[KorbenDeck]

sandorski sandorski:

Definitely. I ant a Martin style Fiscal Policy, that being a Surplus and Debt Pay Down. Will take a few years to get back to there, but any Party that isn't committed to achieving that loses my Vote by Default.

I agree. I believe Canada should pass a law that prevents the government from presenting a budget that run a deficit, and requiring that at LEST 20% of our federal budget must be spent of debt repayment.

This would prevent any party that gets into power later from screwing up all the progress made by the previous government. Some party wants to run a huge budget that's fine, but they cannot borrow money to do it.

[sandorski]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

sandorski sandorski:

Definitely. I ant a Martin style Fiscal Policy, that being a Surplus and Debt Pay Down. Will take a few years to get back to there, but any Party that isn't committed to achieving that loses my Vote by Default.

I agree. I believe Canada should pass a law that prevents the government from presenting a budget that run a deficit, and requiring that at LEST 20% of our federal budget must be spent of debt repayment.

This would prevent any party that gets into power later from screwing up all the progress made by the previous government. Some party wants to run a huge budget that's fine, but they cannot borrow money to do it.

I would disagree on a Law. Sometimes Deficits are necessary and forced Spending Cuts are damaging.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Scape Scape:

This is Rae's way of undermining Iffy for another shot at the leadership. He has a lot of useful idiots working with him like Broadbent and Jean chatting it up. He may get his way but he will only end up winning this battle just to lose the war with Harper. May not end up like another Kim Campbell but won't be far off. I think it's long since past for a match to be lit on both platforms and a whole new party for the progressive movement needs to be created. We will end up with a Harper majority by default as it stand now so maybe Harper can finally kick the BQ out of federal politics once and for all.

Good post there Scape. You attempt a comparison of Bob Rae with Kim Campbell's 2 seats, then go on to talk about Harper kicking Separitist ass, the Quebec Separtists mind, and finally at the end of the paragraph advocate a entirely new party. You need to calm down, eh. Perhaps you should get liquored up before you post.

[KorbenDeck]

sandorski sandorski:

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

sandorski sandorski:

Definitely. I ant a Martin style Fiscal Policy, that being a Surplus and Debt Pay Down. Will take a few years to get back to there, but any Party that isn't committed to achieving that loses my Vote by Default.

I agree. I believe Canada should pass a law that prevents the government from presenting a budget that run a deficit, and requiring that at LEST 20% of our federal budget must be spent of debt repayment.

This would prevent any party that gets into power later from screwing up all the progress made by the previous government. Some party wants to run a huge budget that's fine, but they cannot borrow money to do it.

I would disagree on a Law. Sometimes Deficits are necessary and forced Spending Cuts are damaging.

There is always an exception to a rule. "The exception that proves the rule" kinda deal. However we can't keep going ignoring our debt problem and hoping that someone later on down the road will come along with a magic fix. We just need to define what the exceptions would be. Personally I think the whole stimulus idea is total bullshit. We shouldn't need a recession just to get the governments (all levels) to fish out the money to upgrade our aging infrastructure.

[Lemmy]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

I agree. I believe Canada should pass a law that prevents the government from presenting a budget that run a deficit, and requiring that at LEST 20% of our federal budget must be spent of debt repayment.

There's nothing wrong with running a deficit. In fact, when you consider inflation, running a deficit is kind of like "free money" as the loan principle is eroded by inflation. The problem comes from debt, not deficit. Deficits only become problematic when they're run consecutively, creating debt. Legislation preventing deficit would handicap governments from a perfectly reasonable fiscal policy option, but we need to require that, once a deficit is run, the debt is repaid before another deficit-budget is approved. That's the legislation that would make sense.

[herbie]

So some of you feel democracy would be best served by allowing us to choose any party we wish, so long as they're constrained to only ultra-conservative actions?
Sorry folks. the roads fall apart and those hospitals close because we have to repay debt and can't raise taxes?
No, we'd just see lots of fudge-it budgets.

[sandorski]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

sandorski sandorski:

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

I agree. I believe Canada should pass a law that prevents the government from presenting a budget that run a deficit, and requiring that at LEST 20% of our federal budget must be spent of debt repayment.

This would prevent any party that gets into power later from screwing up all the progress made by the previous government. Some party wants to run a huge budget that's fine, but they cannot borrow money to do it.

I would disagree on a Law. Sometimes Deficits are necessary and forced Spending Cuts are damaging.

There is always an exception to a rule. "The exception that proves the rule" kinda deal. However we can't keep going ignoring our debt problem and hoping that someone later on down the road will come along with a magic fix. We just need to define what the exceptions would be. Personally I think the whole stimulus idea is total bullshit. We shouldn't need a recession just to get the governments (all levels) to fish out the money to upgrade our aging infrastructure.

A Law is too constraining. We just need to Vote for Responsible Politicians, something Canadians seem adept at. Just look to the US to see what a mess Balanced Budget Laws have. Many States had to make Major Cuts at a time when Cuts were the wrong Policy. As soon as such a Law exists, you tie one hand behind the back of Government and that's not a good idea.

[sandorski]

herbie herbie:

So some of you feel democracy would be best served by allowing us to choose any party we wish, so long as they're constrained to only ultra-conservative actions?
Sorry folks. the roads fall apart and those hospitals close because we have to repay debt and can't raise taxes?
No, we'd just see lots of fudge-it budgets.

California is the prime example of Fiscal Fail Law. 2/3 Votes required to raise Taxes! Add in Referendum requirements and that State had to Deficit Spend, because the Minority Party has Veto power over Taxation. Simply stupid.

[kenmore]

Apollo Apollo:

Liberals + NDP = Conservative majority

Most Liberal supporters have more in common with the Conservative party than the NDP.

Thats an assumption, a wrong one..liberals for the most part lean left as do the NDP. The current tory regime is too far right for either libs or NDP.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

If the Liberals and NDP wish to commit their parties to suicide, I say let them. Both parties had their chances, and failed miserably.

-J.

[Mustang1]

CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:

If the Liberals and NDP wish to commit their parties to suicide, I say let them. Both parties had their chances, and failed miserably.

-J.

Huh? Both parties had their chances?!? Federally? Provincially? Last time i checked, the Conservatives, federally, have a MINORITY, so they're no resounding electoral success. Save the partisan hackery for your blog.

[BeaverFever]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Well, it's not the most left-wing party in Canadian history... I agree with the rest.

Yeah, I mean, parties that actually win seats.