Ottawa predicts 4 years of deficits
StuntmanMike @ Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:47 pm
hurley_108 hurley_108:
While the implicit message of the graphic Canadaka posted is misleading, Elements of what both of you say add up to give the full picture.
The Liberals are massively falsely maligned for being fiscally imprudent, but they did, as the graphic truthfully states, run surpluses measured in the billions of dollars. And yes, they had the economic boom times of the 90s helping them, but the Conservatives of this country still persist in this falsehood that conservative governments will necessarily run balanced budgets and liberal governments will necessarily run deficits.
As to the Conservatives running surpluses their first two years, for one thing they had the inertia left by the Liberals to help them, and for another, they made short work of cutting those surpluses back HARD with consumption tax cuts while the boom had yet to bust, certainly doing nothing to help the problem. NOW would be the time to cut the GST, not two years ago. We'd have a few more billion in the bank, and we would have the room now to use as stimulus.
That said, I'm hopeful that the Conservatives will do things that, in ten years time, we will look back on as having been, on the whole, good things. Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien, to my mind, all did what they had to when they had to, and we're still in a lot better shape than we could have been because of their good stewardship.
I just wish that the partisan lying on both sides about the economic credentials about the other side would stop.
The Liberals are massively falsely maligned for being fiscally imprudent, but they did, as the graphic truthfully states, run surpluses measured in the billions of dollars. And yes, they had the economic boom times of the 90s helping them, but the Conservatives of this country still persist in this falsehood that conservative governments will necessarily run balanced budgets and liberal governments will necessarily run deficits.
As to the Conservatives running surpluses their first two years, for one thing they had the inertia left by the Liberals to help them, and for another, they made short work of cutting those surpluses back HARD with consumption tax cuts while the boom had yet to bust, certainly doing nothing to help the problem. NOW would be the time to cut the GST, not two years ago. We'd have a few more billion in the bank, and we would have the room now to use as stimulus.
That said, I'm hopeful that the Conservatives will do things that, in ten years time, we will look back on as having been, on the whole, good things. Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien, to my mind, all did what they had to when they had to, and we're still in a lot better shape than we could have been because of their good stewardship.
I just wish that the partisan lying on both sides about the economic credentials about the other side would stop.
Good post Hurley.
DerbyX @ Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:07 am
StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:
Oh man, are you serious? I thought I was debating an adult. What were you in 1999, 11? Are you telling me you dont' even remember that debate?
It's not open to debate Derby, Parliament held a free vote in 1999 on the issue of same sex marriage, and a majority of Libs voted against it, including Jean Chretien.
Here's a quick find on wikipedia about it, if you think you can dispute that fact then by all means post something. Good fucking luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m ... _in_Canada
I know that doesn't tee up with your arguments, but sometimes, your arguments conflict with the facts. Get over it.
From your own link you idiot:
$1:
The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative motion to examine the matter again. This was the third vote supporting same-sex marriage taken by three Parliaments under three Prime Ministers in three different years.
On June 17, 2003, then Prime Minister Chrétien announced that the government would not appeal the Ontario ruling, and that his government would introduce legislation to recognize same-sex marriage but protect the rights of churches to decide which marriages they would solemnize.
On 16 September 2003, a motion was brought to Parliament by the Canadian Alliance (now the Conservative Party) to once again reaffirm the heterosexual definition of marriage. The same language that had been passed in 1999 was brought to a free vote, with members asked to vote for or against the 1999 definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."[23] Motions are not legislatively binding in Canada, and are mostly done for symbolic purposes. The September vote was extremely divisive, however. Prime Minister Chrétien reversed his previous stance and voted against the motion, as did Paul Martin (who later became Prime Minister) and many other prominent Liberals.
On June 17, 2003, then Prime Minister Chrétien announced that the government would not appeal the Ontario ruling, and that his government would introduce legislation to recognize same-sex marriage but protect the rights of churches to decide which marriages they would solemnize.
On 16 September 2003, a motion was brought to Parliament by the Canadian Alliance (now the Conservative Party) to once again reaffirm the heterosexual definition of marriage. The same language that had been passed in 1999 was brought to a free vote, with members asked to vote for or against the 1999 definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."[23] Motions are not legislatively binding in Canada, and are mostly done for symbolic purposes. The September vote was extremely divisive, however. Prime Minister Chrétien reversed his previous stance and voted against the motion, as did Paul Martin (who later became Prime Minister) and many other prominent Liberals.
The Liberals pushed it through ergo they were acting socially progressive. Bitch and complain that some Liberals opposed it including at one point Chretein but it is a mark of s socially progressive govt that acknowledges the changing times and attitudes and adjusts accordingly. The conservatives opposed SSM at almost every turn and tried to introduce bills to restore the hetero definition of marriage. The Liberal party did not and as your own link pointed out Chretiens attitude changed as he saw that SSM was being accepted by Canadians as being a basic right that should be extended to homosexuals.
SSM legislation happened under the Liberals. Common-law rights were extended to same-sex couples under the Liberals. That is in my opinion being socially progressive and left of centre.
bootlegga @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:18 am
hurley_108 hurley_108:
RUEZ RUEZ:
Canadaka Canadaka:
Funny, they didn't post the surpluses from the first two years of Conservative government. Figures. Nor do they mention the world wide recession we are currently facing. That's ok Trevor, we'll just ignore that stuff so that the Liberals look like heroes.
While the implicit message of the graphic Canadaka posted is misleading, Elements of what both of you say add up to give the full picture.
The Liberals are massively falsely maligned for being fiscally imprudent, but they did, as the graphic truthfully states, run surpluses measured in the billions of dollars. And yes, they had the economic boom times of the 90s helping them, but the Conservatives of this country still persist in this falsehood that conservative governments will necessarily run balanced budgets and liberal governments will necessarily run deficits.
As to the Conservatives running surpluses their first two years, for one thing they had the inertia left by the Liberals to help them, and for another, they made short work of cutting those surpluses back HARD with consumption tax cuts while the boom had yet to bust, certainly doing nothing to help the problem. NOW would be the time to cut the GST, not two years ago. We'd have a few more billion in the bank, and we would have the room now to use as stimulus.
That said, I'm hopeful that the Conservatives will do things that, in ten years time, we will look back on as having been, on the whole, good things. Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien, to my mind, all did what they had to when they had to, and we're still in a lot better shape than we could have been because of their good stewardship.
I just wish that the partisan lying on both sides about the economic credentials about the other side would stop.
I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment of the situation.