Tories cut $1.1 billion over two years

jbg · October 4, 2006

I've said it during the Harris Common Sense Revolution and I'll repeat it. Regardless if there is a deficit or a surplus the raison d'etre of the Conservatives is to cut-cut-cut.

There are certain things only governments can do. They properly have a monopoly on legitimate violence.

But otherwise shouldn't government restrict itself to what it can do better than the private sector?

August1991 · October 22, 2006

Follow up:

Today’s tour of the federal funny farm take us to the dormant construction site of the Canada Portrait Gallery across from Parliament Hill — a classic picture of the public works project as big black hole of red ink, this one depicting four years and $8 million (and counting) to build absolutely nothing.

Greg Weston

Weston's style unfortunately belittles this serious problem. The amounts involved in this case are small but the only reason we hear of this case is because the site is opposite parliament. In fact, government works more or less like this in everything. I don't know who to blame: politicians, civil servants or contractors.

What I do know is that government spending is growing faster than our economy and has been for about the past eight decades (excluding the bump of WWII). At the same time, we receive relatively fewer government services. Stephen Harper has only promised to limit government spending to less than economic growth.

daniel · October 23, 2006

...
But otherwise shouldn't government restrict itself to what it can do better than the private sector?

Another myth rightwingers like to use in their argument towards privatization is that the private sector can consistently manage better than the public sector. I'm sure we all can without much effort name some well-known companies whose mismanagement can rival that normally attributed to the public sector.

Ricki Bobbi · October 23, 2006

Another myth rightwingers like to use in their argument towards privatization is that the private sector can consistently manage better than the public sector. I'm sure we all can without much effort name some well-known companies whose mismanagement can rival that normally attributed to the public sector.

Fair enough. But those enterprises go out of business and don't cost taxpayers anything. If they remain in the public sector they cost taxpayer money on and on and on and on and on....

daniel · October 23, 2006

Fair enough. But those enterprises go out of business and don't cost taxpayers anything.

Not necessarily. Rightfully or wrongly, they get government subsidies to stay afloat.

Ricki Bobbi · October 23, 2006

Not necessarily. Rightfully or wrongly, they get government subsidies to stay afloat.

The vast majority of companies don't get government subsidies.

Even if they do the cost is far less than keepin git in the public sector.

blueblood · October 23, 2006

Another myth rightwingers like to use in their argument towards privatization is that the private sector can consistently manage better than the public sector. I'm sure we all can without much effort name some well-known companies whose mismanagement can rival that normally attributed to the public sector.

Fair enough. But those enterprises go out of business and don't cost taxpayers anything. If they remain in the public sector they cost taxpayer money on and on and on and on and on....

If some remain in the public sector aren't cost effective, they get axed, just look at what the tories are recently doing to some ineffective cost programs. nuthin wrong with crown corporations giving employment, rather have people work for their money instead of welfare handouts

daniel · October 23, 2006

...
If some remain in the public sector aren't cost effective, they get axed, just look at what the tories are recently doing to some ineffective cost programs. nuthin wrong with crown corporations giving employment, rather have people work for their money instead of welfare handouts

That's, or course, your own opinion. Some people believe fighting for human rights and the constitution belongs and defines our country as democratic and free.

If you want to talk about cost effectiveness, it would be cheaper - much cheaper - to give away money to the poor than throwing them in prison.

blueblood · October 23, 2006

...

If some remain in the public sector aren't cost effective, they get axed, just look at what the tories are recently doing to some ineffective cost programs. nuthin wrong with crown corporations giving employment, rather have people work for their money instead of welfare handouts

That's, or course, your own opinion. Some people believe fighting for human rights and the constitution belongs and defines our country as democratic and free.

If you want to talk about cost effectiveness, it would be cheaper - much cheaper - to give away money to the poor than throwing them in prison.

It is not democratic and free to take my large tax payment because some special interest group feels they are entitled to it over oh lets say health care which benefits everyone, why should some guy who can't read rob someone of a hospital bed?

I'm not saying the poor are criminals, it'd be cheapest to create jobs that way they can pay taxes to get a return off of investment. If your talking about poor criminals then, no, jail is best as they are behind bars where they belong and can do society no harm. harm to society is something i care not to put a price tag on.

Criminals are like rocks in a field, rocks wreck machinery, there will ALWAYS be rocks coming up, you can change your practices to reduce rocks coming up, but they will still come and have to be dealt with. To deal with them, all one can do is go out and pick them one at a time after the field has been worked and put them in the rock pile where they won't wreck anything. It may seem pointless as its a job that won't end but with each rock put in the pile, that is one less rock that won't wreck anything.

August1991 · October 23, 2006

Not necessarily. Rightfully or wrongly, they get government subsidies to stay afloat.

And that's an argument in favour of having more government?

That's like saying cigarettes cause cancer only because people smoke too much.

Charles Anthony · October 23, 2006

Not necessarily. Rightfully or wrongly, they get government subsidies to stay afloat.
And that's an argument in favour of having more government?

Of course!! You seem to misunderstand the whole premise! Take a closer look:

But otherwise shouldn't government restrict itself to what it can do better than the private sector?
Another myth rightwingers like to use in their argument towards privatization is that the private sector can consistently manage better than the public sector.

We are to conclude that government should restrict itself to what it can NOT do better than the private sector.

Enough sarcasm.

Yes, the spending of government is costly and can be wasteful. It creates more hidden problems. One other nefarious effect of government spending is the crowding out of markets. Government spending can distort an economy by either bidding prices up or down. The government can act like a great big Kmart opening up next door to a small-time mom and pop store.

People must demand less spending from their Canadian government.

daniel · November 5, 2006

I've said it during the Harris Common Sense Revolution and I'll repeat it. Regardless if there is a deficit or a surplus the raison d'etre of the Conservatives is to cut-cut-cut.

Wrong! Their reason d'etre is to ...

There are two factors which make up a government deficit or a surplus: The amount the government spends and the amount the government collects.

If it deems (correctly) that it is spending too much, it shoudl cut, independ of how much it collects, and hence independant of if there is a surplus or deficit.

Conservatives think that all spending is too much. Oops - except corporate welfare and the military. As I have experienced in the past thirty years, they will haphazardly cut-cut-cut regardless of surplus, deficit or tax rate.

Surplus situation: Requires tax cuts which leads to spending cuts which leads to surpluses (maybe) leading to tax cuts.

Deficit situation: Requires spending cuts until we have the above situation.

This endless cycle will continue until John Kenneth Galbraith's prophecy is met: "If the Right had their way, nobody would be working."

Ricki Bobbi · November 5, 2006

Conservatives think that all spending is too much. Oops - except corporate welfare and the military.

Do explain "corporate welfare"...

The left's anti-conservative rhetoric is soooooooo weak and tiring sometimes.

geoffrey · November 5, 2006

Conservatives think that all spending is too much. Oops - except corporate welfare and the military.

Do explain "corporate welfare"...

The left's anti-conservative rhetoric is soooooooo weak and tiring sometimes.

Hmm... bailing out the auto industry constantly to save union jobs? <_<

normanchateau · November 5, 2006

Surplus situation: Requires tax cuts which leads to spending cuts which leads to surpluses (maybe) leading to tax cuts.

Curiously, the Conservatives actually increased the personal income tax rate on July 1st, 2006, ...a very odd action for a Conservative government which inherited a huge surplus.

Ricki Bobbi · November 5, 2006

Curiously, the Conservatives actually increased the personal income tax rate on July 1st, 2006, ...a very odd action for a Conservative government which inherited a huge surplus.

They campaigned on it. Had to make a choice between cutting the GST and the various other tax cuts they have implelemented and abiding by a short-term Liberal policy....

normanchateau · November 5, 2006

Curiously, the Conservatives actually increased the personal income tax rate on July 1st, 2006, ...a very odd action for a Conservative government which inherited a huge surplus.

They campaigned on it.

True, but rumor has it that they've been known to reverse campaign promises.

Ricki Bobbi · November 5, 2006

True, but rumor has it that they've been known to reverse campaign promises.

Which one? Seems like the promise on income trusts was to protect the income of seniors. They have done that by increasing the age credit and allowing income splitting...

geoffrey · November 5, 2006

True, but rumor has it that they've been known to reverse campaign promises.

Which one? Seems like the promise on income trusts was to protect the income of seniors. They have done that by increasing the age credit and allowing income splitting...

Oh please, they specifical said no taxes on income trusts. They flat out lied.

My grandparents have been negatively affected by the decision, where is the standing up for seniors. It only helped a few low income seniors and hurt the rest of them.

Ricki Bobbi · November 5, 2006

Oh please, they specifical said no taxes on income trusts. They flat out lied.
My grandparents have been negatively affected by the decision, where is the standing up for seniors. It only helped a few low income seniors and hurt the rest of them.

Actually it probably helped the majority of seniors. Which is why it wont hurt the Conservatives...

They "specifically" said they would protect seniors.

Who are you going to vote for now geoffrey?

Conservatives are better off long term everytime they lose an angry, rigid, ideological right-winger...

geoffrey · November 5, 2006

Who are you going to vote for now geoffrey?
Conservatives are better off long term everytime they lose an angry, rigid, ideological right-winger...

I haven't decided, whatever party shows me that they are most likely to be real fiscal conservatives. Any party that raises taxes with a surplus isn't getting my vote.

I'm far from an angry, rigid, ideological right-winger. There are some days when I'd more likely fit with the Liberals. The only opinion I'm very 'rigid' on is tax cuts. With that surplus they should have cut the seniors taxes, and left well enough alone on the income trusts. They've got tons of cash, what do they need more for?

More socialist projects? What?

Ricki Bobbi · November 5, 2006

I haven't decided, whatever party shows me that they are most likely to be real fiscal conservatives. Any party that raises taxes with a surplus isn't getting my vote.
I'm far from an angry, rigid, ideological right-winger. There are some days when I'd more likely fit with the Liberals. The only opinion I'm very 'rigid' on is tax cuts. With that surplus they should have cut the seniors taxes, and left well enough alone on the income trusts. They've got tons of cash, what do they need more for?

More socialist projects? What?

By your definition you aren't going to have a party to vote for. The Conservatives are the closest to being 'real fiscal conservatives' of any party in the House of Commons at the moment. All those parties would agree with that statement. No party proposed more tax cuts than the Conservatives. I will bet *anything* none will in the next election.

What do they need more cash for? Hmmmm. Future tax cuts in other areas? Which might make you happy.

You say you aren't angry, but you have been very angry over this issue. Power to you for not renewing your party membership.

socialist projects? where is that coming from?

Some of us actually believe the debt should be paid down...

Figleaf · November 5, 2006

Power to you for not renewing your party membership.
socialist projects? where is that coming from?

Some of us actually believe the debt should be paid down...

What is this, stream of consciousness posting?

Oh no, it can't be ... it's Ricki Bobbi.

Ricki Bobbi · November 5, 2006

What is this, stream of consciousness posting?
Oh no, it can't be ... it's Ricki Bobbi.

I don't even understand that.

They are all responsed to specific points in geoffrey's post. Far to much hassle to cut and paste each statement in his post to match it with a response.