ReeferMadness Posted November 7, 2015 Report Posted November 7, 2015 A particular year? You must be kidding. That's the problem, we never have focused on balancing the budget in a particular year, or much of any years for that matter. Canadian governments have balanced the budget or run a surplus exactly eleven times since 1963. JT is just planning on continuing the tradition of accumulating debt and never paying it off. You're missing the point. The issue isn't how many years we have deficits, it's the relative size of debt to the economy overall. The planned deficits are modest in the big scheme of things and we need infrastructure spending. Personally, I would have preferred that when the Liberals balanced the budget they would have focused on paying debt with targeted restoration of program spending. Instead, they launched into tax cuts. The Conservative program of slashing the corporate taxes and cutting the GST (and about a hundred different "boutique" tax cuts at little targeted groups) was absolutely disastrous. In particular, the extremely low small business taxes are bad policy in 2 ways: 1. It's an unnecessary reward to lots of dentists, lawyers, doctors, accountants, consultants and other professionals who incorporate purely for tax reasons. Trudeau tried to raise this issue and was cynically attacked not only by Harper but by Mulcair as well. 2. It creates a huge disincentive for small businesses to grow. If the Harper Conservatives had refrained from buying people off with the unnecessary and counterproductive tax cuts, we would have made it though the recession with much less in the way of deficits. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Wilber Posted November 7, 2015 Report Posted November 7, 2015 You're missing the point. The issue isn't how many years we have deficits, it's the relative size of debt to the economy overall. The planned deficits are modest in the big scheme of things and we need infrastructure spending. The Federal government spends about the same amount servicing debt as it does on defense and almost as much as it does in transfers to provinces or OAS. Debt may mean you can do things now but if you don't pay it off, it stops you from doing things in future. What we spend in one year to service our existing debt would almost cover the three years of deficits JT is proposing. Then the budget will magically balance itself. So OK, plan on your infrastructure spending but unlike almost every other government in our history, have a plan to actually pay for it. I can remember Gen X'ers and Millennials going on about how Boomers were putting them into debt for the rest of their lives. Seems they haven't learned a thing. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted November 7, 2015 Report Posted November 7, 2015 Refugee claimants are not failed refugees. How many times are you going to spread misinformation? The policy was introduced with regard to refugee claimants who had been turned down. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 7, 2015 Report Posted November 7, 2015 The Federal government spends about the same amount servicing debt as it does on defense and almost as much as it does in transfers to provinces or OAS. The cost of debt service charges is actually closer to double the defense budget. But don't worry. Interest rates are never going to rise. So it's not like our debt service costs could double or triple... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wilber Posted November 7, 2015 Report Posted November 7, 2015 But don't worry. Interest rates are never going to rise. So it's not like our debt service costs could double or triple...That's the part that gets me. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted November 7, 2015 Report Posted November 7, 2015 That's the part that gets me. Don't worry, be happy! It's rainbows and unicorns time! What could go wrong!? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wilber Posted November 8, 2015 Report Posted November 8, 2015 Don't worry, be happy! It's rainbows and unicorns time! What could go wrong!?Ya, we are being told the intent of this spending is to boost the economy and produce the conditions where the Bank of Canada will raise rates. But nothing can go wrong. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
cybercoma Posted November 8, 2015 Report Posted November 8, 2015 I just LOVE how miserably Harper failed at turning Canada into a conservative country. His plan to kill small-l liberalism could not have gone more awry. He accomplished the opposite. He unified Canadian leftists behind the Liberals, who moved even further left than they were in the past. Quote
CITIZEN_2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Report Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) He accomplished the opposite. He unified Canadian leftists behind the Liberals, who moved even further left than they were in the past. It usually has the opposite affect when the government or regime in power goes too far to one extreme. In Western Europe which was under fascism or fascist occupation the left became very strong in the 50's and 60's with massive support among the public and fascism was hated until late 70's when the political spectrum became moderated a bit. In Eastern Europe which was under communism, the extreme right became very powerful so that in late 80's and early 90's after the fall of Soviet Union and communism, gangs of extreme rights even took over and in mid to late 90's and even now extreme right has many supporters (anti immigrants (even hating their own former countrymen like those from former asian soviet union), anti homosexuals, .....). Edited December 1, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015 Quote
Big Guy Posted December 1, 2015 Author Report Posted December 1, 2015 Hillary Clinton has been releasing private e-mails which include some interesting facts about the relationship between the Harper PMO and the Canadian foreign service: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/clinton-email-canada-foreign-affairs-1.3344920 A U.S. official expressed amazement at how deeply detested Canada's Conservative government was by some employees of the Foreign Affairs Department. Interesting? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 It is merely further evidence of the liberal bias in the public service, particularly in the nest of champagne socialism which is Foreign Affairs. Small wonder Harper found it necessary to appoint people he could trust as ambassadors to represent his government abroad given the painfully low level of professionalism and loyalty we've seen from Foreign Affairs. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
freeloader1969 Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 Read the article, not just the picture. As a progressive economist (not many of those around), he's saying that it is positive that we are no longer obsessing over balancing the budget. Not that we should pay no attention to the larger issue of debt but that the focus over whether the budget is balanced in a particular year is misplaced. Screw just balancing the budget. We should be 100% concentrated on paying down debt! When interest rates rise we will be paying ridiculously more amounts of money to service that debt. That's money that could've been going to education and healthcare. Quote
capricorn Posted December 1, 2015 Report Posted December 1, 2015 We should be 100% concentrated on paying down debt! When interest rates rise we will be paying ridiculously more amounts of money to service that debt.Can't we just go to our friends the Chinese for a low interest loan until we're more solvent, like say in 2050? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Recommended Posts
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.