Wilber Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Borrowing money isn't a right, not even for governments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Borrowing money isn't a right, not even for governments. Sovereign states have the right to sell bonds. Whether anyone will buy them at the sovereign government's stated rate of return is another matter. But at this point, we're just playing a game of semantics, and nothing you've posted suggests to me you actually understand the nature of sovereign debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Hi, this simply appears to be the Liberals laying the groundwork for blaming Harper for anything and everything that they screw up from now until the end of time. (See Mike Harris) Smoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Hi, this simply appears to be the Liberals laying the groundwork for blaming Harper for anything and everything that they screw up from now until the end of time. (See Mike Harris) Smoke And the Tories didn't do the same thing? Heck, there are Tory partisans here still bring up NEP and Adscam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Sovereign states have the right to sell bonds. Whether anyone will buy them at the sovereign government's stated rate of return is another matter. But at this point, we're just playing a game of semantics, and nothing you've posted suggests to me you actually understand the nature of sovereign debt. That 30 odd billion we pay to service debt every year isn't semantics, it's 30 billion that has to come out of government revenues (your taxes) every year. It's 30 odd billion you pay every year that buys you dick all. I'm not the one who doesn't actually understand the nature of debt. Sovereign or any other kind. I'm not the one who doesn't think it is morally bankrupt to saddle every future generation with debt for things I decided to buy. I'm not saying don't borrow, but if you do, PAY IT BACK! Edited November 13, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) I think the Tories did well enough on the economy. We have had decent leadership for thirty years on such matters, trying to do the right thing, and our federal governments have been about as frugal as the electorate has allowed them to be. The last 'balanced budget' was a silly gimmick that most people saw through. Governments should show a little more respect for the intelligence of the electorate. A big problem is productivity. We can't blame the guys in Ottawa alone for our collective failure to do more to diversify beyond resources and manufacturing. Edited November 13, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) How about paying for an infrastructure deficit with ever increasing inflation? That inflation will increase the debt servicing cost by a huge percentage. Think of what we could be spending money on now with the $40 billion we're spending on debt servicing. Think about it becoming $80 billion. Which it will with just a few percentage points increase in the bank rate. Edited November 13, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 There are a couple of points you seem to dance around. And I think they are pretty much indisputable. 1. Canada's budget was in a surplus when Harper took over. 2. Canada's GDP has recovered from the recession and is now greater than it was before Harper took over. 3. Ergo, if government revenues can't match expenditures, then it's fair to blame them on Harper's idiotic, ideologically driven tax cuts. Oh give it a rest. Clearly they planned on having a strong balanced budget and then OPEC screwed them over by dropping the price of gas in half. Absent that, the books would be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 And with a continuously growing economy, it becomes almost meaningless. You consider $40 billion to be meaningless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Oh give it a rest. Clearly they planned on having a strong balanced budget and then OPEC screwed them over by dropping the price of gas in half. Absent that, the books would be fine. Oh, I see. Your premise is that Harper's ingenious economic strategy of banking our economic future on a single volatile commodity whose price is known to manipulated by corporations and cartels somehow failed? How could that be? Harper is such an economic genius. Your premise is nonsense anyway. As I said, the GDP has recovered. So, if our revenues haven't it's because of Harper's idiotic tax cuts. I know it's tough for the faithful to see their deeply held beliefs in their greatest prophet knocked down one by one.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Oh give it a rest. Clearly they planned on having a strong balanced budget and then OPEC screwed them over by dropping the price of gas in half. Absent that, the books would be fine.Don't you think it's rather foolish to bet your "balanced" budget on international commodity prices? And doesn't that seem to suggest that opponents' to the Tories obsession with fossil fuel exports were right to state that the Federal Government had put far too much emphasis on oil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Don't you think it's rather foolish to bet your "balanced" budget on international commodity prices? And doesn't that seem to suggest that opponents' to the Tories obsession with fossil fuel exports were right to state that the Federal Government had put far too much emphasis on oil? What do you base a budget on other than the projected strengths and weaknesses of your economy? What's your magic formula? The world wants to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Oh, I see. Your premise is that Harper's ingenious economic strategy of banking our economic future on a single volatile commodity Harper's 'ingenious economic strategy' is a figment of your fevered imagination, and neither you nor any of the other hysterical progressives have been able to show otherwise. Your premise is nonsense anyway. As I said, the GDP has recovered. So, if our revenues haven't it's because of Harper's idiotic tax cuts. GDP is a trailing indicator and the sudden abrupt plunge in oil stocks has had a major impact on revenues for the feds. Are you denying this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Don't you think it's rather foolish to bet your "balanced" budget on international commodity prices? And doesn't that seem to suggest that opponents' to the Tories obsession with fossil fuel exports were right to state that the Federal Government had put far too much emphasis on oil? The obsession with the fossil fuel industry is yours and that of the other progressives, and none of you have been able to demonstrate, despite sputtering accusations, that Harper had anything to do with the centering Canada's economy around the oil industry (and it's not centered around the oil industry anyway). None of you have shown anything any other stripe of government would have done differently either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 The obsession with the fossil fuel industry is yours and that of the other progressives, and none of you have been able to demonstrate, despite sputtering accusations, that Harper had anything to do with the centering Canada's economy around the oil industry (and it's not centered around the oil industry anyway). None of you have shown anything any other stripe of government would have done differently either. You're the one that said the Tories' budget balancing was predicated on the price of oil. Are you denying your own words: "Oh give it a rest. Clearly they planned on having a strong balanced budget and then OPEC screwed them over by dropping the price of gas in half. Absent that, the books would be fine." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Harper's 'ingenious economic strategy' is a figment of your fevered imagination, and neither you nor any of the other hysterical progressives have been able to show otherwise. GDP is a trailing indicator and the sudden abrupt plunge in oil stocks has had a major impact on revenues for the feds. Are you denying this? Harper talked about Canada as an "energy superpower". Oil prices already had a history of bouncing around like a kid in a rubber castle. If Harper made his tax cuts depending on a high oil price, he was an idiot. Sorry if you were too busy genuflecting to notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Harper talked about Canada as an "energy superpower". Oil prices already had a history of bouncing around like a kid in a rubber castle. If Harper made his tax cuts depending on a high oil price, he was an idiot. Sorry if you were too busy genuflecting to notice. If Harper hadn't cut the GST and other taxes for no other reason than "low taxes!", then Federal revenues would be more diversified. Mindlessly cutting taxes is not sound fiscal policy, it's just a recipe for disaster later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 If Harper hadn't cut the GST and other taxes for no other reason than "low taxes!", then Federal revenues would be more diversified. Mindlessly cutting taxes is not sound fiscal policy, it's just a recipe for disaster later on. So taxes should never be cut for any reason? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 So taxes should never be cut for any reason? Can you show where I said that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 13, 2015 Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 Can you show where I said that? Do you have any idea how budgets are made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 You're the one that said the Tories' budget balancing was predicated on the price of oil. Are you denying your own words: "Oh give it a rest. Clearly they planned on having a strong balanced budget and then OPEC screwed them over by dropping the price of gas in half. Absent that, the books would be fine." No, if I was going to say the Tories budget balancing was predicated on the price of oil I'd have said something like "The Tories budget balancing was predicated on the price of oil." What it was predicated upon was Canada's economic forecast as it was last year. That forecast changed drastically in a way they could not forecast and could not control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 No, if I was going to say the Tories budget balancing was predicated on the price of oil I'd have said something like "The Tories budget balancing was predicated on the price of oil." That's the thing isn't it - no one predicted the drop in the price of oil, and that's where our structural deficit has come from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Gwynne Dyer is on CTV. He's saying he thinks it's probably not ISiS but one of their competitors (like Al Qaeda). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Gwynne Dyer is on CTV. He's saying he thinks it's probably not ISiS but one of their competitors (like Al Qaeda). ????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 14, 2015 Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 Gwynne Dyer is on CTV. He's saying he thinks it's probably not ISiS but one of their competitors (like Al Qaeda). Oh, that changes everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.