Argus Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Almost the entire deficit will go to either the new child benefit or infrastructure. The new child benefit is not infrastructure. The Liberals have used spin doctors to suggest anything they want to fund is infrastructure. It isn't. Roads and bridges and highways are infrastructure. Hiring more teachers is not infrastructure. Funding for daycare and making EI easier to get is not infrastructure. More money for the CBC is not infrastructure. And to suggest the entire $20-$30 billion deficit will be spent on infrastructure or the the child benefit is nonsense. The Liberals made many, many, many, many, many expensive promises, to natives, to students, to unions, to the provinces. All those promise have to be paid for with borrowed money. 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 February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Which is why we are better off with a seat at the table as opposed to sitting on the sidelines. Better off how? 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 February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Ever heard of the Hague Conventions or maybe the Geneva Protocol? Those aren't laws. Nations sign onto them, and then, depending on the nations, it becomes enforceable by them within their own territories. If you didn't sign them then you're not bound by them. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Better off how? Those aren't laws. Nations sign onto them, and then, depending on the nations, it becomes enforceable by them within their own territories. If you didn't sign them then you're not bound by them. Yes they are laws, but you are correct in that no one is forced to sign a treaty. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Better off how? Having a position on the world stage, especially within a group that is tasked essentially with trying to keep the peace in the world, is good for our image, and is good for business. Quote
Smallc Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Posted February 18, 2016 The new child benefit is not infrastructure. The new child benefit gives money to people on the lower end and middle of the spectrum. We weren't just discussing infrastructure. Roads and bridges and highways are infrastructure. Yes Hiring more teachers is not infrastructure. Funding for daycare No one said that they were - schools and daycare centres on the other hand. and making EI easier to get is not infrastructure. No one said it was. That's a very small line item in Liberal spending. And to suggest the entire $20-$30 billion deficit will be spent on infrastructure or the the child benefit is nonsense. We're discussing the numbers we know at the moment. The Liberals projected a $10B deficit. We now know the baseline is at least $-3B as per the PBO (probably worse now). The original $10B deficit was roughly divided 50/50 between infrastructure and the new child benefit. Most of any additional deficit is solely the result of a weakening financial situation for the Government of Canada that would have been unavoidable for anyone. The Liberals made many, many, many, many, many expensive promises, to natives, to students, to unions, to the provinces. Basically none of which have been fulfilled, nor will the necessarily be in the next 1 - 2 years. Quote
SunnyWays Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) We're discussing the numbers we know at the moment. The Liberals projected a $10B deficit. We now know the baseline is at least $-3B as per the PBO (probably worse now). The original $10B deficit was roughly divided 50/50 between infrastructure and the new child benefit. Most of any additional deficit is solely the result of a weakening financial situation for the Government of Canada that would have been unavoidable for anyone. You're right - what we know at the moment!.......and what we know is that $2 billion of the deficit will be a direct result of the promised "revenue neutral" tax changes. That's 40% of the amount that was originally planned for infrastructure - gone in a single "miscalculation".......and yet, it doesn't seem to matter. And none of that tax change goes to benefit low income people - those making under $40K. No - the government campaigned on the fact that the economy was going in the dumper - and oil had already taken a big hit. They knew - and they have not changed course....but no - they've doubled down. Any additional deficit will be due mostly to their spending - and Lord knows how much that budget will contain. Edited February 18, 2016 by SunnyWays Quote
overthere Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Which is why we are better off with a seat at the table as opposed to sitting on the sidelines. What exactly do you think Canada gains from buying a seat of the Security Council? What specific benefits were gained by Canada, or how did the world benefit from our presence there in their six previous terms on the SC? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Argus Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Having a position on the world stage, especially within a group that is tasked essentially with trying to keep the peace in the world, is good for our image, and is good for business. How? Nobody does business with us because we have a good 'image' unless that image is with regard to being a good place to do business. There seems no lack of people lining up to do business with horrible countries like Iran or Russia or China, so clearly reputation is unimportant there. 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 February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 You're right - what we know at the moment!.......and what we know is that $2 billion of the deficit will be a direct result of the promised "revenue neutral" tax changes. That's 40% of the amount that was originally planned for infrastructure - gone in a single "miscalculation"...... We also know that the horde of Syrian refugees decamping here will cost another $2 billion. 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
overthere Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Most of any additional deficit is solely the result of a weakening financial situation for the Government of Canada that would have been unavoidable for anyone.Well no. Just a couple of recent items plucked at random also add to the deficit, from campaign promises. The Syrian refugee costs are not going to be $100 million as carefully costed by Trudeau. $1.2 billion is the latest guess. The inquiry into aboriginal women will be several hundred million more as the scope of that is blossoming. And the cost of increased funding to Aboriginal affairs will be billions for sure. Trudeau has promised to fund and implement every recommendation of Harpers Truth and reconciliation Committtee. Bellegarde says he expects a few billion more per annum at minimum. Education extras will be $2 bililon at least. And who can guess at how much Bombardier gets? and so on. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Smallc Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Posted February 18, 2016 Well no. Just a couple of recent items plucked at random also add to the deficit, from campaign promises. Sure - a couple of billion dollars on a $300B budget. Perspective is everything. BTW, today, the IMF called for a concerted global effort to stave off flat to negative growth. Quote
The_Squid Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Each percent of GST is worth about $7billion per year... How much further ahead would Canada be if Harper wasn't so irresponsible in the fiscal management of the country? The gov't would be smart to raise the GST soon. Quote
SunnyWays Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Sure - a couple of billion dollars on a $300B budget. Perspective is everything. BTW, today, the IMF called for a concerted global effort to stave off flat to negative growth. So......your perspective is a couple of billion extra is OK......and I'm OK with that too. The "cast in stone" promise was a "modest" deficit of no more than $10 billion. Would you like to go on record as to how many "extra" billions would give you cause for concern........and how many more billions might make you question the Liberals' fiscal stewardship? Always nice to see where people stand before the news comes out. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 How? Nobody does business with us because we have a good 'image' unless that image is with regard to being a good place to do business. There seems no lack of people lining up to do business with horrible countries like Iran or Russia or China, so clearly reputation is unimportant there. Um, two of the three "horrible" countries you mention that do a lot of business in the world, are permanent members of the UN. And Iran is quickly catching up with the lifting of trade restrictions. I rest my case. Quote
SunnyWays Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Each percent of GST is worth about $7billion per year... How much further ahead would Canada be if Harper wasn't so irresponsible in the fiscal management of the country? The gov't would be smart to raise the GST soon. No - they wouldn't. Harper invited the provinces to go ahead and gobble up the two percent by raising their own Sales tax - and every province has had the opportunity to do just that for 10 years. The provinces need the money more than the Feds - especially for Healthcare - but even basket-case Ontario has declined to raise their Sales tax. Quote
overthere Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Sure - a couple of billion dollars on a $300B budget. Perspective is everything. BTW, today, the IMF called for a concerted global effort to stave off flat to negative growth. Weren't we discussing the deficit? Is there any amount of deficit that would give you pause? And a lot of the deficit won't be one time infrastructure, it will be 'social infrastructure' which is Liberalspeak for social programs that have no end. So......your perspective is a couple of billion extra is OK......and I'm OK with that too. The "cast in stone" promise was a "modest" deficit of no more than $10 billion. Would you like to go on record as to how many "extra" billions would give you cause for concern........and how many more billions might make you question the Liberals' fiscal stewardship? Always nice to see where people stand before the news comes out. Of course, the reality is that Morneau can plck any number he wants out of his colon, and many people here and elsewhere will cheer once he has rinsed it off and applied a little sanitiser.. If the actual deficit rolls in a year later at double, triple, whatever..... the bafflegab and misdirection is already written. Oh, and Harper will be blamed. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
ironstone Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Partially. The reality is that the Liberal platform was comprehensive and smart. The Conservative platform didn't exist. I think the platform of the federal Liberals is like that of the Ontario Liberals.So far,things don't look encouraging.Trudeau promised to bring in 25000 Syrian refugees by a certain date.His critics said it couldn't be done properly and they were correct,Trudeau was wrong.Another big promise was 10 billion dollar deficits for three years.He will certainly exceed that in his first year at the very least.This is another part of his platform that he didn't think through.To be fair to Trudeau,he only deserves part of the blame as the the one that is making many key decisions is Gerald Butts. Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
cybercoma Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 No - they wouldn't. Harper invited the provinces to go ahead and gobble up the two percent by raising their own Sales tax - and every province has had the opportunity to do just that for 10 years. The provinces need the money more than the Feds - especially for Healthcare - but even basket-case Ontario has declined to raise their Sales tax.As of July 1st NB will be back up to 15% Quote
Smallc Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Posted February 18, 2016 So......your perspective is a couple of billion extra is OK......and I'm OK with that too. The "cast in stone" promise was a "modest" deficit of no more than $10 billion. Would you like to go on record as to how many "extra" billions would give you cause for concern........and how many more billions might make you question the Liberals' fiscal stewardship? Always nice to see where people stand before the news comes out. Given that the baseline is more than $5B worse next year according to the PBO, and given calls for extra spending, I would expect and accept $20-25B. Quote
Smallc Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Posted February 18, 2016 Weren't we discussing the deficit? Is there any amount of deficit that would give you pause? At the moment, I'd think that anything up to 2% of GDP (about $36B) for the next two pears and 1% of GDP after that is acceptable, with the long term goal of a falling debt to GDP ratio. I'd also like to raise sales taxes 2 - 3%. And a lot of the deficit won't be one time infrastructure, it will be 'social infrastructure' which is Liberalspeak for social programs that have no end Or things like schools, jails, hospitals, daycare centres, and housing. Quote
Smallc Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) I think the platform of the federal Liberals is like that of the Ontario Liberals.So far,things don't look encouraging.Trudeau promised to bring in 25000 Syrian refugees by a certain date.His critics said it couldn't be done properly and they were correct,Trudeau was wrong.Another big promise was 10 billion dollar deficits for three years.He will certainly exceed that in his first year at the very least.This is another part of his platform that he didn't think through.To be fair to Trudeau,he only deserves part of the blame as the the one that is making many key decisions is Gerald Butts. Trudeau has no control over the eroding position of Canada's federal finances. The rest of your post is a bunch of unsupported ad hominems directed at Trudeau. Edited February 18, 2016 by Smallc Quote
PIK Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Now it seems trudeau is sending 15 million to UNRWA, which is a group that is on a terror list, for helping HAMAS. Now harper put them on the list, so is trudeau just going to do the opposite of whatever harper did. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Now it seems trudeau is sending 15 million to UNRWA, which is a group that is on a terror list, for helping HAMAS. Now harper put them on the list, so is trudeau just going to do the opposite of whatever harper did. you should at least credit the Rebel Commander for that gem! list? Do you have a cite for that... this list doesn't include the UNRWA: Listed Terrorist Entities --- Currently listed entities On the direction of then minister of international co-operation Bev Oda, Canada had already reduced its core contribution and, in January, 2010, funding was eliminated entirely. The reason given was that UNRWA was a repository of Hamas-directed radicalism and terrorist activity. As so often, on-the-ground realities had nothing to do with Mr. Harper’s decision; rather it reflected his ideological commitment and community-focused politics. Canada became the only donor to have ever withdrawn from funding. Main supporters remain a strong group of Western countries – the United States, the European Union, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan and Australia – plus the oil-rich Arab states. In 2014, the U.S. contributed a total of $408-million (U.S.), including $74-million in special funds for Gaza relief. The same year, Britain provided $95-million and $15-million, respectively. The other countries are in line proportionally. In 2008, according to UNRWA statistics, Canada contributed a total of $28-million but Mr. Harper considered even that too much. . Quote
overthere Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 At the moment, I'd think that anything up to 2% of GDP (about $36B) for the next two pears and 1% of GDP after that is acceptable, with the long term goal of a falling debt to GDP ratio. I'd also like to raise sales taxes 2 - 3%. Or things like schools, jails, hospitals, daycare centres, and housing. schools, day cares, hospitals, housing and most jails are not federal responsibilites. And why do you hate our children? Why would we burden them with that? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
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.