Conservative Spending - Out of Control

[daniel]

They want to make the country go broke. All the leaders of the western countries are globalists and they are in positions to destroy their own countries for the corporations and bankers. In our case they are creating the North American Union and corps & bankers are writing the legislation for it. Politicians are signing it without reading it. When its over we have no borders and powerless politicians. We will be at the mercy of the corporations more that we are now.

These types of statements are baseless. Politicians are too smart to hand over their power. Furthermore, globalization has been around forever and borders still exist. How do you expect it to abolish borders in the future.

It may be exaggerated but there is some truth to it as well. Some multi-national corporation with more money to invest than the budget of a poor African nation can basically call all the shots with property rights, environmental responsibilities, royalties, etc. I've even heard that some Chinese mining corporations import all their own workers resulting in zero local employment. In return, the official of their corrupt government gets a nice healthy kick-back.

In the western world where officials are held to audits and scrutiny, politicians have less power than what you'd expect. They are only people too and one day would need keep their post-political careers open so the deals they strike up can't be too strict. Sometimes, they are so powerless that they can only go with the flow and come up with weak restrictions that won't appear to give everything away even though they are.

[daniel]

...Fighting Kyoto ever step of the way? How?...

My, my how terms like "dinosaur farts" and "Made-in-Canada solution" seem like a distant memory only to be wished away by their owners.

But it now appears we are entering another of those "Bush-didn't-link-Iraq-to-911" type of debates.

So how is it now that you don't mind Harper's out-of-control spending? The same type of spending conservatives had always criticized?

[Michael Bluth]

So how is it now that you don't mind Harper's out-of-control spending? The same type of spending conservatives had always criticized?

We do mind your mischaracterization of Kyoto.

There was nothing done by the Liberals so there was nothing to fight.

The Conservatives plan is better than Kyoto. It treats all regions of the country fairly and doesn't support such a ridiculous concept of sending money to other countries to buy emission credits.

The Conservatives made the single biggest one time debt repayment. Not out of control spending at all.

Do try and be a little realistic in your posts.

[BubberMiley]

Your hypocrisy in ignoring the word when used by someone on your side of the fence, and then sniveling like an old woman because of my response is the mark of the typical Liberal faithful. It is crass, deceitful and pathetic.

It's got nothing to do with your side of the fence; it's the fact that you use the word in a derogatory fashion. You are incapable of putting forth an argument without using ad hominem attacks and low-level trolling. Until of course, people start reacting to you in kind. Then you whine about the low level of debate and complain to the moderator.

Oh, and as for wasteful spending, how about a crooked plebsicite on the CWB that they admit at the outset counts for nothing?

[dlkenny]

As for all these expenditures, I tend to look at each one and ask a couple of questions:

1) Was the money included in the last budget and they have decided to spend now?

2) Is the money a reasonable, strategic investment tied to the next budget?

3) If neither of the above, then there have to be serious questions asked.

The major recent announcements have involved:

1) Transit/Infrastructure for Ontario (and other provinces). These were included as a block amount in the previous budget - Ontario/Ottawa have been working for some time on this. Cities are crying out loud for this type of expenditure. I expect there might be an ongoing committment of some sort in the upcoming budget.

2) Eco-Trust - $1.5 billion for the provinces. A new priority demanded by Canadians and will be included in the next budget. Probably the first peg in a continuous funding program for the environment. Canadians wanted action.....well, it's started.

3) $1 billion for farmers. Promised in last election.

Smart politics but also reasonably spent money......although I'm sure many will disagree.

I agree, these expenditures are ones that seem to be necessary. I do also agree however that Harper has been forced to move toward the left and spend money because otherwise he'd be voted out in the next election. Dion is playing politics and so is Harper, he knows he has to appeal to the voters and give in to some spending because he wants a majority. I would suggest that if he had a majority that he wouldn't be spending money like he is now, he's a conservative and I would think that he'd like nothing more than to give people tax cuts instead...but people would rather have him spend it on transit and environment, etc. so that's exactly what he's doing. I would suspect though that there's something in the budget that might trip the opposition into forcing an election, that's why he's spending all of this money, it's an attempt to get public opinion on his side and perhaps gain enough votes in the House of Commons to keep his government alive. If he can appeal to another party's pet policy maybe they will choose to support him and allow some movement on other issues.

[daniel]

...he knows he has to appeal to the voters and give in to some spending because he wants a majority. I would suggest that if he had a majority that he wouldn't be spending money like he is now, he's a conservative and I would think that he'd like nothing more than to give people tax cuts instead...but people would rather have him spend it on transit and environment, etc. so that's exactly what he's doing....

Yup. In other words, to get a majority the Conservatives have to appear like Liberals. Any resemblance to conservatism will turn voters off - and if you have read any previous postings, Conservatives have no problems throwing out their beliefs - at least temporarily. Their defence of course is the "this time it's different" argument or some other double-standard.

But like you said, they would rather give tax breaks and budget cuts instead. So don't be surprised if in their first majority budget (or even minority if they have the gall) to claw back all those spending promises.

[August1991]

So you want Harper to spend less & spend more competently?

Is that too much to ask for?

Here's what I mean:

Despite years of Conservative complaints about the previous Liberal government's spending largesse, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already begun reshaping his government's penny-pinching image by announcing more than $12 billion in spending programs for cities, public transit, the environment, energy, agriculture and other priorities in recent weeks.

The huge new federal outlays, to be confirmed by Flaherty on March 19, are possible because Ottawa's budget surplus this year has surpassed all expectations and could approach the $13 billion in extra cash amassed by the federal government last year.

Toronto Star

They take in $13 billion extra and spend $12 billon of it. Federal spending will rise by over 5% which is well above economic growth. But Argus and so many others are happy because Flaherty will have a budget surplus and he'll reduce the debt.

Welcome to Canada, where the federal government is a growth industry.

[jbg]

It wasn't Mulroney or Harper who got the Canadian budget back in the red with healthy surplusses. Pearson and Trudeau made Canada the respected Nation it was when Harper took over.

"Back in the red" and "healthy surpluses" are contradictory, indeed opposite terms. Start Grade 8 over please.

[daniel]

It wasn't Mulroney or Harper who got the Canadian budget back in the red with healthy surplusses. Pearson and Trudeau made Canada the respected Nation it was when Harper took over.

"Back in the red" and "healthy surpluses" are contradictory, indeed opposite terms. Start Grade 8 over please.

Sorry. That's back in the BLACK. No need to get nasty. We all know that msn messaging and text messaging including modern-day e-mail etc is screwing up standard English and editing skills. That includes you too.

[jbg]

Sorry. That's back in the BLACK. No need to get nasty. We all know that msn messaging and text messaging including modern-day e-mail etc is screwing up standard English and editing skills. That includes you too.

I didn't say anything nasty. And hey, school now is the "good old days" where everything was taken care of.

[Michael Bluth]

"Back in the red" and "healthy surpluses" are contradictory, indeed opposite terms. Start Grade 8 over please.

Sorry. That's back in the BLACK. No need to get nasty. We all know that msn messaging and text messaging including modern-day e-mail etc is screwing up standard English and editing skills. That includes you too.

Wow, talk about your stereotypical Liberal.

It's not his fault he confuses the basic understanding that in the red means deficit and in the black means surplus.

It's the fault of MSN messaging and texting.

Take responsibility for your own actions!

People, I think this particular Young Liberal is a future Finance Minister in the making. Or at least fancies himself to be one...

[Argus]

Gee, here are a bunch of liberal supporters whining about high spending - and all they've got to come back with when I ask for examples is "Prove to us how our wonderful liberals were worse".

And that's about what your argument amounts to, Argus: The Tories are not as bad as the Liberals were

Or will be, which is A point, but not THE point.

Tory spending is out of control! They're spending money like drunken sailors!

Fine, August. On what? Give me examples.

[Argus]

They want to make the country go broke.

Horse shit.

[Argus]

Your hypocrisy in ignoring the word when used by someone on your side of the fence, and then sniveling like an old woman because of my response is the mark of the typical Liberal faithful. It is crass, deceitful and pathetic.

It's got nothing to do with your side of the fence; it's the fact that you use the word in a derogatory fashion.

How do you know how I'm using the word?

You are incapable of putting forth an argument without using ad hominem attacks and low-level trolling.

Ridiculous. I merely don't react well to inane stupidity.

Oh, and as for wasteful spending, how about a crooked plebsicite on the CWB that they admit at the outset counts for nothing?

All governments waste money. I'm looking for this "out of control" "Spending like drunken sailors" kind of thing, you know, throwing billions and billions away on nothing. Let's have some specifics please.

[Argus]

So you want Harper to spend less & spend more competently?

Is that too much to ask for?

Here's what I mean:

Despite years of Conservative complaints about the previous Liberal government's spending largesse, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has already begun reshaping his government's penny-pinching image by announcing more than $12 billion in spending programs for cities, public transit, the environment, energy, agriculture and other priorities in recent weeks.

The huge new federal outlays, to be confirmed by Flaherty on March 19, are possible because Ottawa's budget surplus this year has surpassed all expectations and could approach the $13 billion in extra cash amassed by the federal government last year.

Toronto Star

They take in $13 billion extra and spend $12 billon of it. Federal spending will rise by over 5% which is well above economic growth. But Argus and so many others are happy because Flaherty will have a budget surplus and he'll reduce the debt.

Welcome to Canada, where the federal government is a growth industry.

If you had read your own quote you'd have seen that the only programs they really talked about were ones to transfer more money to the provinces and municipalities in order to address longstanding complaints that the federal government takes too high a portion of the tax pie. That makes the above quote pretty silly.

So what else? No specifics from the Star either. Either tell us what spending you want stopped or shut up about it.

How about we cut the environmental fund, August? Would that please you? I'm guessing no.

[Saturn]

Your spot on. I, however, think Harper will be fairly moderate in this governing in the case of a majority. He's a power hungry guy, he'll want to be back for term #3.

He doesn't need to be moderate. He just needs to hand out some tax cuts once in a while and it doesn't matter if he hands over the entire budget to his buddies and piles up the debt. Bush and Harris showed that you don't have to be a good financial manager or to be honest and accountable to stay in office - as long as you hand out some tax cuts.

[PolyNewbie]

stazy:These types of statements are baseless. Politicians are too smart to hand over their power. Furthermore, globalization has been around forever and borders still exist. How do you expect it to abolish borders in the future.

Politicians have already handed over a lot of their power. This started in the 70's Trudeau was amemeber of the Club of Rome and he began to use private banks to finance government instead of using the Bank Of Canada. Canadas debt has grown almost exponentially since then. This was a move to take power away from politicians and put it into the hands of international bankers.

Haprper is just a globalist puppet. Read my thread on the NAU.

The borders are being abolished now, the USA Mexico border is practically non existent there are moves in Canada recently announced to allow the free flow of illegal immigrants.

My post is based on fact not emotion and the fact that you don't like it bears no relevance.

[August1991]

Tory spending is out of control! They're spending money like drunken sailors!

Fine, August. On what? Give me examples.

Here's one you'll like Argus, although it's not in the same league as the $1 billion Harper just promised in Saskatchewan to farmers. (What is it about the word 'billion'? Why this sexy connotation?)

Bev Oda, Conservative Minister of Heritage and Status of Women Canada (SWC), announced yesterday that the $5-million that was revoked from the SWC’s budget will be reinstated this April, increasing the organization’s total budget by 42 per cent.

Link

Bush and Harris showed that you don't have to be a good financial manager or to be honest and accountable to stay in office - as long as you hand out some tax cuts.

I'd far rather see a politician handout tax cuts rather than hand out money. There's a big difference, in case you haven't noticed.

[August1991]

The story is that Garth Turner called Harper a "political whore" and accused him of political patronage. But these numbers attracted my attention:

On Wednesday it was $1.5 billion for Ontario buses and subways. On Friday it was $1 billion for farmers, announced in a Saskatechewan barn. In fact, PMSH has spent a stunning $6.9 billion in the 30 days which ended yesterday. That money is on top of the $214 billion Ottawa has committed to spending in the fiscal year starting at the end of March, which is a hike of more than 11% (three times the rate of inflation) from last year. And, yeah, we haven’t even had the budget yet, which will promise a few billion more in tax cuts and yet more spending.

Stephen Harper, the less-is-more, frugal prime minister who came to power outing Paul Martin’s double-digit annual spending hikes, is about to eclipse the guy. Ottawa is set to hit a level of expenditure never seen before – just when the economy has dangerously peaked and is heading into a slow-growth phase. The $13 billion in federal surplus, caused by the over-taxation Harper railed against, is being spent in a pre-election orgy that – in one month – is costing us 600 times more than the sponsorship scandal did.

Link

[geoffrey]

Well, I think it's foolish for Garth to minimize a fraudlent scheme to take taxpayers money to fund the Liberal party in Quebec, but I'm equally upset about the spending.

[Michael Bluth]

Well, I think it's foolish for Garth to minimize a fraudlent scheme to take taxpayers money to fund the Liberal party in Quebec, but I'm equally upset about the spending.

Garth is all about Garth.

Just like the Liberals thought they 'won' when they poached Dvaid Kilgour the poaching of Garth is equally a pyrrhic victory.

[Argus]

Tory spending is out of control! They're spending money like drunken sailors!

Fine, August. On what? Give me examples.

Here's one you'll like Argus, although it's not in the same league as the $1 billion Harper just promised in Saskatchewan to farmers. (What is it about the word 'billion'? Why this sexy connotation?)

Bev Oda, Conservative Minister of Heritage and Status of Women Canada (SWC), announced yesterday that the $5-million that was revoked from the SWC’s budget will be reinstated this April, increasing the organization’s total budget by 42 per cent.

Link

Disappointing, but what can you do? They're playing the political game. But that's chump change compared to the Liberals, and in no way justifies your "spending money like drunken sailors" complaint. If that's the best you can come up with after several requests then you're just bitching to hear yourself bitch.

[Keepitsimple]

Tory spending is out of control! They're spending money like drunken sailors!

Fine, August. On what? Give me examples.

Here's one you'll like Argus, although it's not in the same league as the $1 billion Harper just promised in Saskatchewan to farmers. (What is it about the word 'billion'? Why this sexy connotation?)

Bev Oda, Conservative Minister of Heritage and Status of Women Canada (SWC), announced yesterday that the $5-million that was revoked from the SWC’s budget will be reinstated this April, increasing the organization’s total budget by 42 per cent.

Link

Disappointing, but what can you do? They're playing the political game. But that's chump change compared to the Liberals, and in no way justifies your "spending money like drunken sailors" complaint. If that's the best you can come up with after several requests then you're just bitching to hear yourself bitch.

As usual, the media got everyone upset in trying to demonize the "mean-sprited" Conservative Party. In fact the supposed $5 million cut was only to be effective on April 1/2007. It was announced a long time ago so that the department could re-organize itself. Back then, 31 cents of every dollar was spent on "Administration". There were too many offices and a lot of "research and advocacy" activities......so money was not being directed at services and activities that could actually help women in need. So over the past 6 months, offices have been closed and mandates have been altered. The $5 millon is being re-instated in a fashion that will now make better use of the funding and provide more direct help to women. So when all is said and done - there was no cut in funding - it's a wash - and that's exactly what Bev Oda originally said - cut funding for Administration and reinvest it in better services for women. The cynics didn't believe her - but clearly, that's exactly what's been done.

A better understanding of how the funding will be used can be found at the tail end of the link/article that was posted. It says:

“Organizations who for years have been receiving money from SWC to do advocacy and research specifically related to women’s equality can no longer qualify and apply under the current terms and conditions which were recently changed by the federal government,” she said.

The new $15.3-million budget will be funnelled into two different funds, the Women’s Community Fund, which will support projects at the local, regional, and national levels, and the Women’s Partnership Fund, which will attempt to facilitate joint projects between the government and eligible organizations in order to address issues pertaining to women.

[hiti]

Well, I think it's foolish for Garth to minimize a fraudlent scheme to take taxpayers money to fund the Liberal party in Quebec, but I'm equally upset about the spending.

Garth is all about Garth.

Just like the Liberals thought they 'won' when they poached Dvaid Kilgour the poaching of Garth is equally a pyrrhic victory.

The Liberals poached Garth? In what universe?

A better understanding of how the funding will be used can be found at the tail end of the link/article that was posted. It says:

“Organizations who for years have been receiving money from SWC to do advocacy and research specifically related to women’s equality can no longer qualify and apply under the current terms and conditions which were recently changed by the federal government,” she said.

The new $15.3-million budget will be funnelled into two different funds, the Women’s Community Fund, which will support projects at the local, regional, and national levels, and the Women’s Partnership Fund, which will attempt to facilitate joint projects between the government and eligible organizations in order to address issues pertaining to women.

Sooooooooo..... no longer can women strive for equality and freedom from violence under Harper's Conservative paternal system.

Here is what some of those changes will mean. Quote-Women’s equality, social justice, political and legal participation of women are examples of the language which has been erased from the T&Cs.

There is general agreement that there is a need for increased funding to women’s shelters, however, if current divorce laws continue to fail to take into account spousal and family violence we are not really addressing the issue of violence against women. The new T&Cs allow funding for shelters but not for work related to questioning, challenging and changing the laws.

The current T&Cs aim to provide “direct” and “local” assistance. This is very much based on a charity model which ignores the systemic issues behind the problem at hand. Instead of providing analysis and aiming for legal change the current approach privileges a case by case basis, almost as if women’s poverty and violence against women were exceptions, aberrations to the norm. This approach is not meant to result in any significant change and does not challenge the status quo.

For example, when considering women’s poverty, the charity model approach is about ensuring that women can find a donated business suit which will allow them to access a minimum wage job. -end quote

This idiotic crapola just makes me angry and I can't use all them bad words here. Harper is nothing but the worse kind of liar, just plain pond scum. Bev Oda...shame.

Quote-During the federal election campaign in January 2006, Stephen Harper agreed “that Canada has more to do to meet its international obligations to women's equality.” He also publicly stated that: “If elected, I will take concrete and immediate measures, as recommended by the United Nations, to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women in Canada." (January 18, 2006, http://www.fafia-afai.org/en/node/68).

http://www.fafia-afai.org/en/node/381#tc

[Argus]

The story is that Garth Turner called Harper a "political whore" and accused him of political patronage.

That's actually funny. Turner accusing someone else of being a political whore? All the things he said about t he Liberals and now he is one.

But these numbers attracted my attention:On Wednesday it was $1.5 billion for Ontario buses and subways.

Wasn't this pretty much promised by the Liberals already? Didn't the Tories promise to follow through on such things?

On Friday it was $1 billion for farmers, announced in a Saskatechewan barn. In fact, PMSH has spent a stunning $6.9 billion in the 30 days which ended yesterday.

What was the rest on? Funny how no one ever wants to give details. And to repeat what I've already attempted to point out to you - capital spending or one time spending is not a problem compared to ongoing program spending. Once you've paid for the buses that's it. Programs are almost impossible to kill.

And anyway, that's the way politics is in this country. We vote for whomever promises us the most goodies. Just look at what Martin did in the run-up to the last election.