Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

I would like to point out that surpluses are not necessary to reduce the national debt. If the budget is balanced the debt will be reduced by amount of inflation that year, say 2.5%.

I would also like to mention that there appears to be substantial hidden unemployment in Canada and getting people back to work would eliminate the new deficit. The official unemployment in 2008 was 6.1 but I calculate there was 6.3 hidden unemployment, based on the goldstandard of employment levels in Alberta. In addition there is 1.7 unemployment in involuntary part time workers. That adds up to a real unemployment level of 14.1%. Getting half those back to work would expand federal government revenues $36 billion a year. It might take 7 to 10 years.

I have some back bench Liberal support for this approach but nothing from the other parties.

   

As yes....just like you Liberals inherited a debt of 540 billion in 1992-93 and when you left office, you left us Canadians with 600 billion in debt.

60 Billion more in debt thanks to you Liberals.

"LOL" is right on the money.


And for being wrong yet again....



Monday, December 1, 2008.

Liberals, NDP, Bloc sign deal on proposed coalition



Your Liberal NDP love-making session were the first to cry foul that Harper wasn't handing out cheques fast enough....so slow, in fact, they were willing to take his government down to get to the spending ASAP.




You lose credibility by the sentence with crap like that.



Perhaps you can add another 60 billion like you guys did last time?

   

Really at the end of the day when we are all done pointing fingers at everyone, and when we are finished trying to prove who's right and who's wrong, there is still a deficit and there is still a debt, a debt that both the natural ruling parties in Canada has a hand in creating. Both parties are to blame! The Conservatives are no less to blame for this than the Liberals and vice versa.

   

that assumes that interest on the debt is paid as part of the balanced budget.

it also assumes that inflation vs interest rates are favorable.

   

Time to set the chronically ill-informed and consistently wrong:

Every post you make should come with 2-ply toilet paper and an apology for its lack of intelligence.



Unlike Harper the Libs were the ones facing the massive deficit and they campaigned on their helo promise. Harper on the other hand campaigned on a whole slew of campaign promises for the military and has broken many of them. They are still playing political games over the helos. So much for your boy. For every black mark you can make against the Libs over the military I can just as easily throw one at the CPC.



We did take responsibility. In fact I supported it. You cons tried it first. In fact your man Harper is the entire reason it was fresh in everybodies minds. The only difference was when Harper tried it Layton told him to go to hell.



Another paragraph another lie. WE DID take responsibility for Chretien and Martin. We supported them and voted for them and continue to this day to support their actions. Thats the definition of responsibility.

BTW, considering the crying you cons do over Trudeau, Chretien and Martin at every opportunity you can't complain that Mulroney still gets it.



canadian-politics-f17/thread-for-compilation-of-conservative-scandals-and-misdeeds-t63234-615.html

Y-A-W-N. 150 and counting .....



I'll have to ask Harper over that. Last year ridenrain cried about how much of the 15 billion corporate sponsorship Harper doled out went to Ontario and QC companies like Bombardier. So far it didn't work out to well for him.



Oh, I don't think you have basic decency. Nobody who supports the elimination of so many basic freedoms as you do isn't in my books a decent person.



I suggest you take a quick look and the government budgets and spending over the last 5 years.





Did you parents have any children that lived?

   

The last time we had this debate I proved you wrong. First it was more like 14 billion when you factor in the late 93 date Chretien took office meaning that time wise we can split the deficit although realistically then entire thing should be his. In addition since Harper took office just under 2 months shy of the new fiscal year then Martin should get almost full if not full credit for the 06 surplus. IN fact the truth is that it takes at least a year for a new government to take full control as they are already often committed to the previous governments budget.

I'm sure you are far more angry at the Liberals for "adding" at most 20 billion to the debt over 13 years then you are for Harper for adding 65+ over the next 2.



The difference is that the Liberals and NDP had various plans to prevent a massive deficit.



Its too bad for you that the truth is that Harper did indeed piss away the surplus. Ill-informed tax cuts eat away the surplus and before you respond "all tax cuts good" I suggest you start to think about what would happen if we simply took that to mean all taxes should be eliminated.



Compared to the 65 billion Harper is adding in just 2 years?

   

I agree that a surplus is a sign of over taxation, but as long as the government has a debtload in the hundreds of BILLIONS, then surpluses aren't all that bad, as long as a substantial amount of it goes to pay off the debt. If you won $10,000 in the Lottery, would you use it all on a new TV, or use some of it to pay off your debt from Christmas?

After all, right now we are spending 10-20% (it used to be over 30%) of the annual federal budget on interest payments on the debt all by itself. That's a lot of money that could be used to pay for a lot of stuff, be it equipment for the CF, better health care, infrastructure, you name it.

The trouble is there are too many hands out looking for cash; special interest groups, corporations looking for tax breaks, lobbyists, the provinces, municipalities, etc. and therefore spending seems to increase every year, as the governing party looks for ways to stay in power.

What I'd really like to see is a law mandating 10-30% of all surpluses MUST be applied to the debt (if something like that isn't already on the books).

   

Bottom line, Derby, your Liberals left us with more debt than ever. How ever you want to cook the books to make the damage look worse, suit yourself. Despite cutting health care and the military and going through some of the most prosperous years as a Country, you guys left us with billions more debt.

Thank-you, brilliant financial managers that you are.



Yea, sure they did. Did you see it? No. Nobody did. The plan was to get into power and then do whatever else after. Tell me about this "plan".




Yea, because ~13 billion is definitely the cure for a Global Financial Crisis that's crippled our economy.

Are you that stupid? I know you're a partisan hack, but that's borderline retarded to even suggest that a 13 billion dollar surplus would be the cure for what the World and Canada is going through.

Hack.

P.S. 'Pissing away' the surplus buy paying off the debt you guys left us isn't a bad thing you know. It adds billions due to saved interest. Well, for Liberals it is.

   

If surpluses are a sign of over taxation, then what are deficits? A sign of under taxation?

   

The real unemployment rate in Canada as of 2008, pre-recession, would be 14.1%. This is an official unemployment of 6.1% plus hidden unemployment of 6.3% (based on the employment rate in best Canadian cities) and involuntary part time worker equivalents of 1.7%. If this could be reduced the GDP would be expanded without the additional costs to the government of supporting the population. As labour income is 50% of the GDP it would expand double the reduction of unemployment.

Some figures are: If the drop in the employment this year is 3% but then growth returns to 3% per year while immigration is cut by half, to 125,000 a year of humanitarian, family reunion or corporate specialists, in 8 years there’d be 5% less unemployment. The increase in the GDP associated with this would be 10% so family income would be up 5% nationally while all government levels revenues (40% of the GDP) would be up $61 billion a year. If these benefits were a sell to the public you might see a return to the inflationless period we’ve enjoyed and even more robust economic growth. The extra growth would not only reduce unemployment but cut into anemic self employment and the marginal employers at the bottom (reducing marginal employment infavour of average employment)for additional points of growth to employment for a net effect of 10% less in unemployment. The corresponding all government levels revenues increase (with very little additional government infrastructure costs) would be $122 billion a year. At the same time the population would be aging some while natural labour force growth would moderate because of demographics.

It turns out that the Conservative Party of Canada caucus is inexperienced, not that political, and cannot be told about the $122 billion windfall. The Liberal Party should be able to out play, out shoot and out fight the Conservatives.

   

Either that or over-spending. I lean towards over spending...

   

No such animal as "under-taxation" exists either theoretically or literally.

   

I beg to differ. Taxes are a necessary evil. Once you accept that you must have SOME taxation, the next thing is to try to ensure that that the tax burden is shared equitably by those taxed. If one group bears too much of the tax burden, then one other group must be "under-taxed".

   

The bottom line is thats a lie.

A few facts:

Jean Chretien took office on Nov 4th, 1993. Thats well into the 93/94 fiscal year which runs from April 1st to March 31st. When the Libs took office we were already into the 7th month of Kim Campbells PC fiscal year. I think a fair point can easily be made that the budget had already been set and the money spent. The accounting and final deficit/surplus is accounted for the following year in March and thus the final debt level in March 1994 is the result of the 1993 budget.

The federal debt in 1994 stood at just over 500 billion.


Harper and the CPC took over Feb 6th, 2006, less then 2 moths before the end of fiscal 05/06. The accounting lists the federal debt in 2006 at 481 billion.

http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/Englis ... ederal.cfm

thats not even the whole picture.

Look at the federal debt as a %GDP.


Now how much of that credit should go to the Liberals may differ by opinion but there is no doubting that by cutting spending even if I accept your numbers for full Liberal blame for 1993-2005 we still see a large decrease in the debt as a %GDP, from a about 64% 92/93 to around 40% to 2005 by extrapolation.

Thats a very important component and even if we owed a little more (which I have shown is wrong) the overall debt to GDP ratio is far lower which is like owing the same amount on a mortgage but making a wage some 25% higher.

Its also good to factor in the fact that the debt per capita was lowered as well.

1993 population was 28.7 million (505 billion debt) = 17596 per person.
2006 population was 33.0 million (481 billion debt) = 14576 per person.

Every Canadian owes less money towards the federal debt.

Spin all you want but the numbers are on the side of the Liberals.





You should know. You were one of the guys crying all about it. Either the Liberals or NDP had plans for repealing corporate tax cuts or the GST cut or a carbon tax. They might have actually run a deficit (for which you guys would have freaked out about tax and spend liberals) but they certainly wouldn't be running a 2 year 65 billion dollar deficit.



Are you a complete idiot? You can't even understand basic english or should I get another con hack to translate it for you?

1) Nobody said 13 billion was designed to save the economy. Nobody said anything about that. If it goes towards the debt then next year we can pass that help on to businesses by lowering corporate tax. Hell we could have used that amount to simply offer any Canadian who wanted to buy a new car a 3 or 4 thousand dollar refundable tax credit. The tax payer gets a break and the auto industry gets a larger demand for cars.

Whatever crap you are saying is just that, crap.

2) YES it was "pissing it away" and no he wasn't paying off the debt. When he was paying down the debt nobody was bitching about him. Some of us (as well as most economist) were saying that GST cuts were the least beneficial tax cut he could make. It made little if any impact on the economy yet each % drop cost some 3-4 billion in revenues no small part of that from the millions of visitors to Canada per year shifting a greater tax burden onto the tax payer.

Tax, GST cuts shrink federal surplus.

Now you can make the claim that all tax cuts are good when you are in surplus but you can't therefore claim it isn't pissing away the surplus nor can just balk at the government if they raise taxes in order to avoid a deficit.

No matter what you say Harper is responsible for for this deficit even if the opposition parties demanded it. The NDP get demanding the Liberals spend the surplus on programs every single year but to their credit they picked the wise choice and made sure to pay at least some of the debt down.

Harper could have stuck to his guns and made some grand speech about not giving our tax money away to the auto industry and going into deficit but he did not because he believed that was the means to gain political votes.

He did it because he wanted political power and not because the opposition (an opposition he had ignored for almost 2 years) demanded it.

He will be held accountable and judging by the polls he is being held accountable.

   

Your post is intriguing but I'll stick by what I said. Going by the sheer wastage of funds that occurs I'd still say that we're over-taxed. If the government hadn't given itself such a large margin for error through overtaxation to cover what money is wasted on duplication of programs already being provided by the provinces and municipalities, errors in materials and supply purchasing, the tendency to turn a blind eye to the ever-growing size of a bloated civil service, and the inevitablilty of pork-barrelling, then I'd say that our taxes should be justifiably a hell of a lot less than what we're paying now.

I'd say that the biggest concern (and it's one that will never be met) is that the government and bureacracy has a moral responsibility to use the tax dollars in the most efficient manner possible rather than distribution of resources based on cronyism or their political whims. For every hundred decent MP's or civil servants all you need is one of two c*******ers like Alphonso Gagliano or Jean Chretien to confirm that the system is endlessly corruptable and that money inevitably flows, first and foremost, to the sons-of-bitches in the old-boys networks. This is public money and it should be ensured that it doesn't become part of some criminal enterprise, even if a criminal holds the highest office in the country, as was clearly the case from 1993 to 2004.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next