[bootlegga]

Proculation Proculation:

The answer is quite simple: government CANNOT create wealth. They take money from one pocket and put it in another. There's no plus-value. Yes we need to cut A LOT in government and deregulate. That's what caused the crisis !

I didn't realize the government was the one who issued all those bad mortgages and debts around the world. Or that they forced GM, Chrysler and Ford to make SUVs and pick-ups instead of smaller, more efficient cars.

It was corporate greed and weak regulatory systems that caused this crisis, not the government.

The government just got stuck with the bill!

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I didn't realize the government was the one who issued all those bad mortgages and debts around the world.

Um...they encouraged it with all these Edit: Forgot to finish...heheh.

different Community Reinvestment Act and other sorts of garbage.

$1:

Or that they forced GM, Chrysler and Ford to make SUVs and pick-ups instead of smaller, more efficient cars.

Brilliant plan. Produce stuff North Americans didn't want until a sudden increase in gas prices. The reason why the Japanese had all these small cars ready was because their main market, aka Japan, basically could only support small cars due to the high density construction of their cities.

Why do you think just before the whole gas price increases, Toyota and other Japanese car companies were releasing SUVs and pickup trucks

$1:

It was corporate greed and weak regulatory systems that caused this crisis, not the government.

How about it's all of their fault? What's with this whole one or the other thing? The US not regulating its own "government corporations" aka Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as encouraging private banks to give out loans to those who really couldn't afford it, on top of corporate stupidity?

[Arrow]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You really shouldn't put words in peoples' mouths. I never suggested corporations were bastions of efficiency, in fact I'm on the record quite to the contrary

Did you type this?

Lemmy Lemmy:

But either way, government is an inefficient use of resources. When faced with a choice between using resources efficiently or inefficently, the answer axiomatic.

Who're you referring to as bastions of efficiency if both corporation and government are inefficient?

Lemmy Lemmy:

Government waste and inefficiency is where you cut; not from effective/essential services like Harris cut. You cut the bureaucracy. You free up the budget from servicing debt, then you can use fiscal policy in times of need.

No argument there. Just find agreement on what qualifies as "waste and inefficiency". The SoCons would categorise the financial support for Pride even though it generated 200x its investment. There's all sorts of programs that the government runs that aren't dollar-cost-effective when viewed through the lens of fiscal prudence but are nonetheless vital within the circumstance they serve. The Liberals had been doing just what you suggest yet the 'prudent' Conservatives felt that slash-and-hack at the public income stream made more sense. Flaherty and the Harris retreads are of the 'forget-history-so-we-can-repeat-it' school. Then they lied about being in a deficit. Then they downplay it.

We need a Conservative government every once in a while in this country to remind us why it is that the Liberals have spent more time as the government.

[Lemmy]

Arrow Arrow:

Lemmy Lemmy:

You really shouldn't put words in peoples' mouths. I never suggested corporations were bastions of efficiency, in fact I'm on the record quite to the contrary

Did you type this?

No, I have voice recognition software.

Arrow Arrow:

Who're you referring to as bastions of efficiency if both corporation and government are inefficient?

I never said. There are alternatives to both.

Arrow Arrow:

No argument there. Just find agreement on what qualifies as "waste and inefficiency". The SoCons would categorise the financial support for Pride even though it generated 200x its investment. There's all sorts of programs that the government runs that aren't dollar-cost-effective when viewed through the lens of fiscal prudence but are nonetheless vital within the circumstance they serve. The Liberals had been doing just what you suggest yet the 'prudent' Conservatives felt that slash-and-hack at the public income stream made more sense. Flaherty and the Harris retreads are of the 'forget-history-so-we-can-repeat-it' school. Then they lied about being in a deficit. Then they downplay it.

We need a Conservative government every once in a while in this country to remind us why it is that the Liberals have spent more time as the government.

Are you talking about Federal, Provincial or Municpal programs/governments? It's not clear what you're talking about. Of course, every person has different views on what should be funded through taxation. But discerning between Conservatives and Liberals is like picking gnat shit out of pepper. They're the same beast.

[TattoodGirl]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

Great, just great. God damn I wish there was a party I could fully support

If you find it, let me know cuz I will have to straighten up a bit so I dont go to hell...I dont like the icy cold.

[DerbyX]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/668262

$1:

Just last fall, fooling enough of the people, enough of the time was pretty easy. With an assist from political rivals, Stephen Harper kept economic reality at bay until after federal ballots were counted.

Now the Prime Minister is engaged in the much more difficult project of persuading history to repeat. He wants voters in the next election to believe the ballooning deficit, the one a recession-proof Canadian economy was so certain to evade, will fix itself.

Fantasy is the free lunch of politics. Eventually, this generation or another will have to pay the price of feasting at the groaning board of stimulus spending.

Worse still, that tab, tallied in more taxes, fewer programs or both, will land on the public table at a most inconvenient moment. About the time Ottawa forecasts its budget will be back into the black, the first swollen cohorts of baby boomers will flee the office for the golf course and medical clinic.

To play loosely with demographer David Foot's memorable metaphor, the pig is making its way through the python and will soon hit the federal fan. Pension and health-care demands will rise just when a government that spent wildly through good times and bad is promising to cut smaller cheques.

After doing his sums, the Prime Minister, who doubles as chief faux economist, forecasts only blue skies, even if they arrive later than first promised. Forget the damage to the manufacturing sector, threatened federal revenues and the staggering debt of its sustaining trading partner, Canada will surge from bust to boom and back to surplus with no structural deficit.

Much to Harper's annoyance, Parliament's independent budget officer Kevin Page, along with real McCoy economist Dale Orr, beg to differ. Infuriating the Prime Minister once again, Page's latest report predicts that come 2014, Ottawa's optimistic turnaround year, the federal government will still be $17 billion in the red. Supporting Page, Orr predicts it will take to 2019-20 to balance the books if Conservatives refuse, as Harper insists, to raise taxes or cut programs.

Even if that status quo scheme doesn't add up to economists, the bottom line is self-evident to politicians. Jump-starting the next campaign, Conservatives are already accusing rivals, most notably Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, of planning to raise taxes. That's only one of the options the Official Opposition is thinking about but it's the one Orr and others consider most likely if the next government, no matter which party forms it, concludes that five years is long enough to carry a deficit.

"If the current economic forecast prevails, Orr says, "raising taxes is the only realistic option to balance the budget by 2013-14."

Realism wasn't central to Conservative strategy in the last election; it's apparently not what they have in mind for the next. Hoping voters will suspend their disbelief a second time, the ruling party is again dangling the prospect of a pain-free future.

Splendid if true, the Conservative chiaroscuro rings false. Along with begging Canadians to forgive being misled last autumn, it asks a lot by murmuring "just trust us" to better manage the economy.

In effect, Harper and friends want to wipe clean the slate listing the compound errors that were pushing the federal government toward deficit even before the recession: successive GST cuts and profligate spending. They want enough voters to believe for just long enough that a prime minister and a party that got it wrong so often now have it right.

[ridenrain]

The whole threat of the coalition was officially to force the government to spend more on stimulus. The real reason was to keep the political party welfare comming in, despite the fact that only 35% wanted the parties to keep getting their $1.95 per vote.

Canadian voters remember the coalition and see through this crass politics.

[DerbyX]

ridenrain ridenrain:

The whole threat of the coalition was officially to force the government to spend more on stimulus. The real reason was to keep the political party welfare comming in, despite the fact that only 35% wanted the parties to keep getting their $1.95 per vote.

Canadian voters remember the coalition and see through this crass politics.

lol. The patented D3S con attack. Dodge, deny, deflect and spin. Harper wasn't trying to save anybody a damn thing. He was trying to hamstring the opponents. He certainly didn't care in the least about saving money when he sent us headlong into an election at a cost 10 times that amount.

Of course back then Harper was busy feeding the voters a line of BS about how Canada was recession proof and he would never ever run a deficit.

He lied to the voters then.
He is lying to them now.
The voters will remember this on election day.

[ridenrain]

You dodge, deny, deflect and spin but you missed the fact that the whole threat of the coalition was officially to force the government to spend more on stimulus.

How hypocritical can it be to demand to throw down the government because their not spending enough, put them on "double secret probation" to hold them to task, then to bitch and moan because their spending money.

[DerbyX]

NO. The whole coalition was about removing the incompetent Harper from office.

No matter how you try and spin it Harper sacrificed his principles in order to keep his grip firmly on power. A better example of the say anything to grab power you will never find.

[Gunnair]

DerbyX DerbyX:

NO. The whole coalition was about removing the incompetent Harper from office.

No matter how you try and spin it Harper sacrificed his principles in order to keep his grip firmly on power. A better example of the say anything to grab power you will never find.

Nonsense. The coalition may have initially been a response to Harper cutting their money off, but it became quite obvious that they would not get the public support they needed for a coalition. Now, attack the government for a lack of stimulus and for abiding by its conservative economic principles, that's more politically palatable.

Now you can of course piss in Harper's ear for not abiding by his conservative principles, or you can argue that he followed the will of the people when it was stirred up and at the same time saved the country from what could have been a highly unstable and politically and economically unattractive government.

I know you won't agree becuase you don't have an unbiased bone in your body, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

[OnTheIce]

Gunnair Gunnair:

DerbyX DerbyX:

NO. The whole coalition was about removing the incompetent Harper from office.

No matter how you try and spin it Harper sacrificed his principles in order to keep his grip firmly on power. A better example of the say anything to grab power you will never find.

Nonsense. The coalition may have initially been a response to Harper cutting their money off, but it became quite obvious that they would not get the public support they needed for a coalition. Now, attack the government for a lack of stimulus and for abiding by its conservative economic principles, that's more politically palatable.

Now you can of course piss in Harper's ear for not abiding by his conservative principles, or you can argue that he followed the will of the people when it was stirred up and at the same time saved the country from what could have been a highly unstable and politically and economically unattractive government.

I know you won't agree becuase you don't have an unbiased bone in your body, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

Even when the Liberals say it themselves, Derby doesn't believe them.

CBC CBC:

Opposition parties say they have lost confidence in the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper after Thursday's economic update by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty failed to provide a stimulus package for Canadians.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/ ... ition.html

[DerbyX]

More con hypocrites trying to blame the other parties for Harpers deficit. Sure they are holding him accountable for actually coming through with what he promised. Sure they had their own spending initiatives but they all had plans in place to avoid this massive conservative deficit Harper has hoisted on us.

I notice you guys are simply ignoring all the reports that are holding Harper at fault for his reckless spending during the good years and the ones that are now saying that to clean up Harpers mess we will have to do exactly what you guys complained about in the Liberals and NDP, namely raising taxes.

Just once I'd like one of you cons to actually step up and take some responsibility in your elected party rather then try and blame everybody else for the budget inked by Harper in what was nothing less then a vote buying effort to hold onto power.

[OnTheIce]

Typical Liberal response as follows:

1. Hypocritical response about Conservatives running a deficit.

2. Conservatives note to Liberals that their party had a similar agenda with billions in proposed stimulus.

3. Liberals retreat and dodge, hoping to mask the hypocritical complaints they spew saying that Conservatives are denying that the budget was theirs (when it's clearly obvious it is)

The majority of Conservatives aren't deflecting blame, we're simply pointing out the hypocrisy from those in the Liberal camp.

Bottom line, there's no difference between either party on this issue.

The Liberals/NDP/Bloc wanted to provide billions in stimulus, throwing us back into debt (no 'costed' plan was ever put forward or seen by anyone). Virtually the same result as what we have today.

Further, both parties tucked their principles in their back pockets in the last year. The Conservatives for going fiscally-Liberal and the Liberals for joining forces with the Bloc to re-gain power of this Country.

Same shit, different colour. Especially with Iggy as leader, it's a Conservative pretending to be Liberal.

[DerbyX]

Typical Con response.

1) Hypocrites for crying about deficits and complaining all the other parties would run them then mitigate their own party for running the worst ever deficit.

2) Failure to understand that all the other parties had measures to avoid or minimize a deficit in spending and that measure is exactly the one the leading economists are saying must be done.

3) Failure to realize that the deficit isn't just the fault of what Harper is spending now but what he did prior to it. Thats right, Harper himself set us on the road to deficit even before the economy tanked.

4) The ever present con tactic of simply blaming the Liberals/other parties for everything.

"Its not our fault because the Liberals ........."

Of course the fact that both the Liberals and NDP released fully costed platforms is lost on some hypocrites simply because they never bothered to read them.

Its complete hypocrisy trying to blame the opposition parties for the deficit because Harper isn't enacting their measures to avoid or minimize it.

Its Harpers budget and Harpers deficit and when he is done digging us well into the red he'll leave it to another party to fix his mistakes.