Conservative Spending - Out of Control

[August1991]

Starting a new party?

I'll vote BQ.

Saturn wants bigger government and then when Harper offers bigger government, Saturn quibbles about what the bigger government is doing.

Saturn can't have it both ways. You want big government, well you get it - and you don't necessarily get the big government you want. As Bush Jnr said, "a dictatorship is great as long as I get to be dictator."

In the case of Saturn though, I think he's just being partisan. He doesn't like Stephen Harper. It's personal, visceral. (True, Harper rubs some people the wrong way.)

[jdobbin]

I'll vote BQ.

Saturn wants bigger government and then when Harper offers bigger government, Saturn quibbles about what the bigger government is doing.

Saturn can't have it both ways. You want big government, well you get it - and you don't necessarily get the big government you want. As Bush Jnr said, "a dictatorship is great as long as I get to be dictator."

In the case of Saturn though, I think he's just being partisan. He doesn't like Stephen Harper. It's personal, visceral. (True, Harper rubs some people the wrong way.)

Do the BQ have limits on what they will spend money on?

I think some of Harper's spending promises are commendable. I just don't know what the strategy is except to get elected.

As far as spending cuts go, I think we really have to look at pulling the plug on regional development aid programs in the west and Atlantic. I think that subsidies for tar sands devlopment should be reduced. The initiative really has to come from private sources. I think many of the business subsidies have to go in general.

As far as social spending goes, I think they have to refund some of the the surpluses in CMHC and Employment Canada back to government which is turn should be used to reduce taxes and payroll taxes.

Will Dion make those type of cuts? I don't know. But both the National Post and Globe and Mail said that Dion was making the right type of speeches on taxes and spending this week.

[gc1765]

Anyone else see this from the National Post

They promised an end to those wildly soaring budgetary surpluses, a tight leash on spending growth and a reward for taxpayers from the interest savings after this new-found frugality was plunked down on debt repayment.

But in politics, everything new becomes old school again when an election comes calling.

Consider how this government is now in the final weeks of a mad scramble to blow a projected $8-billion surplus...

...

In the past two weeks, the feds have announced $2.5-billion in unbudgeted spending -- that's $79.11 for every census-counted Canadian and it doesn't include the regional handouts or the $10- billion they blew in the previous three months.

...

"This vote-buying spree with no clear plans will only perpetuate that type of waste," yelped deputy Conservative leader Peter MacKay in November, 2005. "The Prime Minister has been at it now for months. He's been criss-crossing the country in the Challenger jet, using the public purse as his own to somehow present to Canadians a vote-buying scheme that is not going to work. People are not going to be fooled."

[blueblood]

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.

And I'm comrade??? Hehe!! I don't know but the gov't investing 1 billion dollars into an oil rig out in NFLD would do a lot more for the economy than dolling out 1 billion dollars for farmers or daycare. No clown with a PhD has ever taught anyone from my area how to grow a crop, it's just trial and error, and word of mouth on more efficient practices, I devote 1/4 section for experimenting. I wouldn't say we're bad and slow learners, we're just cautious when it comes to new practices, if we see that it's better we go for it. For example zero till saves me a fortune on my fuel bill and doesn't hurt my yield, therefore I go for it.

How is having more money in my pocket bad for the economy. When I have more money I'll spend it, it helps out the businesses in town. If my money is going to fund daycare in the city, then I'm going to tighten up the purse strings and not spend, therefore hurting the businesses. Me having the money to pay for a new piece of machinery helps me be more efficient, helps the dealer make money, and helps the salesman with commission. Me not having money means I'll make do with what I have, the dealer doesn't make money and the salesman doesn't get commission, but Timmy gets a space to raise his kid for him.

You put way too much stock in Education, a driller from the rigs and a farmer will see a lot more money than someone with a 4 yr. Arts degree, what did his education do for him? He pissed away 4 yrs. of his life and gets a mediocre at best job.

[Keepitsimple]

How is having more money in my pocket bad for the economy. When I have more money I'll spend it, it helps out the businesses in town. If my money is going to fund daycare in the city, then I'm going to tighten up the purse strings and not spend, therefore hurting the businesses. Me having the money to pay for a new piece of machinery helps me be more efficient, helps the dealer make money, and helps the salesman with commission. Me not having money means I'll make do with what I have, the dealer doesn't make money and the salesman doesn't get commission, but Timmy gets a space to raise his kid for him.

Blueblood.....honest question for a farmer. Yes - I'm a city slicker from Markham, ON.......but my wife and I have always had a soft spot for farmers - keepers of the land - feeders of the people and all that. Many years ago, I saw an analysis of a bunch of carrots as they worked their way from the farmer to the grocery store. If I remember right, the framer only got about 5 cents, even though Loblaws or whoever sold them for 79 cents. Middlemen, packaging, marketing, store makup, transportation, etc. Can you provide some accurate up to date scenarios of what a farmer gets as opposed to what the produce is sold for? With the importance of farming, I've often thought that if indeed, a farmer only got 5 cents, then why not instititute an "end-of-the-line" tax and give that money back to the farmers. Even a 1% tax at the grocery store would seem to create a tremendous fund that would bypass all the middlemen and help retain farming as a viable family business. I'd like such a tax to be applied in a preferable fashion to smaller farmers - rather than the big corporations. Anyway, I'm more interested in the pricing scenarios - I just thought I'd spit out that tax thing - it's been bugging me for some time about how hard farmers have to work for such a small piece of the monetary pie.

[Saturn]

No clown with a PhD has ever taught anyone from my area how to grow a crop, it's just trial and error, and word of mouth on more efficient practices, I devote 1/4 section for experimenting. I wouldn't say we're bad and slow learners, we're just cautious when it comes to new practices, if we see that it's better we go for it.

If farmers were smart enough to read up on efficient practices, they'd be using more of them and they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel. Those "clowns" with the PhD's have already done it but most farmers aren't smart enough to find out about it. They prefer to "learn" from word of mouth and to resist efficient practices because they want to do things the way they've been done for generations.

How is having more money in my pocket bad for the economy. When I have more money I'll spend it, it helps out the businesses in town. If my money is going to fund daycare in the city, then I'm going to tighten up the purse strings and not spend, therefore hurting the businesses.

Your money isn't going to pay for daycare in the city. Your money doesn't pay for anything in the city. It is the city that pays for many of the services in rural areas - rural areas just don't generate enough funds to sustain themselves. If you spent a bit of time reading up on the facts, you wouldn't start with the false premise that your money pays for anything in the city. But hey, it must be "word of mouth". Daycare will allow more people to work in the city - consequently, the city will pay for its own daycare and generate more funds to be spent in rural areas. In addition, your products go to the city and if city dwellers have more cash, they can afford to buy more of your products. It's a win-win strategy both for cities and rural areas but you obviously can't see that far.

[Saturn]

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?

There you go again with your nonsensical evil government theories. Anyone with a bit of knowledge of what investments lead to economic growth can tell you that. There is far more expertise on this in the government than in the general population. And you are hallucinating again - where did I say that it's wise to put all your investment eggs in one socially planned basket? What I said is that when businesses and individuals don't invest enough, the government should give them an incentive to do so. For example, Canadian business is notorious for underinvesting in new and efficient technologies, hence dragging our productivity down - so gov't should provide more tax credits specifically tied to investment in facilities, equipment and R&D. You really ought to restrain your wild imagination and keep the bulls**t down.

[Charles Anthony]

Anyone with a bit of knowledge of what investments lead to economic growth can tell you that. There is far more expertise on this in the government than in the general population.

No imagination is necessary to appreciate the Soviet experience. It is quite vivid.

What I said is that when businesses and individuals don't invest enough, the government should give them an incentive to do so. For example, Canadian business is notorious for underinvesting in new and efficient technologies, hence dragging our productivity down

What criteria is used to determine "invest enough" or "underinvesting" in your edge of the solar system?

[Saturn]

Anyone with a bit of knowledge of what investments lead to economic growth can tell you that. There is far more expertise on this in the government than in the general population.

No imagination is necessary to appreciate the Soviet experience. It is quite vivid.

Bad analogy. Consider the third-world experience if you are interested in bad analogies.

What I said is that when businesses and individuals don't invest enough, the government should give them an incentive to do so. For example, Canadian business is notorious for underinvesting in new and efficient technologies, hence dragging our productivity down

What criteria is used to determine "invest enough" or "underinvesting" in your edge of the solar system?

When a third of the productivity gap between the US and Canada is due to outdated inefficient technologies used by Canadian business, that's considered "underinvesting" in my edge of the solar system. In your conservative bunker, closing that gap is considered "social engineering".

[White Doors]

Yes Saturn, farmers are all dumb.

Nice outlook on life there buddy.

[blueblood]

No clown with a PhD has ever taught anyone from my area how to grow a crop, it's just trial and error, and word of mouth on more efficient practices, I devote 1/4 section for experimenting. I wouldn't say we're bad and slow learners, we're just cautious when it comes to new practices, if we see that it's better we go for it.

If farmers were smart enough to read up on efficient practices, they'd be using more of them and they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel. Those "clowns" with the PhD's have already done it but most farmers aren't smart enough to find out about it. They prefer to "learn" from word of mouth and to resist efficient practices because they want to do things the way they've been done for generations.

How is having more money in my pocket bad for the economy. When I have more money I'll spend it, it helps out the businesses in town. If my money is going to fund daycare in the city, then I'm going to tighten up the purse strings and not spend, therefore hurting the businesses.

Your money isn't going to pay for daycare in the city. Your money doesn't pay for anything in the city. It is the city that pays for many of the services in rural areas - rural areas just don't generate enough funds to sustain themselves. If you spent a bit of time reading up on the facts, you wouldn't start with the false premise that your money pays for anything in the city. But hey, it must be "word of mouth". Daycare will allow more people to work in the city - consequently, the city will pay for its own daycare and generate more funds to be spent in rural areas. In addition, your products go to the city and if city dwellers have more cash, they can afford to buy more of your products. It's a win-win strategy both for cities and rural areas but you obviously can't see that far.

Like I said, lets see a PhD grow a 50+ bushel an acre crop of canola and make money on it, after all he's university educated. If you think farmers grow crops like they did in the 50's your are just either ignorant or missing the boat.

If the high amount of tax dollars from the ag sector actually stayed in my town, we would be able to sustain ourselves. I'm sure Alberta's oil comes out of some cubicle too. If daycare was found to be the magic bullet, I'm sure many corporations/businesses would put in a daycare centre on-site and hire a full time worker. But I guess we do need daycare for your vision of Canada where we are taxed so hard that we absolutely need two incomes to make ends meet, pay the mortgage on a 1/2 million dollar house, and pay off the sky high visa bill because a credit card is now necessary. Chavez would love to have you in Cabinet.

I think there is also a correlation with having both people work and a declining birth rate, even with this daycare idea I don't know how the population will sustain itself, oh wait immigration, taking the smartest people from countries where they are actually needed and hindering their growth, another brilliant idea.

[JerrySeinfeld]

"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money".

Everett Dirksen

The simplistic mindset of the Right (and Left) in Canada is that it's bad to borrow. As long as a government doesn't borrow, then in this mindest, the government is fiscally competent.

Not.

At the moment, the federal government is rolling in dough. Unemployment is down to a historic low of 6.1%, the economy is booming and all manner of tax revenues are up. The guys in Ottawa are flush with cash. And unfortunately, they're spending it.

A billion or so for a Toronto subway. A billion or so for airplanes. Another billion or so of mad money for the provincial governments. Stephen Harper has morphed into minority PM PM, circa 2005.

That might be a small indication to Harper that this is not a politically winning strategy. It's certainly not a winning strategy for Canada's economy or Canada in general.

I have a simple idea: Governments in Canada spend too much money. I don't care about government deficits, debts or taxes. Because of the nature of government, they're largely irrelevant. What does matter is what government buys. And our governments spend too much.

Canada, this wonderfully civilized place that has existed for centuries, certainly longer than Ottawa, needs less government.

I voted Conservative because I want politicians to say no. Harper is saying yes, far too often.

Newsflash - this is a minority government facing an election at some point in the near future.

nuff said.

[Argus]

No clown with a PhD has ever taught anyone from my area how to grow a crop, it's just trial and error, and word of mouth on more efficient practices, I devote 1/4 section for experimenting. I wouldn't say we're bad and slow learners, we're just cautious when it comes to new practices, if we see that it's better we go for it.

If farmers were smart enough to read up on efficient practices, they'd be using more of them and they wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel. Those "clowns" with the PhD's have already done it but most farmers aren't smart enough to find out about it. They prefer to "learn" from word of mouth and to resist efficient practices because they want to do things the way they've been done for generations.

It does not sound, to me, as if you know a damned thing about farmers. Farmers are always trying something new. They are always experimenting with this or that, large or small. They are small businessmen, and always thinking. They are always talking with each other, comparing methodology, comparing results, Farmers are interested in results above all else. And they are rarely satisfied with the status quo.

[August1991]

Newsflash - this is a minority government facing an election at some point in the near future.

nuff said.

That argument is terrifying. By your logic, governments spend money to be popular. Where does it end? How big will the government get? How much will it buy?

Does democracy lead to socialism?

[Argus]

Newsflash - this is a minority government facing an election at some point in the near future.

nuff said.

That argument is terrifying. By your logic, governments spend money to be popular. Where does it end? How big will the government get? How much will it buy?

Does democracy lead to socialism?

Check Europe and see.

Canadians respond well to bribes. The more you offer them the more votes you get. It's unfortunate, but this is historically the way things have gone over the last fifty years. Promise them good times, bread and circuses, you'll get votes. Warn there are hard times ahead and you'll have to raise taxes, you wind up in opposition.

[Saturn]

Like I said, lets see a PhD grow a 50+ bushel an acre crop of canola and make money on it, after all he's university educated. If you think farmers grow crops like they did in the 50's your are just either ignorant or missing the boat.

If you think that efficient practices and the equipment you are using didn't originate with some university "clowns", then you are ignorant and confused. If it was up to high-school grads and high-school dropout farmers, you'd still be farming the way it was done 100 years ago.

[blueblood]

Like I said, lets see a PhD grow a 50+ bushel an acre crop of canola and make money on it, after all he's university educated. If you think farmers grow crops like they did in the 50's your are just either ignorant or missing the boat.

If you think that efficient practices and the equipment you are using didn't originate with some university "clowns", then you are ignorant and confused. If it was up to high-school grads and high-school dropout farmers, you'd still be farming the way it was done 100 years ago.

Hahahahahahahaha. Sure I would. Your want a shovel to help with that hole your digging?

Practice of summerfallowing was invented by a farmer, zero till was invented by a farmer, chem fallowing was invented by a farmer, crop rotation invented by farmers. Countless types of tools and machinery invented by farmers. Didn't need a PhD to figure that one out. Does it honestly bother you that people who are only high school grads and drop outs make money and sometimes a lot more than people with 4+ years of school?

[Argus]

Like I said, lets see a PhD grow a 50+ bushel an acre crop of canola and make money on it, after all he's university educated. If you think farmers grow crops like they did in the 50's your are just either ignorant or missing the boat.

If you think that efficient practices and the equipment you are using didn't originate with some university "clowns", then you are ignorant and confused. If it was up to high-school grads and high-school dropout farmers, you'd still be farming the way it was done 100 years ago.

Hahahahahahahaha. Sure I would. Your want a shovel to help with that hole your digging?

Practice of summerfallowing was invented by a farmer, zero till was invented by a farmer, chem fallowing was invented by a farmer, crop rotation invented by farmers.

Uh, you do realize, right, that he has no clue what any of that is or what it does?