[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

bootlegga bootlegga:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's when the government takes too much of your paycheque to cover their debits, and returns the difference in propaganda disguised as feel good political advertising.

I still think it's better than when they take too little and rack up billions in debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay off.

I think they should be like the rest of us; if they rack up debit one year, it has to be paid off ASAP - and debit repayment is always part of a budget now. Revolving credit is not an answer, and taking too much off a person's paycheque to waste on irrelevancies that are only designed to make us feel better about the robbery takes away from the children right away. We're both Albertans, we know how bad racking up too much debit is, and the bloodletting that has to be done to repay it.

Still waiting on them to fulfill the 20 year old promise to eliminate child poverty, yet I see millions spent on 'happy' signs that do absolutely nothing for anyone except to try to currie political favour.

If we were sitting at zero right now (or close to it), that would be a solid idea. However, the national debt is sitting at 600+ billion right now, so that isn't really an option.

That was one reason I supported the huge surpluses that Chretien and Martin ran - we had lots of debt to pay off (and still do).

IMHO, Harper shouldn't have cut taxes so much after 2006 as it crippled our ability to both pay down debt and deal with poor economic times. That $14 billion a year from the GST cuts sure would have come in handy the past couple years. Sure, we would have still had deficits, but they would have been in the area of $10 billion instead of $25 billion. Heck, even the $100 billion charged up during 2008 & 2009 could have been almost a third lower.

In a perfect world, surpluses and deficits would roughly balance out, or if one got out of hand, the budget would solve that problem in short order. The big problem is that lots of people don't like paying taxes, but at the same time, don't want services/programs cut.

I'm a tad skeptical that the budget can be cut enough - without raising taxes - to erase the current deficit.

Still, if it happens, it'll be a good thing.

[Benn]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

[
I think they should be like the rest of us; if they rack up debit one year, it has to be paid off ASAP - and debit repayment is always part of a budget now. .

Great in theory but unfortunately not good if you want to get elected since one of your opponents is sure to announce spending on some sort of bells and whistles and the sheeple will vote for them, then bitch when taxes go up to pay for it.

So our choices are to get fu@ked up front by one party or get fu@ked after the fact by another.

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

IMHO, Harper shouldn't have cut taxes so much after 2006 as it crippled our ability to both pay down debt and deal with poor economic times. That $14 billion a year from the GST cuts sure would have come in handy the past couple years. Sure, we would have still had deficits, but they would have been in the area of $10 billion instead of $25 billion. Heck, even the $100 billion charged up during 2008 & 2009 could have been almost a third lower.

But, he's an Economist, don'tchaknow. It's conservative ideology to lower taxes in order to raise the deficit or . . . something something.

[DrCaleb]

Benn Benn:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

[
I think they should be like the rest of us; if they rack up debit one year, it has to be paid off ASAP - and debit repayment is always part of a budget now. .

Great in theory but unfortunately not good if you want to get elected since one of your opponents is sure to announce spending on some sort of bells and whistles and the sheeple will vote for them, then bitch when taxes go up to pay for it.

So our choices are to get fu@ked up front by one party or get fu@ked after the fact by another.

There is in fact, a third option. Fire them all! Elect people without all the political baggage who will get things done instead of repaying election favours.

[ShepherdsDog]

and where will we find these wunderkind??

[DrCaleb]

Therein lies the problem. They are out there, but getting them to run is the hard part.

[westmanguy]

And this is a bad thing, how?

Comparatively, we're doing a hell of a lot better than most of the Western world. Still, we need to strive for better. I do think Harper is a prudent economic manager. Its a balancing act, for any party. When you're in surplus territory the responsible apolitical thing to do is put it all towards paying down the debt. Yet to the electorate that doesn't get enough credit as it should.

So I think Harper in the coming years takes a two-pronged approach. You take half to two-thirds of the surplus and put it towards the national debt, and then one-third to half towards targeted tax credits, programs and tax cuts that any political party pursues to shore up their base and woo voters.

The thing I like about Harper is he's not a politician in pursuit of some grandiose overhaul of the nation and some major vision. I don't want a Trudeau-esque re-shapement of Canada. The Conservatives are incremental. Of course, they desire to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, devolve more powers to the provinces, bulk up the military, cut taxes and be more principled on foreign affairs. But they don't pursue these aims in mammoth 180 degree turns. Harper has proved since 2006 in both minority and majority governments that he takes its slow and steady. Which is good. That's Canadian. We don't need the American style hard right/hard left turns.

I think the Senate scandal and other things have set the Tories back, but they still own the issue of economic management. People may not like Harper, but they generally (imo) view him as competent and they know what they get with him. The NDP is fizzling out. The Liberals are untested. Trudeau is likeable to the majority of Canadians, but he is very vague on actual *policy*. So its still my gut feeling that if the Canadian economy and U.S. economy (which we're hitched to) continue to chug along and gain steam, and the books are balanced in 2015 (which it looks like is going to be the case) that Canadians will go with the devil they know.

But we'll see the NDP decimated back to 30-40 seat status, and the Liberals rebound as a strong national opposition and that'll set the stage for a real race in 2019.

North America has energy on our side. Both the U.S. & Canada are rich in resources, oil, LNG, etc. This is our advantage over Europe. Manufacturing will return to our shores as it already has. We'll become increasingly energy independent. This is what's going to ensure our prosperity in the U.S./Canada, environmentalists be damned.

Don't get me wrong, I think Harper could go about many things in a lot better ways. But overall, I'm content. I agree with Bootlegger, that GST tax cuts were stupid. I think consumption taxes are far smarter. He should've cut income taxes. But that's politics. People forget income tax cuts. Everytime we check out at the grocery store and see 5% instead of 6% or 7% we remember the Tories did that. Its more politically smart.

I just appreciate the Tories don't have these wet dreams of some new national bureaucracy or program. For the love of God, we don't need that and can't afford it. A national daycare program, a national pharmacare program, for the love of god, the NDP/Liberals need to get a grip. Leave it to the provinces. Let them make their own choices and see what works and what doesn't, and a national consensus will develop. I'm sick of the obsession that the feds should do all things.

The federal government's role is national security, defence, foreign affairs, international trade, equalization, financial/economic regulation, and that's about it. Let's leave education, health care, welfare, etc. to the provinces. Local is closer and better.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

The federal government's role is national security, defence, foreign affairs, international trade, equalization, financial/economic regulation, and that's about it.

I agree with that list. I would also give them a C- , right now, based on their performance of these basic functions. The only one that they've done a good job with is international trade. Our "national security" has been subbed out to the security apparatus of another country ... hard to imagine that it is in our national interest to be doing that. it is in THEIR national interest for us to do that. Equalization is a touchy one that, historically, has been subject to blackmail and "special favours" to certain provinces and that doesn't seem to have changed lately. Financial regulation ... yeah, it's pretty good here but they inherited all of that and the Libertarian streak in the party would have done away with the lot, had they their way. Defence ... the forces are returning to the inter-war years manpower low whereby they become a totally useless entity as their numbers drop below the critical mass to deploy anywhere for any reason.

[sandorski]

Harper really hasn't been that good Fiscally speaking. He entered the PMO with a huge Surplus to begin with then proceeded to spend it all. Much of that spending has since been cancelled due to the winding down of Afghanistan, but much of it didn't really apply to that conflict anyway. It all seems to have been somewhat just a fad or PR move to "support" the Military when they were under the spot light.

In 2008 he insisted that Surpluses would continue, despite it being clear that a deep Recession was coming and that Deficits were inevitable.

Overall his Fiscal record is a mixed bag and hardly impressive compared to the Chretien/Martin record. It is good that Surpluses are returning, don't get me wrong, but even the NDP could have achieved that at this time. Simply because Chretien/Martin had laid a solid Fiscal foundation long before Harper came to power.

[sandorski]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

The federal government's role is national security, defence, foreign affairs, international trade, equalization, financial/economic regulation, and that's about it.

I agree with that list. I would also give them a C- , right now, based on their performance of these basic functions. The only one that they've done a good job with is international trade. Our "national security" has been subbed out to the security apparatus of another country ... hard to imagine that it is in our national interest to be doing that. it is in THEIR national interest for us to do that. Equalization is a touchy one that, historically, has been subject to blackmail and "special favours" to certain provinces and that doesn't seem to have changed lately. Financial regulation ... yeah, it's pretty good here but they inherited all of that and the Libertarian streak in the party would have done away with the lot, had they their way. Defence ... the forces are returning to the inter-war years manpower low whereby they become a totally useless entity as their numbers drop below the critical mass to deploy anywhere for any reason.

I disagree with that list. It is what we choose it to be and overall what we have chosen it to be has been for the most part very good.

[DrCaleb]

sandorski sandorski:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

The federal government's role is national security, defence, foreign affairs, international trade, equalization, financial/economic regulation, and that's about it.

I agree with that list. I would also give them a C- , right now, based on their performance of these basic functions. The only one that they've done a good job with is international trade. Our "national security" has been subbed out to the security apparatus of another country ... hard to imagine that it is in our national interest to be doing that. it is in THEIR national interest for us to do that. Equalization is a touchy one that, historically, has been subject to blackmail and "special favours" to certain provinces and that doesn't seem to have changed lately. Financial regulation ... yeah, it's pretty good here but they inherited all of that and the Libertarian streak in the party would have done away with the lot, had they their way. Defence ... the forces are returning to the inter-war years manpower low whereby they become a totally useless entity as their numbers drop below the critical mass to deploy anywhere for any reason.

I disagree with that list. It is what we choose it to be and overall what we have chosen it to be has been for the most part very good.

I disagree that the changes to the DFO, Defence and the Foreign Service are any where near 'very good'. We've killed out international reputation at the expense of 'Canada's Economic Action Plan'.

[Jabberwalker]

sandorski sandorski:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

The federal government's role is national security, defence, foreign affairs, international trade, equalization, financial/economic regulation, and that's about it.

I agree with that list. I would also give them a C- , right now, based on their performance of these basic functions. The only one that they've done a good job with is international trade. Our "national security" has been subbed out to the security apparatus of another country ... hard to imagine that it is in our national interest to be doing that. it is in THEIR national interest for us to do that. Equalization is a touchy one that, historically, has been subject to blackmail and "special favours" to certain provinces and that doesn't seem to have changed lately. Financial regulation ... yeah, it's pretty good here but they inherited all of that and the Libertarian streak in the party would have done away with the lot, had they their way. Defence ... the forces are returning to the inter-war years manpower low whereby they become a totally useless entity as their numbers drop below the critical mass to deploy anywhere for any reason.

I disagree with that list. It is what we choose it to be and overall what we have chosen it to be has been for the most part very good.

No, all of the other "goodies" in our lives like education, health care, social services are responsibilities of the provinces, not the Feds and that goes right back to the BNA act. The Federal Government's responsibilities should be narrower. Think, if you would, why humans ever came together into kingdoms, countries, nations ... what have you ... in the first place. It was probably for mutual defence and the collective storage of food to spread risk over time and population. Just about everything on the "modern" list are corollaries of the original purposes.

[Jabberwalker]

I disagree that the changes to the DFO, Defence and the Foreign Service are any where near 'very good'. We've killed out international reputation at the expense of 'Canada's Economic Action Plan'.[/quote]



Did I say that?

[DrCaleb]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

I disagree that the changes to the DFO, Defence and the Foreign Service are any where near 'very good'. We've killed out international reputation at the expense of 'Canada's Economic Action Plan'.

Did I say that?

I'm not disagreeing with you. Perhaps you might also want to learn the 'quote' function?

[Jabberwalker]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

I disagree that the changes to the DFO, Defence and the Foreign Service are any where near 'very good'. We've killed out international reputation at the expense of 'Canada's Economic Action Plan'.

Did I say that?

I'm not disagreeing with you. Perhaps you might also want to learn the 'quote' function?

So, tell me on snide one. What do you do with the "quote function" when the quote exceeds three levels deep? What I do is just delete the previous two layers and put the last one into "quotes" (always after I find that I'm too deep to post.) It is quick, easy and it means that I don't have to back-track with my posts.

Tell me, how do YOU manage to exceed three layers deep?