[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grallon]

No huge trouble, but it's serious enough to:

a) Warrant an article in the front page of Lapresse.ca, this morning, it was the top story.

...

It hasn't dawned upon you yet who La Presse is working for?  What their editorial policy has been since Desmarais bought it in '68?  They're trying to discredit the Bloc at all costs of course, with one fraudulent front page after another, week after week, month after month.

Federalists scumbags spewing their daily dose of propaganda - that's what this story is really about.  I could watch the slaughter of the entire editorial board of that newspaper without batting an eyelash.



G.

[crazy canuck]

Yes it will grow if the gov. spends money to make it grow.

GF, the forecasts are based on current circumstances not what might happen if the liberals roll a 6 or less on a d100 a win the election.

[crazy canuck]

No huge trouble, but it's serious enough to:

a) Warrant an article in the front page of Lapresse.ca, this morning, it was the top story.

...

It hasn't dawned upon you yet who La Presse is working for?  What their editorial policy has been since Desmarais bought it in '68?  They're trying to discredit the Bloc at all costs of course, with one fraudulent front page after another, week after week, month after month.

Federalists scumbags spewing their daily dose of propaganda - that's what this story is really about.  I could watch the slaughter of the entire editorial board of that newspaper without batting an eyelash.



G.

I thought camps for the politically undesirable were more your style

[viper37]

No huge trouble, but it's serious enough to:

a) Warrant an article in the front page of Lapresse.ca, this morning, it was the top story.

...

It hasn't dawned upon you yet who La Presse is working for?  What their editorial policy has been since Desmarais bought it in '68?  They're trying to discredit the Bloc at all costs of course, with one fraudulent front page after another, week after week, month after month.

Federalists scumbags spewing their daily dose of propaganda - that's what this story is really about.  I could watch the slaughter of the entire editorial board of that newspaper without batting an eyelash.



G.

that's the Editorial line, totally different than the rest of the content, wich is left leaning.
They've been hard on the CAQ and the ADQ before, relatively soft on the PQ and PLQ, except for the editorials.
Besides, they're journalist.  They won't let the truth get in the way of a good story, dixit one of their own.

[viper37]

Yes it will grow if the gov. spends money to make it grow.

Only for a while.

If you look at the 1929 recession, you'll see that despite the New Deal, the US, who temporarily got out of the recession for 2 yars, dipped again into recession around 1938.  Only WWII and the increased demand from oversea endend the recession.
Look again at 1988, there was a recession looming, governments bailed out the banks and the economy dipped again in 1990.
Look again at 2008.  US&other countries injected tons of money into the economy, bailed out the banks (again) and the economy is again dipping.

There's not much to do while you're in recession but to ride the wave and extend social programs.  Increasing expenses for the sake of increasing expenses has never solved anything.

[viper37]

No huge trouble, but it's serious enough to:

a) Warrant an article in the front page of Lapresse.ca, this morning, it was the top story.

...

It hasn't dawned upon you yet who La Presse is working for?  What their editorial policy has been since Desmarais bought it in '68?  They're trying to discredit the Bloc at all costs of course, with one fraudulent front page after another, week after week, month after month.

Federalists scumbags spewing their daily dose of propaganda - that's what this story is really about.  I could watch the slaughter of the entire editorial board of that newspaper without batting an eyelash.



G.

I thought camps for the politically undesirable were more your style

eventually, you run out of space.

[Valmy]

Yes it will grow if the gov. spends money to make it grow.

Only for a while.

If you look at the 1929 recession, you'll see that despite the New Deal, the US, who temporarily got out of the recession for 2 yars, dipped again into recession around 1938.  Only WWII and the increased demand from oversea endend the recession.
Look again at 1988, there was a recession looming, governments bailed out the banks and the economy dipped again in 1990.
Look again at 2008.  US&other countries injected tons of money into the economy, bailed out the banks (again) and the economy is again dipping.

There's not much to do while you're in recession but to ride the wave and extend social programs.  Increasing expenses for the sake of increasing expenses has never solved anything.

Nonsense I am pretty sure economies are determined by government policies, not silly things like supply and demand or markets.

[Josephus]

Yes it will grow if the gov. spends money to make it grow.

GF, the forecasts are based on current circumstances not what might happen if the liberals roll a 6 or less on a d100 a win the election.

To be honest I think countries should be run by rolling a d100 with various modifications based on whose the ruling party.

[Barrister]

Trudeau is now the only candidate with a sensible position concerning the deficit.

Great.

 

Both Mulcair & Harper have the crazy position that we must balanced the budget, in an economic slowdown, at all cost.

You realize that all the economic forecasts are for growth in the third and fourth quarters with over all growth in the fiscal year?  If all the economists are correct it is likely it is Liberals who are taking a "crazy" position of fighting a downturn which no longer exists.

What are these forecasts?

The crazy thing is that when the Canadian economy is knocked off by global trends like low oil prices it makes zero sense to try and "fight" the recession by deficit spending.

[crazy canuck]

Trudeau is now the only candidate with a sensible position concerning the deficit.

Great.

 

Both Mulcair & Harper have the crazy position that we must balanced the budget, in an economic slowdown, at all cost.

You realize that all the economic forecasts are for growth in the third and fourth quarters with over all growth in the fiscal year?  If all the economists are correct it is likely it is Liberals who are taking a "crazy" position of fighting a downturn which no longer exists.

What are these forecasts?

The crazy thing is that when the Canadian economy is knocked off by global trends like low oil prices it makes zero sense to try and "fight" the recession by deficit spending.

The forecasts by the Bank of Canada and the major Banks

[viper37]

No huge trouble, but it's serious enough to:

a) Warrant an article in the front page of Lapresse.ca, this morning, it was the top story.

...

It hasn't dawned upon you yet who La Presse is working for?  What their editorial policy has been since Desmarais bought it in '68?  They're trying to discredit the Bloc at all costs of course, with one fraudulent front page after another, week after week, month after month.

Federalists scumbags spewing their daily dose of propaganda - that's what this story is really about.  I could watch the slaughter of the entire editorial board of that newspaper without batting an eyelash.



G.

as I saw today, Le Journal De Montréal, which, up til tonight at least, was still under the firm control of Pier-Karl Péladeau, the same Péladeau currently head of the Parti Québécois, wich, up 'til tonight' was still a sovereignist party, did not grant any reprieve to the poor girl and kept piling on her about her "disturbing choices".

[Josephus]

One thing I've been consistent about in all the years I've been on this forum, and which is key in shaping my economic/political outlook, is that I don't believe that having a balanced budget all the time is necessary, or even good. I think public spending is a necessary evil for all sort of reasons and to do govern properly, deficits are necessary. Some of the great infrastructure projects of history, after all, were built by massive government spending. Of course running a deficit endlessly is a cause for disaster. Ideally you need to flip between the two back and forth as needed. The keys are moderation and not thinking that deficits are bad.

But this is no longer a popular ideology. The NDP, for instance, has moved to the centre and has talked about balancing the budget. Whether, if elected, Mulcair will do this remains to be seen. Frankly, I think, balanced budgets sound good but are never practical. For all his talk, Harper has never balanced the books yet. (For that reason alone, then, his supporters should turf him.)

So it is quite surprising to see J. Trudeau embracing government spending and infrastructure projects over balanced budgets. Maybe the Liberal Party is moving to take over the vacuum on the left, now that the NDP has sold itself to centrism.

As of now, I'm now thinking of voting Liberal.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think deficits are inherent bad.  But there is an important question about when governments should spend more on infrastructure projects and incur a deficit.  What I don't like about the Liberal plan is they plan to through a large amount of money around over three years whether we are in a recession or not.  And then the spigot gets closed.

But I think we need a more nuanced approach which provides better infrastructure funding over the long term.  Not just an election cycle.  A lot of the major infrastructure programs in Vancouver are going to take three years just to plan properly never mind build.  As a result I am concerned the Liberal spending plan is inefficient both because it is stimulus spending which is not now required (but might be required later) and the three year infrasture plan is too short to make the meaningful infrastructure improvements which are required. 

I have not yet decided how I will vote but this announcement reminds me of the bad old days of Liberal governance.

[Barrister]

Alberta's forecast deficit this year is now $5.9 billion.  Total revenue of 44.3 billion, total expenses of 50.2 billion.  We're spending 13% more than we take in.

And those numbers look to get worse because they did not factor in the most recent drop in the price of oil.

[crazy canuck]

That's what happens when an economy is dependent on resource.  Too bad successive PC governments didn't stick to the plan of maintaining the rainy day fund like the Norweigans.  Can't blame the new government for that.