Conservative Spending - Out of Control

[Argus]

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

Yes, that's right. All of that is in the past. It's prison for the girls if they get out of line now!

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

In other words, pretty much as he said. The money will go to help women instead of to pay fat salaries to socialist activists to do junk science social studies and churn out brochures condemning all politicians except those in the NDP.

Gee, how sad.

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Second announcement in the last couple of days on the environment. Both in the $200 million ballpark.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made yet another pledge for the environment, this time announcing a plan to preserve ecologically sensitive land.

"Today, I am proud to announce that the new government of Canada is partnering with the Nature Conservancy of Canada in a national campaign to acquire and preserve half a million acres of ecologically sensitive land across southern Canada," Harper announced outside of King City, Ont.

The federal government will set aside $225 million to "reward the generosity" of landowners who agree to preserve their land from development by selling the land. Other landowners will get tax breaks for donating or agreeing to preserve the land.

What do the people who don't believe in global warming think? They write and they write here on how they think it is wrong and yet Harper is pouring money into provincial coffers on emissions and issues related to environment.

[daniel]

...

What do the people who don't believe in global warming think? They write and they write here on how they think it is wrong and yet Harper is pouring money into provincial coffers on emissions and issues related to environment.

They won't mind. As one Conservative supporter in these forums has stated "Winning moral victories is for chumps. Too bad it took the Canadian right so long to figure it out." So expect Harper to continuing saying anything just to get elected.

It won't be long before they introduce a $10/hr minumum wage, anti-scab legistlation and Rae (oops) Harper days.

[Keepitsimple]

...

What do the people who don't believe in global warming think? They write and they write here on how they think it is wrong and yet Harper is pouring money into provincial coffers on emissions and issues related to environment.

They won't mind. As one Conservative supporter in these forums has stated "Winning moral victories is for chumps. Too bad it took the Canadian right so long to figure it out." So expect Harper to continuing saying anything just to get elected.

It won't be long before they introduce a $10/hr minumum wage, anti-scab legistlation and Rae (oops) Harper days.

When you campaign, you have to appeal to your electoral base - and that base has to be big enough to get you elected. When you govern, you have to govern for all Canadians - not just Conservatives. Doing that in a balanced fashion while over time, being true to your principles and convictions is what true leadership is all about. It's also what makes great Prime Ministers.

When you are in a Minority government situation, you are most "vulnerable" at budget time. Historically, the average length of a Minority government is about 18 months. To protect themselves, governments will strategically "withhold" spending from the last budget so they can announce their good news close to the new budget. That way, if the government falls, the "good news" will be fresh in their minds. A good example was all the announcements on Transit/Infrastructure - that was in the last budget - contrary to some reports. At the same time, governments will make strategic announcements with regards to what's in the upcoming budget - like the Ecotrust expenditures. That means if the government budget is defeated, the ruling government will have a stick to beat them with. It's all part of the advantage of being in power - if you are wise enough to use it. I don't think anyone should worry about Harper looting the piggy bank over the long term.

[White Doors]

hat do the people who don't believe in global warming think? They write and they write here on how they think it is wrong and yet Harper is pouring money into provincial coffers on emissions and issues related to environment.

WTF? what does protecting 'ecologicaly sensitive land' have to do with global warming?

This goes to prove my point that the global warming nazi's are really going to do more harm than good to the environment.

I agree 100% with this type of environmental protection. We need more land protected in Canada and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the GW hysteria.

[jdobbin]

WTF? what does protecting 'ecologicaly sensitive land' have to do with global warming?

This goes to prove my point that the global warming nazi's are really going to do more harm than good to the environment.

I agree 100% with this type of environmental protection. We need more land protected in Canada and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the GW hysteria.

I think I mentioned issues related to the environment not just global warming. But whatever.

Some of the posters here have indicated that pretty much any environmental rules are economic treason. Their words not mine.

[White Doors]

Some of the posters here have indicated that pretty much any environmental rules are economic treason. Their words not mine.

cite?

[jdobbin]

When you campaign, you have to appeal to your electoral base - and that base has to be big enough to get you elected. When you govern, you have to govern for all Canadians - not just Conservatives. Doing that in a balanced fashion while over time, being true to your principles and convictions is what true leadership is all about. It's also what makes great Prime Ministers.

Funny, when Martin did this, the Tories screamed that it was a scattergun way of spending with no controls.

It is hard to figure out what Harper's principles are in these massive spending announcements. He once promised to limit spending but is now far beyond the number promised in the election.

[jdobbin]

cite?

Type in B. Max and economic treason in search.

[daniel]

...

It is hard to figure out what Harper's principles are in this massive spending announcements. He once promised to limit spending but is now far beyond the number promised in the election.

Like I said, the Conservatives have thrown out their principles and are now comfortable doing exactly what they would normally criticize. "Winning moral victories is for chumps" remember?

[Saturn]

Funny, when Martin did this, the Tories screamed that it was a scattergun way of spending with no controls.

It is hard to figure out what Harper's principles are in these massive spending announcements. He once promised to limit spending but is now far beyond the number promised in the election.

Harper has outspent Martin by far already. It's funny how Harper screamed for every single thing the Liberals did and now he's doing the same - just more of it. From massive spending and patronage appointments, to no bidding for multi-billion $ contracts and appointing friends to Cabinet and the Senate, Harper outliberaled the Liberals in one short year. Biggest harpercrite I've ever seen.

[blueblood]

Funny, when Martin did this, the Tories screamed that it was a scattergun way of spending with no controls.

It is hard to figure out what Harper's principles are in these massive spending announcements. He once promised to limit spending but is now far beyond the number promised in the election.

Harper has outspent Martin by far already. It's funny how Harper screamed for every single thing the Liberals did and now he's doing the same - just more of it. From massive spending and patronage appointments, to no bidding for multi-billion $ contracts and appointing friends to Cabinet and the Senate, Harper outliberaled the Liberals in one short year. Biggest harpercrite I've ever seen.

The budget doesn't help much with the economy either

ctv

You make a good point there and I don't think it can be disputed. I'm curious at what you think the money should be spent on.

[Michael Bluth]

Like I said, the Conservatives have thrown out their principles and are now comfortable doing exactly what they would normally criticize. "Winning moral victories is for chumps" remember?

Do you feel great in pointing out in your moral victory? In your belief the Conservatives have thrown out their principles?

The Conservatives have compromised as necessary in a minority Government. They are positioning themselves to win a majority in the next election. Do you fault them for that?

[Argus]

When you campaign, you have to appeal to your electoral base - and that base has to be big enough to get you elected. When you govern, you have to govern for all Canadians - not just Conservatives. Doing that in a balanced fashion while over time, being true to your principles and convictions is what true leadership is all about. It's also what makes great Prime Ministers.

Funny, when Martin did this, the Tories screamed that it was a scattergun way of spending with no controls.

It is hard to figure out what Harper's principles are in these massive spending announcements. He once promised to limit spending but is now far beyond the number promised in the election.

How could that possibly be true? I mean, even with what was promised during the election the Liberals assured us they would be running big deficits.

And they aren't.

Gee. Kinda makes one take the words of Liberals with a few grains of salt, eh?

[Argus]

Harper has outspent Martin by far already.

And you know this because.... because... you have cites of how much Martin spent and promised and how much the Tories have spent and promised.

Fine. Let's see em.

Unless, of course, you're just talking out of your ass.... again.

[Argus]

...

It is hard to figure out what Harper's principles are in this massive spending announcements. He once promised to limit spending but is now far beyond the number promised in the election.

Like I said, the Conservatives have thrown out their principles and are now comfortable doing exactly what they would normally criticize. "Winning moral victories is for chumps" remember?

That's rather amusing. Because if the Conservatives had thrown out their moral principles they'd be - Liberals. And you'd then be perfectly content.

[jdobbin]

How could that possibly be true? I mean, even with what was promised during the election the Liberals assured us they would be running big deficits.

And they aren't.

Gee. Kinda makes one take the words of Liberals with a few grains of salt, eh?

I believe the Tories were the ones that said it would run a deficit.

Martin's spending was indeed as scattershot as is Harper's now. Today they media has been leaked info that $200 million has been set aside in the budget for the provinces to create daycare spaces.

Harper is just digging deep on every issue and throwing cash at it. Where is the strategy?

I don't mind investing on programs but the Tories like the Martin Liberals don't seem to have a plan at all.

[jdobbin]

And you know this because.... because... you have cites of how much Martin spent and promised and how much the Tories have spent and promised.

Harper promised to keep spending at 3% of inflation. The Canadian Taxpapyers Federation has said that even before the budget, they are already over that.

http://www.thestar.com/article/183221

It's got small-c conservatives like John Williamson, director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, griping that the Conservatives have put on the backburner their commitments to paying down debt and broad-based tax relief.

"When it comes to spending and making announcements, the `new' government looks an awful lot like the old government," Williamson says.

He says the government has failed to keep its promises on two counts: it is not reining in spending growth, and it is "spending down the surplus" just as the Liberals used to do.

"They vowed (during the last election campaign) to hold any spending growth down to inflation growth plus population growth, which is slightly under 3 per cent in 2006," he says.

Now, program spending is growing at a rate of around 7.8 per cent, he says.

[Michael Bluth]

Harper promised to keep spending at 3% of inflation. The Canadian Taxpapyers Federation has said that even before the budget, they are already over that.

3% of inflation? Doesn't make any sense.

3% over the inflation rate?

Clarity in a situation really helps the debate. If people are interested in coherence and porviding correct facts...

[Saturn]

3% of inflation? Doesn't make any sense.

3% over the inflation rate?

Clarity in a situation really helps the debate. If people are interested in coherence and porviding correct facts...

Keeping spending at 3% of inflation or 3% over inflation doesn't make any sense either.

Limiting increases in spending to 3% of inflation or to 3% above inflation makes sense and the second makes more sense than the first. Either way, Harper has gone well above both of these options. So what exactly were you picking on here?

[Saturn]

The budget doesn't help much with the economy either

ctv

You make a good point there and I don't think it can be disputed. I'm curious at what you think the money should be spent on.

I'd spend it as the article says.

"If your primary motivation is to strengthen the economy and improve productivity, you don't do what we know is in this budget," said Dale Orr, managing director of the firm's Canadian operations.

Orr said positive steps to improve the economy would include additional program spending on infrastructure, post-secondary education and training, and tax cuts for businesses to reduce the cost of capital.

There are two things to do with your money - invest or consume. The first results in economic growth, the second in happy voters (who would much rather blow $100 on beer and popcorn today than invest it and get $200 down the road). The budget is almost entirely consumption - good for getting votes but bad for the economy. What I'd do is cut the increase in beer and popcorn spending (read general tax cuts, transfers to individuals and other governments and military equipment), put $10 B against the debt, and put the rest towards investment - in infrastructure, in education and training, and business tax cuts for investment in technology and R&D.

[blueblood]

There are two things to do with your money - invest or consume. The first results in economic growth, the second in happy voters (who would much rather blow $100 on beer and popcorn today than invest it and get $200 down the road). The budget is almost entirely consumption - good for getting votes but bad for the economy. What I'd do is cut the increase in beer and popcorn spending (read general tax cuts, transfers to individuals and other governments and military equipment), put $10 B against the debt, and put the rest towards investment - in infrastructure, in education and training, and business tax cuts for investment in technology and R&D.

So the average Canadian is too stupid to keep the money they earn at work? Education and training? We don't need the entire country going to school, it devalues the degree, should people be going to school until they are 30? What's wrong with being educated on the job site? There needs to be "grunts" they have a vital place in the economy. Blowing money on unecessary education is completely ridiculous, it hurts our economy having people waste away in school. I'll tell you right now a graduate with a PhD in agriculture is not going to grow a better crop than me, the only use he has is being a prof.

I'd cut corporate, business, personal taxes. Cut the Indian affairs dept., make cuts to welfare, cut all the billion dollar payouts, invest in army, healthcare, police., invest in projects that end up making a return, improve infrastructure, toss out nationalized daycare.

[Saturn]

So the average Canadian is too stupid to keep the money they earn at work? Education and training? We don't need the entire country going to school, it devalues the degree, should people be going to school until they are 30? What's wrong with being educated on the job site? There needs to be "grunts" they have a vital place in the economy. Blowing money on unecessary education is completely ridiculous, it hurts our economy having people waste away in school. I'll tell you right now a graduate with a PhD in agriculture is not going to grow a better crop than me, the only use he has is being a prof.

I'd cut corporate, business, personal taxes. Cut the Indian affairs dept., make cuts to welfare, cut all the billion dollar payouts, invest in army, healthcare, police., invest in projects that end up making a return, improve infrastructure, toss out nationalized daycare.

Actually, yes, the average Canadian is too nearsighted to know what a good investment is. I know you don't like daycare, education and training but those along with investment in infrastructure and technology are the "projects" that produce the greatest economic growth of all. Bombs, prescription drugs and paying people to sit at home do not produce economic growth - just the opposite. Those are the FACTS and reality won't change because of your sentiments. Btw, that graduate with a PhD in agriculture is not there to grow crops, he's there to find out how to grow better crops and to pass it on to the people who do grow crops. It is kind of a waste though - farmers are notoriously bad and slow learners.

[August1991]

Actually, yes, the average Canadian is too nearsighted to know what a good investment is.

And of course a government bureaucrat (a social planner) is far-sighted and knows what a good investment is.

Saturn, I suggest you spend some time in modern Russia and see the end consequences of what you are suggesting. But let me try a different argument. Do you think it is wise to put all your investment eggs in one (socially planned) basket?

I know you don't like daycare, education and training but those along with investment in infrastructure and technology are the "projects" that produce the greatest economic growth of all.

Why do I think you are a student?

Bombs, prescription drugs and paying people to sit at home do not produce economic growth - just the opposite.

Bombs presumably protect us. Drugs and people sitting at home - well, that's the purpose of it all, no? A civilized society?

You could work 3000 hours a year, save half of your earnings and leave your children wealthy.

----

I started this thread because I think Harper has gone Liberal and is spending (my) money like a drunken sailor. Argus has rightly asked, what's the alternative?

[jdobbin]

I started this thread because I think Harper has gone Liberal and is spending (my) money like a drunken sailor. Argus has rightly asked, what's the alternative?

Starting a new party?