[SigPig]

DerbyX DerbyX:

SigPig SigPig:

The so what is that they had as much a part as anyone in throwing tax money at failing businesses.

They didn't. In fact the watchdog confirms that CPC spending cannot be verified.

Can't remember the exact number, but if my memory serves me right some $9B of the bailout was going to the automakers. At least that is what the plan said when it was tabled. If it made it there I can't say, I'm just going by what the bill said.

Derby Derby:

If by tax measures you mean raise taxes then yes. But in the environment we were/are in where the only way out was to restore consumer confidence, taking more money out of the pockets of the average family and handing it to corporations is not the best idea.

1) Can you prove that or is that just your opinion?

Opinion, but also you can read between the lines when you listen to Iggy or Layton speak.

Derby Derby:

2) Even if the tax increases were ill-advised they still mean a smaller deficit.

So in other words you are saying that you would have a smaller deficit even if that means creating a situation where stimulus money is set up to fail because of the resultig lack of consumer confidence brought by higher taxes. Sounds like a n even bigger waste of money as it has less affect.

Derby Derby:

Really? Then why was it the media reporting the deficit was coming when Harper was claiming roses and daisies?

Harper fucked up.

Never said he didn't, but don't claim that all parties weren't responsible. I think the Cons had a too rosy picture, but the opposition took the other extreme and thought the sky was falling when in actually it was just raining.

[DerbyX]

SigPig SigPig:

Can't remember the exact number, but if my memory serves me right some $9B of the bailout was going to the automakers. At least that is what the plan said when it was tabled. If it made it there I can't say, I'm just going by what the bill said.

Did it get there? was it needed? Do you like the idea of your tax dollars going to auto execs? Recall that only the CPC had spending powers.

SigPig SigPig:

So in other words you are saying that you would have a smaller deficit even if that means creating a situation where stimulus money is set up to fail because of the resultig lack of consumer confidence brought by higher taxes. Sounds like a n even bigger waste of money as it has less affect.

Except that the tax increases would have had no affect on recovery.

SigPig SigPig:

Never said he didn't, but don't claim that all parties weren't responsible. I think the Cons had a too rosy picture, but the opposition took the other extreme and thought the sky was falling when in actually it was just raining.

Yet the buck stops with them. We have never had a government so quick to blame everybody else for their failings.

[SigPig]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Did it get there? was it needed? Do you like the idea of your tax dollars going to auto execs? Recall that only the CPC had spending powers.

Did it get there? no idea, I don't keep the books. Was it needed? No. Did I like the idea? Never did, never will. Recall that the opposition was howling for these bailouts to occur. It was in their little coalition pact. They said do it or we topple. Harper didn't want to (because he was in a bit of dream world, though I still think it was a wrong area to be sending our money), but caved and did it not entirely of his own accord. You notice how Ive been spreading the blame here?

DerbyX DerbyX:

Except that the tax increases would have had no affect on recovery.

Going have to agree to disagree here. The only way out was to get people spending again and the optics of tax increases while people were being laid off is not the best mix for that.[/quote]

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Except that the tax increases would have had no affect on recovery.

Please explain this one.

[OldChum]

Yes Please do

[DerbyX]

commanderkai commanderkai:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Except that the tax increases would have had no affect on recovery.

Please explain this one.

Pretty self explanatory. Tax increases would not have impeded the economic recovery. Any massive increase in spending should have been tempered with a tax increase to at least minimize the deficit.

Running a deficit is like buying things are credit. You might think you can afford it but in the end you pay far more then you think.

Canada and the US has a credit problem where far to many people are in debt.

[DerbyX]

SigPig SigPig:

Did it get there? no idea, I don't keep the books. Was it needed? No. Did I like the idea? Never did, never will. Recall that the opposition was howling for these bailouts to occur. It was in their little coalition pact. They said do it or we topple. Harper didn't want to (because he was in a bit of dream world, though I still think it was a wrong area to be sending our money), but caved and did it not entirely of his own accord. You notice how Ive been spreading the blame here?

Well actually they were howling for something to be done. What was done was Harpers doing. In fact the NDP said the money for the auto industries was going to the wrong people.

Harper wanted power. He didn't blow 55 billion because he was trying to help. He blew it because he saw how close he was to losing the PMship. He could have stuck to his principles and guns but he did not.

SigPig SigPig:

Going have to agree to disagree here. The only way out was to get people spending again and the optics of tax increases while people were being laid off is not the best mix for that.

[/quote]

On this note then if tax increases in bad times is wrong then you must raise taxes or not lower them in times of plenty. All the years of Liberal surpluses where people were screaming for tax cuts was misplaced then?

Harper by lowering the GST in times of plenty was dead wrong then.

Either way Harper fucked up.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Pretty self explanatory. Tax increases would not have impeded the economic recovery. Any massive increase in spending should have been tempered with a tax increase to at least minimize the deficit.

Okay...so take money away from companies, small business owners, and various other groups with assets so the government can reinvest it less efficiently?

Wait...this is not an impediment? If you force businesses to crunch even more during hard times, due to a tax hike, there will be more people out of work, and then, more people on EI or Welfare.

[digerdick]

Both Harper and Campbell spent like a drunken sailors during the boom times and had to be lead by the hand and shown that they were over........ They had absolutely no plan for the future.......................

[EyeBrock]

Harper is still way up on "Just Visiting" in the polls.

That's not even opinion, just fact.

I'll wait for another 'Harper-bad' or 'Tory-bad' thread that's a bit more interesting.

[OnTheIce]

commanderkai commanderkai:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Pretty self explanatory. Tax increases would not have impeded the economic recovery. Any massive increase in spending should have been tempered with a tax increase to at least minimize the deficit.

Okay...so take money away from companies, small business owners, and various other groups with assets so the government can reinvest it less efficiently?

Wait...this is not an impediment? If you force businesses to crunch even more during hard times, due to a tax hike, there will be more people out of work, and then, more people on EI or Welfare.

All this from Derby completely ignoring the fact of CONSUMER CONFIDENCE.

When consumer confidence is at a very low rate, then you add a tax onto that stimulus cash, people hold onto it and thus less tax revenue despite the tax increase.

[OnTheIce]

Another thing.....why do we have this dimwitted Liberal logic of "saving for a rainy day" anyways?

We owe hundreds of billions of dollars, we're not in a position to "save" any money, we owe too much and pay too much interest on that debt.

Borrowing money is what you do when it's raining. When times are good, you pay down your debt to save yourself money on interest and you open the bank to borrow again when times are tough.

[Proculation]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Another thing.....why do we have this dimwitted Liberal logic of "saving for a rainy day" anyways?

We owe hundreds of billions of dollars, we're not in a position to "save" any money, we owe too much and pay too much interest on that debt.

Borrowing money is what you do when it's raining. When times are good, you pay down your debt to save yourself money on interest and you open the bank to borrow again when times are tough.

yeah you're right, we can't "save" money. we pay the debt with the surplus.

[DerbyX]

commanderkai commanderkai:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Pretty self explanatory. Tax increases would not have impeded the economic recovery. Any massive increase in spending should have been tempered with a tax increase to at least minimize the deficit.

Okay...so take money away from companies, small business owners, and various other groups with assets so the government can reinvest it less efficiently?

Wait...this is not an impediment? If you force businesses to crunch even more during hard times, due to a tax hike, there will be more people out of work, and then, more people on EI or Welfare.

That's what you say. Even a small increase like restoring 1% to the GST would have lowered the deficit by over 5 billion and had little or no impact on recovery.

Reinvest it less efficiency? What crap is that? If the damn private companies were running their businesses efficiently they wouldn't be begging the government for bailout money now would they? All the government was going to do with that tax revenue is simply run less of a deficit.

The inefficiency is running the deficit to begin with. The efficiency is raising taxes to reflect raised spending. Since you are so dead set against raising taxes then you were one of the people condemning Harper for his ill-advised tax cuts in times of plenty right? I mean all the people claiming its wrong now were saying that logically he was wrong then right or were they claiming that a surplus is exactly when you need to cut taxes because it proves over taxation.

Did he screw up then or is he screwing up now?

[DerbyX]

Proculation Proculation:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Another thing.....why do we have this dimwitted Liberal logic of "saving for a rainy day" anyways?

We owe hundreds of billions of dollars, we're not in a position to "save" any money, we owe too much and pay too much interest on that debt.

Borrowing money is what you do when it's raining. When times are good, you pay down your debt to save yourself money on interest and you open the bank to borrow again when times are tough.

yeah you're right, we can't "save" money. we pay the debt with the surplus.

Except they didn't do that. Harper blew the money to spending increases and tax cuts and was headed for the red even before the recession. He made the wrong moves during the surplus times and we are reaping the rewards of his policies which were not based on the very economic theories you quoted to me.