainly promised to reverse many of his other policies but not that one. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Toad I think you are being a bit harsh on yourself but yes I would say your comments about "little deficits not hurting anyone" is hyperbole, but idiotic hypberbole. Insane hyperbole arises when discussing hijabs and how freedom means the right to cover your face.

Hey now, spend away. Just do not use my tax money to do it. Oh I get people like you-its o.k. to be a little bit pregnant.Its o.k. to drink and drive if you only had a few. Hey now, a couple of bursts of radiation and your family jewels will be just fine. Go for it.

I have idea how to respond to such a post politely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you're in a strong recession, it's very normal economic policy to run a defect to spend on domestic measures to stimulate the economy. Google "Keynesian economics". The Liberals would have done very similar, and many other OECD governments did it.

The trouble with wannabe Keynesians is they can always find an excuse to avoid making the hard choices which means we end up with perpetual deficits. That is why anyone who campaigns on 'running a deficit to stimulate economy' is really saying they don't care about fiscal discipline and plan to run the country into a massive debt hole like Greece.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ridiculous piece of fiction.

If only Harper's period of disgraceful rule were a piece of fiction. I know it's hard to believe that someone like this could be elected in Canada, much less be Prime Minister. But it's true.

And this list of misdeeds is still incomplete. It's so depressing, though, I can't bear to add any more today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, a mild deficit would be defensible given the recession we're in now.

We're not in a deficit, and Trudeau isn't planning on spending the money on infrastructure or job creation but on expensive election promises to get himself elected.

Do you really feel it proper to spend tens of billions of borrowed dollars to get yourself elected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long list of unrelated, one-sided crap complaints.

So, you would rather Harper arranged his policies so that all his failures are somehow related? In a way, they are. They're all related to unintelligent, right wing politics.

Too many to bother with or deal with.

I know. His list of failures is so huge - who can keep up? And that's just a partial list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble with wannabe Keynesians is they can always find an excuse to avoid making the hard choices which means we end up with perpetual deficits. That is why anyone who campaigns on 'running a deficit to stimulate economy' is really saying they don't care about fiscal discipline and plan to run the country into a massive debt hole like Greece.

Uhhh like the Chretien Liberals who ran surpluses throughout the 90's when we had a very strong economy?

I won't deny that the possibility exists for politicians to run perpetual deficits under this guise, but your statement is an inaccurate generalization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhh like the Chretien Liberals who ran surpluses throughout the 90's when we had a very strong economy?

Except Trudeau's rational for running a deficit given the current economy sounds like a excuse to avoid making hard choices. Especially if you ask yourself whether another 10 billion is really going to make any difference to a trillion dollar economy. The symbolism of saying you don't care about the deficit will hurt more than the modest spending could help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except Trudeau's rational for running a deficit given the current economy sounds like a excuse to avoid making hard choices.

You could say the exact same thing this way: "Except Trudeau's Harper's rational for running a deficit surplus given the current economy sounds like a excuse to avoid making hard choices."

I don't understand why 2014 or 2013 were years to run deficits but 2015 or 2016 aren't, given our weakened economy. And yet, the central bank certainly isn't raising interest rates any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say the exact same thing this way: "Except Trudeau's Harper's rational for running a deficit surplus given the current economy sounds like a excuse to avoid making hard choices."

That makes no sense. Hard choices means making decisions to not spend money or raise taxes to keep government spending less than revenue.

I don't understand why 2014 or 2013 were years to run deficits but 2015 or 2016 aren't, given our weakened economy. And yet, the central bank certainly isn't raising interest rates any time soon.

And how much difference is an extra 10 billion going realistically make? The difference between Harper and Trudeau appears to be Harper runs deficits when it is clear that he had no choice. Trudeau is making the choice to run deficits. If Trudeau has said 'I don't trust the government numbers and I am prepared to run deficits, if necessary, for a few years' then it would be reasonable. The trouble is he said 'I am going to run deficits and don't really care if it is necessary or not'. That is why it is a huge concern.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh that's hilarious. Now you recognize that the economy started going south in late 2007 with the major crisis hitting in October 2008. Of course, Harper, the great economist, couldn't see it.

"This country will not go into recession next year and will lead the G7 countries."- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Oct. 10, 2008)"The most recent private-sector forecasts suggest the strong possibility of a technical recession at the end of this year and beginning of next."

- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23, 2008)"The government of Canada today is not planning a deficit. But if the government of Canada decides . . . that we do have to engage in fiscal stimulus, that government spending is essential not just to shore up economic activity but investment markets, that would be the occasion we would go into what would be called a cyclic or a short-term deficit."- Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Nov. 23, 2008)

But hey, throw your vote behind the guy with absolutely no foresight. Scratch that. He didn't need foresight. He was just blind to what was in front of his face. That's even worse.

No, I recognize it because we now have the data after the fact. Harper wasn't going to recognize a recession that Canada wasn't yet in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...