Conservative Surplus Nothing but Hot Air

[poochy]

Yeah. I could tell he was imperfect when he tried to scare people into voting for him with a 'cultural practices hotline'.

It seems like you share his disdain for Atlantic Canada. Ever think of joining Derek in Texas?

Im from there, grew up there, went to university there, all of my family is still there, and while not everyone fits into the box that Argus is presenting, a great many do, there is a belief among them, one that has been fostered by handouts, that they shouldn't have to move away from 'home' or family, to find work, it is a belief that only exists because politicians have been buying their votes with handouts for a couple of generations now.

Harper actually dared to speak about it, he dared to suggest that living your life in a place that can only be maintained through the forced generosity of others was wrong, and look what he got for it. So i dare say that I know at least as much and likely a lot more about how it works out there than you do, even the vast majority of people who went out west to work didn't actually move out there, and now that the jobs are gone they will stay back home doing what they always did before.

One of my family members who does work in Alberta, still does, because he has an uncommon skill, but he has given up his job several times, in between bouts of home sickness (he's almost 40), he could easily have his own home by now, or have started his own business, but he like many out there have been trained to believe that they are special, and it's really not fair that maritimers should have to move away to work, of course the entire culture they live in was built by their ancestors who moved much farther and much more permanently than that to do so. There are some like me who don't want to live like that, there are many, many more who are fine with it. Of course they can only be fine with it because someone else, people like me who actually moved away to do better, are paying for it. They don't see it that way, EI is a right, not a privilege.

Now tell me I have a 'disdain' for Atlantic Canada, take your cheap shot, i love it out there, it was my home, but I won't live a marginal life, nor make my children do the same just so i can be 'home'. I haven't seen some close family in years, compared to others who moved across an ocean and never saw family again it seems like a smaller sacrifice so that i can take care of my own. We can't all be on EI six months of the year, Harper made it less of a formality to get, and the entire region went after him for it.

Edited February 8, 2016 by poochy

[ReeferMadness]

Now tell me I have a 'disdain' for Atlantic Canada, take your cheap shot, i love it out there, it was my home, but I won't live a marginal life, nor make my children do the same just so i can be 'home'. I haven't seen some close family in years, compared to others who moved across an ocean and never saw family again it seems like a smaller sacrifice so that i can take care of my own. We can't all be on EI six months of the year, Harper made it less of a formality to get, and the entire region went after him for it.

Wow. I'm glad you were able to get that off your chest.

while not everyone fits into the box that Argus is presenting, a great many do, there is a belief among them, one that has been fostered by handouts, that they shouldn't have to move away from 'home' or family, to find work, it is a belief that only exists because politicians have been buying their votes with handouts for a couple of generations now.

I think it's fair to say that some people place an enormous value on being rich and generally, they're the ones who tend to wind up that way. Others have other values. You can look down on them if you want.

But here's the thing. You wound up getting paid the big bucks in Alberta, in part, because your the people you are denigrating in Atlantic Canada had different values from you. If more of them had picked up and moved to Fort Mac, then you and others like you wouldn't have been able to command the premium you did. Wages would be lower and the oil companies would have made even more money. So maybe instead of denigrating your friends and family, you should be thanking them.

Harper actually dared to speak about it, he dared to suggest that living your life in a place that can only be maintained through the forced generosity of others was wrong, and look what he got for it.

Harper gave voice to all kinds of bigotry in this country - those who don't like other religions, those who don't like people from poor countries, those who look down on people who reject the idea that their lives are nothing but money. And I don't give a flying poop what he got for it - I'm more concerned that what we got for it was 10 lost years.

[Smoke]

And you have some reason to believe that the people who stayed home felt differently? Don't forget, btw, that the Harper base (older, middle class and above) tend to vote in much bigger numbers than those who don't support him. So, if anything, that number is probably very conservative.

Haha yeah right! When you look at the popular vote, Trudeau had 38.9% for his majority and Harper had 38.1% for his. But keep believing in the second coming if it makes you feel superior.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Smoke

[Argus]

I think it's fair to say that some people place an enormous value on being rich and generally, they're the ones who tend to wind up that way. Others have other values. You can look down on them if you want.

It's not about being 'rich', it's about leading a productive life and supporting yourself and your family, not expecting others to do it for you. A lot of employers in Atlantic Canada actually set up jobs to run exactly as long as needed to qualify for pogey. Everyone knows it. They rotate people through every year so everyone can have a nice, relaxing life on welfare -- er, pogey, for the majority of the year. They figure, hey, it's the government paying. But the government has no money but what it takes from working Canadians - the ones who work 12 months of the year. Turning pogey into another welfare scheme was one of the many dumb things the Liberals have done, and it has sapped the incentive to work from people in Atlantic Canada.

[cybercoma]

And what do you know of others' expectations? Are you a mind reader or is that just you painting others with your personal bias again?

[ReeferMadness]

It's not about being 'rich', it's about leading a productive life and supporting yourself and your family, not expecting others to do it for you.

Well, I think everyone should lead a productive life - and what exactly is productive? Take a look at the following and tell me who's being productive:

- A stock broker who talks municipal pension funds into buying collateralized debt

- Someone who quits a job to care for a dying parent

- A divorce lawyer who's made millions convincing her clients to sue, even though she knows it generally leaves them poorer and bitter

- A day trader

- An corporate lawyer who specializes in acquiring companies and splitting them up to be sold for parts

- Someone who quits her job to travel the world

- An IT worker who works 80 hour weeks for 3 years only to have his project canceled

- A guitar player who isn't good enough or maybe doesn't care enough about money to be successful but enjoys playing with his friends

- A gold mining executive who's littered the world with toxic tailing ponds

- Someone who works as a gas station attendant on at an intersections where there are competing gas stations on each of the 4 corners.

- Ad producers who market sugar filled breakfast cereals to kids

A lot of employers in Atlantic Canada actually set up jobs to run exactly as long as needed to qualify for pogey. Everyone knows it. They rotate people through every year so everyone can have a nice, relaxing life on welfare -- er, pogey, for the majority of the year. They figure, hey, it's the government paying. But the government has no money but what it takes from working Canadians - the ones who work 12 months of the year. Turning pogey into another welfare scheme was one of the many dumb things the Liberals have done, and it has sapped the incentive to work from people in Atlantic Canada.

Know what? I don't care. I know lots of what people do in paid work is useless, wasteful and in some cases just plain wrong. I think we should be (and maybe are) moving to a world where paid work is an option. So, as far as I'm concerned, your friends are futurists. They may not be contributing financially but they're also not consuming much in the way of scarce resources. Meanwhile, there are lawyers out there wrecking peoples lives who are making a fortune. And consuming a fortune.

You go right ahead and listen to the Fraser Institute and the various taxpayers associations when the tell you to be outraged that somebody's making a few hundred bucks a month on welfare. And just ignore the day traders and hedge fund dealers who are sucking money out of your pension earnings. Who do you think is paying for all of the advertising that bombards you daily? YOU are. You just don't have the Fraser Institute bombastically telling you how evil it is.

[PIK]

Again listening to the radio and a bank official was on and they had crunch the numbers, on oil the dollar and trudeaus promises. They think we are looking at a 90 billion dollar deficit in 4 yrs. Or even worse. Thoughts.

Edited February 12, 2016 by PIK

[Smallc]

Again listening to the radio and a bank official was on and they had crunch the numbers, on oil the dollar and trudeaus promises. They think we are looking at a 90 billion dollar deficit in 4 yrs. Or even worse. Thoughts.

That means that Harper would have produced a combined deficit of over $60B in the same period.

[Argus]

That means that Harper would have produced a combined deficit of over $60B in the same period.

You know that's nonsense, right?

[Smallc]

You know that's nonsense, right?

If you take Trudeau's spending plans over 4 years and come up with a $90B deficit, and you know that they're $25 - 30B more than Harper's were, it's difficult to come up with another numbers.

[Argus]

If you take Trudeau's spending plans over 4 years and come up with a $90B deficit, and you know that they're $25 - 30B more than Harper's were, it's difficult to come up with another numbers.

You don't know they're $25-$30 billion more than Harper unless you faithfully believe everything they tell you. I said before the election that their deficit wold be way higher than their claimed $10b per year for three years. They are now more likely to be $25 b for all the years of their mandate. Harper would have ensured he didn't go immediately back into deficit by making cutbacks. There will be no cutbacks under Trudeau, who is busily prancing around throwing money at everyone who gets anywhere near him. I expect an announced deficit of around $20b this year, which will actually come in at more like $25b, and suspect increasingly higher spending for the following years, and higher deficits unless there are drastic tax increases (which might well happen).

However, just as the Ontario Liberals drastically raised taxes while actually increasing the deficits, I expect Trudeau's increased taxes to be offset by continuing spending increases.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Harper would have had to make drastic cutbacks to maintain a surplus. It wouldn't have been practical. The world economy is in a more precarious position than it was in 2009, the Canadian economy far more so.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Smallc

[Shady]

What's going to happen to Justin's "modest" deficits when the workd hits another global recession? Answer. Massive deficits.

[Smallc]

What's going to happen to Justin's "modest" deficits when the workd hits another global recession? Answer. Massive deficits.

And? We had 'massive deficits' in the last recession.

[cybercoma]

You don't know they're $25-$30 billion more than Harper unless you faithfully believe everything they tell you.

If you're not going to believe what the LPC says, why believe the CPC? And then what? Let's just throw insults back and forth based on our own fantasy numbers because we can't believe any official statements.

[Argus]

And? We had 'massive deficits' in the last recession.

But you're supposed to pay those suckers down between recessions. Or else you get Greece.

[Shady]

And? We had 'massive deficits' in the last recession.

Justin's deficits are by choice.

[Argus]

Harper would have had to make drastic cutbacks to maintain a surplus. It wouldn't have been practical. The world economy is in a more precarious position than it was in 2009, the Canadian economy far more so.

I don't think they'd have had to be that drastic. The Tories weren't running around promising everything to everybody and don't have a big collection of expensive promises to keep.

Some of the promises the Liberals made are thus far completely uncosted, like Trudeau's promise to follow through on every single recommendation in the native report. and he seems to believe spending lots of government money is the way to make the economy better, even though it never has in the past.

[Smallc]

But you're supposed to pay those suckers down between recessions. Or else you get Greece.

We're not really between recessions at the moment. You'll have to take that up with Harper. He was the guy in power between recessions. Also, the Greece thing is just hyperbole, as has been pointed out to you. There is 0 chance of Canada ending up in that situation. Witness Japan and the United States for proof.

Justin's deficits are by choice.

As opposed to the post 2011 Conservative deficits?

I don't think they'd have had to be that drastic. The Tories weren't running around promising everything to everybody and don't have a big collection of expensive promises to keep.

Hell, they didn't keep the promises they made. I guess if you stop funding your own programs, you can do anything. The Conservatives were, according to the PBO, headed for structural deficits with $45 oil. We're far past that. He would have had to cut $10B per year from the budget.

Some of the promises the Liberals made are thus far completely uncosted, like Trudeau's promise to follow through on every single recommendation in the native report.

I read that as more of a gradual and aspirational goal. Some of those promises would have been forced upon the Tories anyway. Witness the recent child welfare decision.

and he seems to believe spending lots of government money is the way to make the economy better, even though it never has in the past.

Since half of the deficit spending as originally promised was to go to infrastructure, and most of the other half to low and middle income parents, it's actually proven that such things increase economic growth above the amount invested in them.

[On Guard for Thee]

But you're supposed to pay those suckers down between recessions. Or else you get Greece.

Apparently Harper wasn't aware of that concept.