[Tricks]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Yes. In fact I told you this very thing over a year ago. Harper knew full well it was coming but decided winning an election was more important.

A) Show me you said this. B) If you honestly think any other party is different, I feel bad and think you should be tested for dementia.

$1:

Thats what makes his last election call so egrarious. He knew the economy was going bad yet still he broke his own election law and wasted 300 billion and was "forced" to offer more tax cuts to buy support.

Do you million? And I 100% agree.

$1:

thats not responsible govt and its certainly not helping the military when he sqaunders money he could use for them.

Read above. This government is doing better for the military, but isn't doing good enough. I'm not like Ridenrain, and don't think whatever the Cons do is gospel, so stop acting like I do.

[Tricks]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Tricks Tricks:

That doesn't surprise me at all. The did a lot of tax cutting and are trying to get the military what they need. That's expensive, especially when they have been ignored for the past 20+ years. Plus this recession. I'm trying to find some middle ground, seems I'm the only one. They shouldn't have cut taxes as much as they did. Flat out.

That's essentially what I've been saying all along too.

And I don't disagree. I would have preferred the taxes stay where they were and then rebuild the military and pay down the debt. Those are the two biggest things for me. And I feel the Conservatives will focus on the military more than the Liberals will, and they will pay down the debt the same.

[Tricks]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Tricks Tricks:

So pretty much every country in the world is going to have a deficit, but it's the conservatives fault. Makes sense to me.

This is not limited to this Harper government in this global slowdown. This is the legacy of Conservatvies in Canaad and Republicans in the US over the last twenty or thirty years.

So you mean Mulroney and Dubya? So you are taking arguably the worst president in history, a prime minister in the top 5 shittiest. We all know that one or two shitty people from a part means the rest suck.

$1:

Look in this thread, for example, at how many are blaming not the Conservatives for creating this projected deficit, but the Liberals for not stopping them. It boggles the mind!

I agree.

[Zipperfish]

Tricks Tricks:

So you mean Mulroney and Dubya? So you are taking arguably the worst president in history, a prime minister in the top 5 shittiest. We all know that one or two shitty people from a part means the rest suck.

Well, that would also include Reagan and Bush Sr in the US, who proved incapable of balancing a budget, despite their talk of fiscal accountability.

The lessons the Conservatives need to learn--actually the right-wing in the US and Canada--is that there is more to fiscal accountability than just cutting taxes. You have to cut spending if you are going to cut taxes. This is where they seem to run into trouble.

[DerbyX]

4 vs 1?

1) What was needed depends entirely on what you think is fair. Quite frankly given the anti-Liberal attitude of the military I think Paul Martin was an absolute star. Crist they even had socilaist groups whining about the alarming increase in defence spending, a reference that mcb used erroneously and ironically to condemn the Libs for a lack of spending.

2) I think our budget realities might intrude on any belief concerning the military. Like Boots I think Canada's defence should centre on a stronger navy but thats an expensive order. In order to afford that our debt must be reduced and reduced quickly. The Liberals understoof this. Imagine the military we could afford not having to pay interest on 400+ billion dollars. Some may believe that Canada should simply run deficits to purchase equipment. Thats a pipe dream though as there simply isn't enough investor confidence in our dollar and economy that would support it.

3) No. The Libs did not inherit a prosperous time. The early to mid 90s were in fact a small recession. Lets also not forget that inheriting a 30 billion dollar deficit vs a 13 billion dollar surplus simply eliminates blaming the recession for Harpers woes. Canada did not shed 43 billion dollars from the economy in 1 year.

4) The Liberals did do a steallr job. It took them a few years but it is simply unreasonable to expect a 30 billion dollar deficit to be eliminated automatically is beyond partisan. There is no doubt in my mind that were the situation reversed then it would be proof positive of conservative thriftiness.

5) The Liberals may not put as much money into the military as you would like but so what? They hate the military right? So the CPC puts more money in (allegedly) but then that just means they simply shift money from somewhere else not that they are the party that is for less govt and less spending. Harper has proven that. Govt spending went up under Harper in an amount that exceeded simple inflation (recall Winnipeggers post) and tax revenues went down due to lost GST revenues.

You can't lower taxes and raise spending. Thats bad management. It would be one thing if he came and said that we will be dipping into deficit spending because the CF needs (insert equipment) but he didn't. He promised no deficits as well as big ticket military purchases. He broke alot of promises and unlike the Liberal GST one his didn't get the CF needed equipment nor dig us out of the red.

He put us into the red and just like Dion had to pay for his mistakes so should Harper.

[DerbyX]

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Yes. In fact I told you this very thing over a year ago. Harper knew full well it was coming but decided winning an election was more important.

A) Show me you said this. B) If you honestly think any other party is different, I feel bad and think you should be tested for dementia.

$1:

Thats what makes his last election call so egrarious. He knew the economy was going bad yet still he broke his own election law and wasted 300 billion and was "forced" to offer more tax cuts to buy support.

Do you million? And I 100% agree.

$1:

thats not responsible govt and its certainly not helping the military when he sqaunders money he could use for them.

Read above. This government is doing better for the military, but isn't doing good enough. I'm not like Ridenrain, and don't think whatever the Cons do is gospel, so stop acting like I do.

Show you I said this. Recall I said that Harper was promising 4 things. 1) lower taxes. 2) increased gov't spending on social programs. 3) increased manpower and spending to the military and 4) several big ticket military purchases.

Recall I said he will either break at least one of those promises or send us into deficit spending.

We had the debate I think last march the last time I really got into it concerning the EI usage with AR.

BTW, I'm not accusing you of being a baby RR.

[Tricks]

DerbyX DerbyX:

4 vs 1?

Hurley, Boots, you, zipper.

$1:

1) What was needed depends entirely on what you think is fair. Quite frankly given the anti-Liberal attitude of the military I think Paul Martin was an absolute star. Crist they even had socilaist groups whining about the alarming increase in defence spending, a reference that mcb used erroneously and ironically to condemn the Libs for a lack of spending.

Socialist groups complaining about military funding. I think the military could get a dollar and they would whine.

$1:

2) I think our budget realities might intrude on any belief concerning the military. Like Boots I think Canada's defence should centre on a stronger navy but thats an expensive order.

I think we shouldn't focus on only one branch and just make sure we can defend ourselves and others regardless of where or who.

$1:

In order to afford that our debt must be reduced and reduced quickly. The Liberals understoof this. Imagine the military we could afford not having to pay interest on 400+ billion dollars.

And I completely agree, I loved how the liberals paid down the debt.

$1:

Some may believe that Canada should simply run deficits to purchase equipment. Thats a pipe dream though as there simply isn't enough investor confidence in our dollar and economy that would support it.

I realise this, which is why it would be nice if both parties stop wasting money on stupid shit we don't need, or how about we just take all the money that goes to quebec and pump that into the debt.

$1:

3) No. The Libs did not inherit a prosperous time. The early to mid 90s were in fact a small recession. Lets also not forget that inheriting a 30 billion dollar deficit vs a 13 billion dollar surplus simply eliminates blaming the recession for Harpers woes. Canada did not shed 43 billion dollars from the economy in 1 year.

Did you read what I wrote? I said not the early years. So they turned it around in 13 years. That's great, I think they did a commendable job. But was the late nineties and early 2000s a good time for the economy (minus 9/11 of course) for a good chunk of the world?

$1:

4) The Liberals did do a steallr job. It took them a few years but it is simply unreasonable to expect a 30 billion dollar deficit to be eliminated automatically is beyond partisan. There is no doubt in my mind that were the situation reversed then it would be proof positive of conservative thriftiness.

I agree with the beginning, I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence.

$1:

5) The Liberals may not put as much money into the military as you would like but so what? They hate the military right? So the CPC puts more money in (allegedly) but then that just means they simply shift money from somewhere else not that they are the party that is for less govt and less spending. Harper has proven that.

He has. Which is a shame.

$1:

Govt spending went up under Harper in an amount that exceeded simple inflation (recall Winnipeggers post) and tax revenues went down due to lost GST revenues.

You might want to refrain from referencing him considering I, along with Spr or 2cdo if I remember right, outed him as a gigantic asshat and a complete liar. It was fun. Harper definitely could have handled it better than he has.

$1:

You can't lower taxes and raise spending. Thats bad management. It would be one thing if he came and said that we will be dipping into deficit spending because the CF needs (insert equipment) but he didn't. He promised no deficits as well as big ticket military purchases. He broke alot of promises and unlike the Liberal GST one his didn't get the CF needed equipment nor dig us out of the red.

Responding to this would be repeating myself.

[Tricks]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, that would also include Reagan and Bush Sr in the US, who proved incapable of balancing a budget, despite their talk of fiscal accountability.

Excerpt from Wiki (I am far too lazy to find something better, deal with it.)

$1:

Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year.[92] Unemployment peaked at 10.8% percent in December 1982—higher than any time since the Great Depression then dropped during the rest of Reagan's presidency.[89] Sixteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased.[93] The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills was a 1% decrease in government revenues.[94] Reagan also revised the tax code with the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986.[95]


Some economists, such as Nobel Prize winners Milton Friedman and Robert A. Mundell, argue that Reagan's tax policies invigorated America's economy and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990s.

$1:

The lessons the Conservatives need to learn--actually the right-wing in the US and Canada--is that there is more to fiscal accountability than just cutting taxes. You have to cut spending if you are going to cut taxes. This is where they seem to run into trouble.

I agree.

[Tricks]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Show you I said this. Recall I said that Harper was promising 4 things. 1) lower taxes. 2) increased gov't spending on social programs. 3) increased manpower and spending to the military and 4) several big ticket military purchases.

Recall I said he will either break at least one of those promises or send us into deficit spending.

I think I remember that. And I wish he broke the lowering taxes, but again I'm repeating myself. I was more asking where you said that the economy was going to tank, that's how I took it.

[DerbyX]

Tricks Tricks:

Hurley, Boots, you, zipper.

Zips not really against anybody and Boots, Hurley and I only really want to slap down the hacks somehow blaming the Liberals for Harpers deficit spending. You could easily count RUEZ, RR and mtbr on your side if you want to make it a 4 on 4 cage match.

Tricks Tricks:

Socialist groups complaining about military funding. I think the military could get a dollar and they would whine.

True. That was part of the irony. He was trying to show the Liberals paucity of defence spending per %GDP comparing the Libs vs PCs by quoting a site bitching about the alarming increase in Canada's defence spending.

Tricks Tricks:

I think we shouldn't focus on only one branch and just make sure we can defend ourselves and others regardless of where or who.

That depends on alot. Intelligence and terrorists issues aside the only 2 avenues that truly threaten our soverignty is air and sea. Without trying to disrespect the land forces it is imminently easier to buildup land forces and equipment quickly then it is the navy and airforce. Both of them require long term thinking which is why Harpers broken promises concerning ice breakers and the cancelled JSS are shortsighted by a fair margin.

Tricks Tricks:

And I completely agree, I loved how the liberals paid down the debt.

Excellent. As long as we are in debt then we cannot truly run a surplus. That was the entire Liberal focus from the red book on. Budgets designed to produce a surplus to pay down the debt yet they endured enormous slings and arrows from Harper et al for doing so. Its frustrating that so many military people here cannot understand how important that actually was to them getting money and spending put back in. Bankrupt govts cannot support a military.

Tricks Tricks:

I realise this, which is why it would be nice if both parties stop wasting money on stupid shit we don't need, or how about we just take all the money that goes to quebec and pump that into the debt.

Others don't they and they are the vocal anti-Liberals. I do agree completely on the quebec issue. I'm emberassed for Ontario needing 500 million this year and would rather pay more taxes then accept money. So much for Quebec pride at being a province that can manage on her own.

Tricks Tricks:

Did you read what I wrote? I said not the early years. So they turned it around in 13 years. That's great, I think they did a commendable job. But was the late nineties and early 2000s a good time for the economy (minus 9/11 of course) for a good chunk of the world?

I read it. That was not the impression I got from you. Yes the late 90s and earlier 00's were boom times. This latest economic difficulty though is mostly ontario based and less then a year old. Nowhere near enough to excuse Harper going from a 13 billion dollar surplus to a 4 billion dollar deficit in under 2 years.

He's a trained economist. He should have realized that his combo of tax decreases and spending increases would do this. Thats what they do and that was his job to avoid.

Tricks Tricks:

I agree with the beginning, I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence.

If the Libs had handed the Conservatives a 30 billion deficit in 93 and they did what the Libs did.

Tricks Tricks:

He has. Which is a shame.

Yes it is. I praised him for paying down the debt using the surplus those first few months in office. After that he went after support. Even facing a losing election the Liberals still paid down the debt. Harper should have known and acted better hence our criticism of him.

Tricks Tricks:

You might want to refrain from referencing him considering I, along with Spr or 2cdo if I remember right, outed him as a gigantic asshat and a complete liar. It was fun. Harper definitely could have handled it better than he has.

Who? Winnipegger? I don't recall this but then that doesn't mean anything. He was spot on concerning the economy and few on this forum could match his expertise and knowledge. He, unlike so many of us, actually is involved in politics trying to make a difference rather then just forum debates though.


The truth is that there are very few people involved in these political debates that aren't rather partisan in their beliefs. I'm considered a liberal partisan (by the con hacks anyway) but I've always qualified my reasons for voting as I do and hold all parties to an equal footing. I'm not bitching about CPC surpluses one day while praising Liberal surpluses the next.

To me thats the key. As Zipper has pointed out along with us. Its unbelievable that in the wake of almost 3 years of Harpers rule and his own minister of finances prediciting a deficit as well as govt watchdogs somehow they find a way to blame the Liberals.

What would you say or do if you were us?

[Zipperfish]

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

4 vs 1?

Hurley, Boots, you, zipper.
[quote]

And you're doing a stellar job. To tell you the truth, part of me is just being a bastard because I know damn well the Liberals would be on rocky times right now too (though not as rocky as teh Conservatives).

I'm mostly deliberately to aggravate the Conservative hacks, of which you are not one!

[Tricks]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tricks Tricks:

Hurley, Boots, you, zipper.

Zips not really against anybody and Boots, Hurley and I only really want to slap down the hacks somehow blaming the Liberals for Harpers deficit spending. You could easily count RUEZ, RR and mtbr on your side if you want to make it a 4 on 4 cage match.

That's not really fair for you though.

Tricks Tricks:

True. That was part of the irony. He was trying to show the Liberals paucity of defence spending per %GDP comparing the Libs vs PCs by quoting a site bitching about the alarming increase in Canada's defence spending.

:lol: Nice.

$1:

That depends on alot. Intelligence and terrorists issues aside the only 2 avenues that truly threaten our soverignty is air and sea. Without trying to disrespect the land forces it is imminently easier to buildup land forces and equipment quickly then it is the navy and airforce.

No. We can't defend ourselves with air and navy alone. If a landing were to happen, both wouldn't be much use once it starts, we need infantry in case of invasion. Unless you plan on having aircraft carriers lining our coast constantly. Not that I'm against that, but have a large army is probably cheaper, and in the long run used more.

$1:

Both of them require long term thinking which is why Harpers broken promises concerning ice breakers and the cancelled JSS are shortsighted by a fair margin.

Indeed, providing another election hasn't been called by 2011, I wouldn't mind an immediate focus on the north. Infact I'd want that.

$1:

Excellent. As long as we are in debt then we cannot truly run a surplus. That was the entire Liberal focus from the red book on. Budgets designed to produce a surplus to pay down the debt yet they endured enormous slings and arrows from Harper et al for doing so. Its frustrating that so many military people here cannot understand how important that actually was to them getting money and spending put back in. Bankrupt govts cannot support a military.

I agree. There are only a few things I want from the government. Don't fuck with my rights (fuck you squinty). Make sure the military has what it needs. Pay down the debt. And try to fix our healthcare. That's all I want. Seems no one can do it right.

$1:

Others don't they and they are the vocal anti-Liberals. I do agree completely on the quebec issue. I'm emberassed for Ontario needing 500 million this year and would rather pay more taxes then accept money. So much for Quebec pride at being a province that can manage on her own.

Just take the money from Toronto, considering they are the reason it's so low cause they have the fiscal management of a three year old with a crayon.

$1:

I read it. That was not the impression I got from you. Yes the late 90s and earlier 00's were boom times. This latest economic difficulty though is mostly ontario based and less then a year old. Nowhere near enough to excuse Harper going from a 13 billion dollar surplus to a 4 billion dollar deficit in under 2 years.

Wars can do that.

$1:

He's a trained economist. He should have realized that his combo of tax decreases and spending increases would do this. Thats what they do and that was his job to avoid.

Indeed. No doubt he was figuring, or hoping, that the boom that we have been in for at least 10 years preceding the crash would continue.

$1:

If the Libs had handed the Conservatives a 30 billion deficit in 93 and they did what the Libs did.

You think they would have turned it around or fucked up?

$1:

Who? Winnipegger?

Yeah it was hilarious, I'll see if I can dig it up.

$1:

I don't recall this but then that doesn't mean anything. He was spot on concerning the economy and few on this forum could match his expertise and knowledge.

TORO!

$1:

He, unlike so many of us, actually is involved in politics trying to make a difference rather then just forum debates though.

Politics is for liars and thieves. People who actually want to make a difference avoid politics like the plague

$1:

To me thats the key. As Zipper has pointed out along with us. Its unbelievable that in the wake of almost 3 years of Harpers rule and his own minister of finances prediciting a deficit as well as govt watchdogs somehow they find a way to blame the Liberals.

What would you say or do if you were us?

The same. Honestly, I've started to wonder how much Flaherty has had to do this. I know Flaherty and I've followed him closely. He didn't do things like this in Ontario. Not that I remember. He's actually an awesome person, and really smart. So because of Harper's background in economics, I'm wondering how much of this is Harper and how much is Flaherty.

[Tricks]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And you're doing a stellar job. To tell you the truth, part of me is just being a bastard because I know damn well the Liberals would be on rocky times right now too (though not as rocky as teh Conservatives).

I'm mostly deliberately to aggravate the Conservative hacks, of which you are not one!

FLAMER!

[jason700]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

This is not limited to this Harper government in this global slowdown. This is the legacy of Conservatvies in Canaad and Republicans in the US over the last twenty or thirty years. They have simply shown themsleves to be incapable of responsible budget management.

I'm really surprised that the Liberals didn't make this, and especially the fact the fact that they've ran a surplus throughout their tenure, a major part of their campaign. They might have mentioned it a few times in passing but didn't focus on it.

[Sapio]

This problem runs deeper than Canada and this government. Most nations have fundamental problems with economies. Until he get away for print money with no backing, create true free trade and get the government hand out of things, this is going to just keep happening over and over and over.