The Conservative Spending Spree

[jdobbin]

So first you accuse me of being totally in favour of the spendings, now you say I haven't said anything about the spendings.An apology should be in order for these accusations.

In my posts(if you would actually read them with some thought) I said that this spending business was started by Trudeau, and subsequently has been done by every PM since.

Since Trudeau made it part of the constitution, and abused it to the point of putting Canada deep in debt for the next couple of centuries,and it is allowable without Parliament"s input,

why are you making issue over and over again with Harper using a tool the constitution has given PM's?

You've made your point..... once is enough, or as I asked before,do you think people here on the forum are too stupid to get your point and you have to repeat it over and over.

All you said was that Trudeau did it as if this was justification. It is the old "but the Liberals did it first" argument the many of the right use all the time. You seem only concerned about the "optics" of the Tories making announcements every week day of the summer.

Were you quiet after each Martin spending announcement because after the first time, you made your point?

[August1991]

Geesh. What a thread.

Might as well start with Canuck.

In my posts(if you would actually read them with some thought) I said that this spending business was started by Trudeau, and subsequently has been done by every PM since.

It didn't start with Trudeau. It started at least with Pearson. But if you want a really big spender, take a look at King.

In fact, government spending has been going up faster than GDP for the last 80 years or so.

Incidentally, your Trudeau quotes above about federal government spending all pertain to the so-called federal power to spend. This has relevance in Canada because we have a federal state and the federal government too often intervenes in provincial jurisdiction. Trudeau was referring to this intervention.

Lastly, the US dollar price of one Canadian dollar is hardly a measure of the success of Canada's economy. By the same token, the federal debt is better viewed as a measure of public confidence in our government. I would hope that it will never be repaid, ever.

As to Dobbin, he tends to be partisan Liberal but he's polite about it. I think he has a valid point here. The Tories are spending like drunken sailors and they're choosing to announce this spending outside of a budget and outside of parliament.

Bluth is partisan Tory. So what? This is a political forum.

And would you guys knock off the insults or, as my father used to say, I'm turning this car around and there'll be no trip to the beach today.

[jdobbin]

Lastly, the US dollar price of one Canadian dollar is hardly a measure of the success of Canada's economy. By the same token, the federal debt is better viewed as a measure of public confidence in our government. I would hope that it will never be repaid, ever.

As to Dobbin, he tends to be partisan Liberal but he's polite about it. I think he has a valid point here. The Tories are spending like drunken sailors and they're choosing to announce this spending outside of a budget and outside of parliament.

When the Tories announced their economic platform, they said they limit federal spending to the rate of inflation. I thought that was prudent and fully expected that as Conservatives, they would keep to that particular promise. At the moment, it is running at twice that rate and has run at the rate since they got into power.

http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/2006_11_01_archive.php

And the future? The chart builds in the latest numbers from the Economic and Fiscal Update. They show the Harper government plans to take spending to places it has never been -- higher than the Trudeau Liberals in the worst of the recession, higher than the Mulroney government in its last, desperate days, higher than the Martin government at its most profligate. They are going to spend more, faster than any government in Canadian history, with neither war nor recession to blame.

These are the flinty "neo-conservatives" we've been reading so much about: the ones who want to take government back to the 1930s, the ones who would steer the country in a "radically different direction", who see no useful role for the state, and so on. Uh huh. Can you imagine how much they'd spend if they did believe in government?

I think the last thing that people expected from Harper when he got into power is that he would outspend even the worst of the spenders: Trudeau.

[sharkman]

Uh, right. PED was in power for how many years? Harper will have to go a long way to outdo him, but I appreciate your optimism.

[jdobbin]

Uh, right. PED was in power for how many years? Harper will have to go a long way to outdo him, but I appreciate your optimism.

Go read what the Cohen from the National Post has reported. The Tories promised to keep spending at the rate of inflation. It is double that now. In two years, the Tories are outspending the Liberals in their worst years.

Look at this graph.

http://andrewcoyne.com/images/FederalSpendingRPC.png

Does that look like less spending to you?

[sharkman]

Your remark about PET is still flat wrong. If you'll notice, I never denied the Tories are spending, I don't mind so much since we've had a huge surplus recently, something you were also complaining about. What did you expect a politician to do when he's got a record surplus, save it for a rainy day?

[Michael Bluth]

As to Dobbin, he tends to be partisan Liberal but he's polite about it.

Bull. He's not even close to polite about it. He's toned down his nastiness since Charles A. took over, which is much appreciated. But polite ..... naw. The problem with his posts is he flat misrepresents things time after time after time.

Exhibit 1

In two years, the Tories are outspending the Liberals in their worst years.

The accompanying graph is unsupported. Where does it come from? If you look at the big jump on the right side that is all forecasted numbers. The "program spending" nature of the chart also ignores the fact that financing is still part of Government spending. So dishonest.

Exhibit 2

I think the last thing that people expected from Harper when he got into power is that he would outspend even the worst of the spenders: Trudeau.

Not even close. Government spending is made up of more than just program spending.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

Your remark about PET is still flat wrong. If you'll notice, I never denied the Tories are spending, I don't mind so much since we've had a huge surplus recently, something you were also complaining about. What did you expect a politician to do when he's got a record surplus, save it for a rainy day?

I await your citation about Trudeau spending more per capita than what the Tories are now.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...01-2a638620df42

It's true. The $200-billion Mr. Flaherty proposes to spend this year works out to about $5,800 for every citizen. Even after you adjust for increases in prices and population, that's more than the Martin government spent at its frenetic worst, when it was almost shovelling the stuff out the door. It is more than the Mulroney government spent in its last days, when it was past caring. It is more than the Trudeau government spent in the depths of the early 1980s recession. All of these past benchmarks of over-the-top, out-of-control spending must now be retired. Jim Flaherty has outdone them all.

Given that Harper said he would keep spending to the rate of inflation, I expected that we'd see tax cuts. Massive tax cuts, I might add.

I'm surprised conservatives are accepting this. And money is still being shovelled out the door.

[jdobbin]

Bull. He's not even close to polite about it. He's toned down his nastiness since Charles A. took over, which is much appreciated. But polite ..... naw. The problem with his posts is he flat misrepresents things time after time after time.

The accompanying graph is unsupported. Where does it come from? If you look at the big jump on the right side that is all forecasted numbers. The "program spending" nature of the chart also ignores the fact that financing is still part of Government spending. So dishonest.

Not even close. Government spending is made up of more than just program spending.

I thought you were going to lay off personalizing things. Obviously not.

The graph comes from Andrew Cohen of the National Post. I also had a link to his article. I have a link to the National Post story. You have been wrong before. You are wrong now. Remember the statement about the CCF being made up of disaffected Liberals?

I await your links that Harper is not outspending Trudeau at the height his big spending years.

Edited July 21, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

I await your citation about Trudeau spending more per capita than what the Tories are now.

Provide honest and supported citations then you'll get the same back. You can't really ask for a level of honesty that you don't provide. Yet, you do so ad nauseum.

[jdobbin]

Provide honest and supported citations then you'll get the same back. You can't really ask for a level of honesty that you don't provide. Yet, you do so ad nauseum.

National Post story is not good enough for you, huh?

[August1991]

Exhibit 1

In two years, the Tories are outspending the Liberals in their worst years.

The accompanying graph is unsupported. Where does it come from? If you look at the big jump on the right side that is all forecasted numbers. The "program spending" nature of the chart also ignores the fact that financing is still part of Government spending. So dishonest.

The graph comes from Andrew Coyne who is hardly a Liberal shill. Programme spending is all that matters - it would give an entirely picture to include anything else. Agreed however that the graph includes forecast spending.

The fact is however that the Tories have increased spending above their promise to keep it less than GDP growth. IOW, the feds are buying faster than the economy can produce.

Exhibit 2

I think the last thing that people expected from Harper when he got into power is that he would outspend even the worst of the spenders: Trudeau.

Not even close. Government spending is made up of more than just program spending.

But all that counts is programme spending.

The government is our agent and it's what the government buys on our behalf that is the ultimate test of a government's competence.

----

Bluth, I am generally pro-Conservative and even pro-Harper. I joined the Conservative Party so that I could vote for Harper as leader. I think Harper has been a force for good in this country.

But I think Harper is spending too much. If I could, I'd take away his access to my credit card and debit card or at least, I'd want Harper to defend more formally his use of them.

I think that's the point Dobbin is making.

[sharkman]

I await your links that Harper is not outspending Trudeau at the height his big spending years.

I don't need to give any links, your ORIGINAL statement, from which you have now back pedelled and spun, claimed that in two years, Harper has outspent all of Trudeau's era. Silly as well as wrong. Here's your statement:

I think the last thing that people expected from Harper when he got into power is that he would outspend even the worst of the spenders: Trudeau.

Use caution before making such wildly wrong statements, please.

Edited July 21, 2007 by sharkman

[jdobbin]

I don't need to give any links, your ORIGINAL statement, from which you have now back pedelled and spun, claimed that in two years, Harper has outspent all of Trudeau's era. Silly as well as wrong. Here's your statement:

Use caution before making such wildly wrong statements, please.

You obviously didn't read the link I posted which was perfectly clear that it was referring to budgets, not an entire numbers of years Trudeau was in power. In two budgets, the Tories have outspent what Trudeau did in his worst years.

The quote you got wrong on was referring to the link above which you didn't even bother to read.

[sharkman]

Your statement was still wrong since it made no connection to the link. I don't bother to read many of your links or the links of some other left wingers since I know of the biases involved. Like I said, Harper will have to spend for many years to outdo the spending of Trudeau. Further, with record budgets, I'm not surprised to have spending up. Haven't you heard that the Tories are down in the polls? Spending is usually what a party does in such a position.

BTW, your claim that the Tories will outspend PET is based on projected spending, not actual, according to the info in the post you made.

Edited July 21, 2007 by sharkman

[jdobbin]

I am generally pro-Conservative and even pro-Harper. I joined the Conservative Party so that I could vote for Harper as leader. I think Harper has been a force for good in this country.

But I think Harper is spending too much. If I could, I'd take away his access to my credit card and debit card or at least, I'd want Harper to defend more formally his use of them.

I think that's the point Dobbin is making.

The last thing I expected from a Tory government was one that was going to be spending at nearly 8% a year according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

I thought they would use the comfortable surplus to cut taxes. I disagreed with the GST cut but I expected that with a still large surplus, we would see large tax cuts on income in this next budget. We didn't. We saw a $200 billion budget and continued spending even after it.

How we got to this point, I don't know. Harper in Opposition was adamant that the huge surpluses should be used for tax breaks.

It is getting a little hard to buy that the Tories will change their ways if they get a majority. Are they going to take back the spending promises they have made?

[sharkman]

Further, I find it kind of funny that you keep mining the National Post for stories against Harper dobbin. You pick out the one story critical of him and ignore the five supportive stories. Maybe you should read the whole paper, it might do you some good.

[jdobbin]

Your statement was still wrong since it made no connection to the link. I don't bother to read many of your links or the links of some other left wingers since I know of the biases involved. Like I said, Harper will have to spend for many years to outdo the spending of Trudeau. Further, with record budgets, I'm not surprised to have spending up. Haven't you heard that the Tories are down in the polls? Spending is usually what a party does in such a position.

How the National Post got to be a left wing rag, I'll never know.

And the future? The chart builds in the latest numbers from the Economic and Fiscal Update. They show the Harper government plans to take spending to places it has never been -- higher than the Trudeau Liberals in the worst of the recession, higher than the Mulroney government in its last, desperate days, higher than the Martin government at its most profligate. They are going to spend more, faster than any government in Canadian history, with neither war nor recession to blame.

These are the flinty "neo-conservatives" we've been reading so much about: the ones who want to take government back to the 1930s, the ones who would steer the country in a "radically different direction", who see no useful role for the state, and so on. Uh huh. Can you imagine how much they'd spend if they did believe in government?

And my response to the above was:

I think the last thing that people expected from Harper when he got into power is that he would outspend even the worst of the spenders: Trudeau.

How is that wrong when referenced to the above?

And now you are saying that governments should spend when they are down in the polls. After two years, has spending like they have done helped?

[jdobbin]

Further, I find it kind of funny that you keep mining the National Post for stories against Harper dobbin. You pick out the one story critical of him and ignore the five supportive stories. Maybe you should read the whole paper, it might do you some good.

It is the National Post that has been most vocal on spending. I happen to agree with them even if you do not.

I find it funny that blowing past the rate of inflation and growth two years in a row sits well with you. Are you not a conservative?

[sharkman]

It is apparent that in the summer session of parliament, the Tories have embarked on a strategy. Whether you like it or not, many liberals want the government to take care of every detail of their lives. Perhaps this spending is an attempt to give it to them in spades, I don't know.

You contend that The tories are outspending PET, but this is spending that hasn't been done yet. Get back to me with your claim of outspending PET when they actually do it.

The reason I am not concerned yet about the Tory spending is after over a decade of Liberal spending on liberal minded programs of all kinds, it's nice to have a conservative holding the purse strings for a change, as long as they do some tax cuts and debt payment as well.

[jdobbin]

It is apparent that in the summer session of parliament, the Tories have embarked on a strategy. Whether you like it or not, many liberals want the government to take care of every detail of their lives. Perhaps this spending is an attempt to give it to them in spades, I don't know.

You contend that The tories are outspending PET, but this is spending that hasn't been done yet. Get back to me with your claim of outspending PET when they actually do it.

The reason I am not concerned yet about the Tory spending is after over a decade of Liberal spending on liberal minded programs of all kinds, it's nice to have a conservative holding the purse strings for a change, as long as they do some tax cuts and debt payment as well.

It is hardly comforting to think that the only reason you are supporting prolific spending is because it is the Tories that are doing it.

You only seem concerned if the Tories will surpass total spending by Trudeau in all the years he was in power while ignoring the fact Flaherty's last two budgets blew past the spending of Trudeau, Chretien and Martin for budget years. Flaherty's fiscal update continues that bad spending habit.

[Michael Bluth]

But all that counts is programme spending.

The government is our agent and it's what the government buys on our behalf that is the ultimate test of a government's competence.

----

Bluth, I am generally pro-Conservative and even pro-Harper. I joined the Conservative Party so that I could vote for Harper as leader. I think Harper has been a force for good in this country.

But I think Harper is spending too much. If I could, I'd take away his access to my credit card and debit card or at least, I'd want Harper to defend more formally his use of them.

I think that's the point Dobbin is making.

Programme spending is not all that counts.

There is a higher cost when the budget is in deficit to increasing programme spending than there is when the budget is in surplus. The higher cost of borrowing and a worsening credit rating which increases the cost of borrowing even more.

Coyne's graph also points out jumps in spending during minority Governments. 72-74, 79-80, 2005 etc...

Is Harper spending more than what a lot of people would like? Absolutely.

Is he spending it in sorely needed areas, i.e. our military among others? Absolutely.

Do they have to spend more than a lot of the hardliners would like because they are in a minority? Absolutely.

Your point is fair and valid. IIRC you supported the changes the Government offered to the Atlantic Accord. That's in line with keeping spending down and shows ideological consistency.

dobbin's only point is to attack the Government no matter what they do. There is no consistency. No fairness.

What you read into his ad nauseum attacks was what you like and agree with. It doesn't come across as his intent if you look at the totality of his posts.

[Michael Bluth]

National Post story is not good enough for you, huh?

A post on a writer's blog is not the same as a story coming from a publication that writer works for.

Again, honesty please.

[jdobbin]

A post on a writer's blog is not the same as a story coming from a publication that writer works for.

Again, honesty please.

You have the National Post link as well from the column. Not that you seem to care. The only dishonesty I see here is you. Read the link and stop whining.

[August1991]

Your statement was still wrong since it made no connection to the link. I don't bother to read many of your links or the links of some other left wingers since I know of the biases involved. Like I said, Harper will have to spend for many years to outdo the spending of Trudeau. Further, with record budgets, I'm not surprised to have spending up. Haven't you heard that the Tories are down in the polls? Spending is usually what a party does in such a position.

It's your loss if you won't open your eyes to an article by Andrew Coyne, and to Harper's fiscal policies.

Dobbin's point is correct. In absolute terms of constant dollars and on an annual basis, Harper is spending more than Trudeau did.

Moreover, Harper has increased spending faster than economic growth in Canada and his projected spending is also increasing.

You say that this is "politics as usual"but I, for one, voted for Harper primarily because I want government to spend less. It may be true that Harper has made the political calculation that the NDP/Liberals and BQ would be even more spendthrift. I don't care about that and neither should Harper. I have the option of not voting at all.

It is apparent that in the summer session of parliament, the Tories have embarked on a strategy. Whether you like it or not, many liberals want the government to take care of every detail of their lives. Perhaps this spending is an attempt to give it to them in spades, I don't know.

A big chunk of money is being spent on military toys. That's like a guy showing up with a new digital camera, a new Hummer and a widescreen TV. What's the wife going to say?

Harper better have a ready answer because he's going to lose the votes of people who don't agree with how he's spending the money and he's going to lose the votes of people like me who think he's spending too much. Do we really need the 42" plasma screen? Can't we live a 32" screen instead?

Programme spending is not all that counts.

Programme is all that counts.

I don't know if I want to get involved in this debate again. Suffice to say here that Canada (collectively and in the aggregate) is not in debt. Hence, the debt position of the Canadian government - as an agent of Canadians - is largely irrelevant.

If the wife of Bill Gates buys him a Rolex using Bill's credit card or Bill's debit card, it's a matter of supreme indifference to Bill. What matters to Gates is whether he needs another Rolex.

The Canadian government is like Bill Gates' wife. It has access to the debit cards and credit cards of the richest people on the planet.

And therein lies the whole point of this thread. The temptation for politicians to spend other people's money is impossible to avoid. Even Harper has been seduced.

I don't know. Maybe we should reduce the personal annual income of every MP by $1000 every time they approve spending of $1 billion. They need a doirect incentive to say no.