OPINION: Why do the Conservatives refuse to save for a rainy day?

Isn't this an opinion piece?

fact.

Not really. Deficit are not a "liberal" or "conservative" thing. Trudeau spent a lot (liberal). Charest is spending a lot (liberal). McGuinty too (liberal). Obama is the biggest spender in world history (liberal). Deficit is a political thing. Politicians of all sides spend to buy votes since forever.

Except that the cons are the people saying every other party is a tax and spend party. Mulroney spent more then Trudeau and Harper has certainly spent more then everyone else. McGuinty hasn't done worse then the PCs and NDP.

Yes politicians buy votes but then you must play the game as well. The Cons federally have done very bad deficit wise, far worse then the Liberals and when they claim everybody else is terrible you need the truth.

The Cons are supposed to be economic masters but as the article says they aren't preparing for a rainy day. Chretien and Martin did. Even facing defeat Martin still paid down debt. Harper facing defeat via the coalition embarked on a spending spree we will not get out of before the next cycle of recession.

Because the opposition demanded he spend spend spend. And spend he did.

About the level I expect.

No. They had plans in place to avoid this. Harper alone spent like paris on a shopping spree. His budget. His responsibility.

And what were those plans??

Harper was not willing to spend when he did. He wanted to wait until February, but the opposition pushed him for a LARGE "stimulus/bailout package" in December. They threatened to topple him if he didn't (remember that whole coalition thing?). Harpee could have said "lets go to the polls" but instead he decided to adopt some of the demands of the opposition. They all have their fingerprints on this,

No. As already posted, Harper the great economist was quoted on a national TV interview as saying everything would be fine and we would have no recession circa Oct 12. 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm29cgVXJTk

Check the dates.

Harper could have stuck to his guns but didn't. He could have said "lets go to the polls" but did not.

Instead he embarked on a spending spree of epic proportions.

All on him.

No. As already posted, Harper the great economist was quoted on a national TV interview as saying everything would be fine and we would have no recession circa Oct 12. 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm29cgVXJTk

Check the dates.

Harper could have stuck to his guns but didn't. He could have said "lets go to the polls" but did not.

Instead he embarked on a spending spree of epic proportions.

All on him.

But weren't the Libs and NDP and Bloc all up in arms in Dec because he wasn't going to do anything yet??? They demanded a large package then and so he gave it to them. In a way it was exactly the way a minority should work so all the parties are responsible for this.

Yes but so what? They were all happy when it was some 25 billion less. In addition both parties had tax measures to minimize this.

Both parties had plans to avoid a massive deficit. The Cons did not.

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

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.

I still maintain that the media in Canada caused a panic that blew this whole recession (at least the one on our side of the border) way out of proportion. In the process they completely killed consumer confidence so people stopped spending which made things worse. Had we only taken the time to actually survey the situation we could have saved a great deal of money, instead people demanded something, anything be done and the word of the day was bailout so that is where the money went.

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



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

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



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

Harper fucked up.