[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

But you, you are not a rabid, CHOI-FM everyone-is-an-idiot-but-us-Quebec City-citizens right-winger caricature, you are capable of good sense.

I believe in balance.
We need a counter-weight to everyone-is-an-idiot-but-us-Montreal-citizen-center-of-the-world left-wing caricature.
Besides, CHOI FM is currently 5th in polls.  You should at least actualize your nasty stereotypes.

So let's ignore that Canada is a AAA-rated borrower with a 86% debt-to-GDP ratio, even lower than the US, and a manageable debt size.

Why don't you triple your mortgage?  I'm sure you'll find good use for that money and that will bring you fortune down the road, if you make wise investment choices

Most importantly, let's ignore the wishes of the plebes who were fed up with a decade of sacrifices imposed (not asked, imposed)

Yes, of course, the plebes never ask for sacrifices.  They ask for low taxes, complain when it is raised, they ask for more provincial transfers, complain when they're cut, they ask for more funding to public services but then complain when the managers have their meeting in 5* hotels or somewhere in the Dominican Republic in the heart of winter, all expenses paid.

with a zero-deficit they even didn't structurally reach and and tax cuts benefiting only those parts of the electorate with the highest incomes.

False on both account, as confirmed by the Director of budget.  At least, argue with facts, not Liberal propaganda if you want to be taken seriously.

Borrowing is not bad per se, if made for sound reasons. The deficit announced is neither structural nor used to pay current expenditures, but for reinvigorating our society at the middle-class level with long-term investments to help give average families some breathing space, thus more spending power, and help boost this stagnating economy.

Again, false on all accounts.  The borrowing is made mostly to pay "grocery shopping", regular incurring expenses, not infrastructure investments.  Only 10% of the proposed budget for infrastructure will be spent in the next 5 years, less than what the conservatives proposed, and it will be mostly for public transit systems.  That would not be bad in itself if it respected the spirit of the Constitution, that provinces are the ones who have to spend this money.  Instead, the Feds are asking the provincial government to submit their municipal projects by March 31st or otherwise they will spend the money themselves.  If past is to be a guide, it will again be in places where the Liberals have the most MPs and are poised to make gains, irrelevant of the real needs.

So tell me, BB, what would you want the Liberal government to do? NOT a crypto-Conservative government in red clothing, but a Trudeau government?

Going into a huge deficit run, a spending spree with no end in sight (listen to what your new found idol said, precisely, he's not even sure his plan will work), means you have to pay that debt eventually.  Economic growth will never be sufficient to reimburse that debt on its own, so that means more taxes down the road.  For the next generation.
Left leaners like you and Jacob are simply selfish and want to enjoy their priviledges at the expense of others.  It is a despicable Liberal/NDP trait.

On a more general level, guys, get over it. Get the Milwaukee protocol. Trudeau is not Allende, and the Conservatives have lost the election it fair and square.

Ah, I see.  If the Conservatives win, they "impose their will" because no one asked for it.  If the Liberals win, it's fair and square and we must blindly follow like sheeps and shut our mouths.  Criticism shall not be tolerated in this wonderful country of ours, the plus meilleur pays du monde, as your former idol used to say.

It's also fair&square that they will use their majority in chamber and senate to pass that electoral reform they want, a new, wonderful system, that will ensure their continual stay in power for many years to come.

You are right on one thing, he is not Allende.  He is closer to Chavez.

They have lost because the voters have had the luxury to see what the Reform Party Conservatives was proposing as an ideal society, and after ten years of living through it under a Harper Conservative experiment of Canadian social reenginering of what Canadian values should be, they decided they had enough.

Again, I like the facts.  The Liberals won because 7% of Canadians picked them over the Conservatives compared to the last election.

Remember how the critics of the Conservatives complained about how a majority of Canadians did not vote for them in the election before?  That was fair and square then, to complain about "imposition" of their vision, you know, the one no one asked?  But when the Libs are in power, we shall follow.  We shall accept whatever scraps our glorious leader will give us and say "thank you master".  We are all Reeks.

Look, you obviously adore Justin Trudeau and I despise him.  The fact that he is a moron who knows as much about the world as Donald Trump and does not wish to understand what he does not know does not bother you.  You are totally fine with a Quebec MP paying his taxes in Ontario to reduce his fiscal bill while I'm not.  It is quite obvious you favour an aristocratic model over a true form of democracy. 

So let's just agree to disagree here.  I'll keep complaining about the moron you voted for and you'll keep calling me an idiot, I've been called worst by your other Liberal friends, even when facts are against them.

Oh, btw, why was it necessary to retrofit all our military barracks for winter quartering that will never be used by refugees and cadets?   Is that again, a sound investment to generate future growth?  Or more likely a glimpse of what the future holds?

[Barrister]

He is increasing spending on social services, because that's what a LOT of electors and community-level service groups have been claimoring for. The decade-long dirt of input from the Federal level during the Conservative government and the lingering structural pauperisation of the common middle-class have created some real, tangible needs that needed to be addressed. The voters asked for it, they have promised they would, and they deliver it.

We won't fault a government for respecting their core electoral promises, will we?

Well since it was an accusation levelled against the Conservatives every single time... both the Conservatives and the NDP ran on promises of balancing the budget.  It's hard to argue that there was a mandate for sustained deficit spending when 60%+ of voters voted for parties promising to balance the books.

And good policies are good policies, and bad policies are bad policies, no matter who supported them.  Hugo Chavez had a strong base of support for policies that ultimately bankrupted and impoverished his nation.  No matter that support - they were still bad policies.  If Trump wins on his "we'll build a wall" campaign, a wall is still a bad policy

On the contrary, it is the best time to increase spending. A growing economy means increased tax revenues to soften the blunt of these multi-year spending increases over the longer term, while leaving a bit more leeway to balance the budget. The problem is, we both know, economy growth remains a prediction. This growth might not last or be as high as the economists had predicted...

That's the pernicious thing about normalizing deficit spending.  There is always a reason why you can't cut now, need to spend more.

In general though, read the Coyne article I posted about why this budget is such a bad idea.

[viper37]

He is increasing spending on social services, because that's what a LOT of electors and community-level service groups have been claimoring for. The decade-long dirt of input from the Federal level during the Conservative government and the lingering structural pauperisation of the common middle-class have created some real, tangible needs that needed to be addressed. The voters asked for it, they have promised they would, and they deliver it.

Community-level service groups asking for more funding?  I wonder, did they even ask for less?  When such a group says they don't need more money or the current approach is not working, are they even listened to?
You know as well as I do that it ain't the case.  What exactly is worst today than it was in 1980? In 1995? In 2000?

See, the Cons had a pretty good idea on how to alleviate the problem of homeless people.  But of course, community groups with directors and vice-directors making over 120k/year disagreed with that.

These groups are the reason we have a problem.  They divert resources from those who really need them to justify their existence.  The Conservatives did a pretty good job on reducing the tax benefit/shelters these things provided, but the job was still far from being done.

And again, you mistake Liberal propaganda for facts.  The middle-class is better of, and even grew, contrary to othe G8 countries, compared to previous governments, or should I rather say "government", since it was that same moronic party, the one you are still defending, as if you never learn your lesson.  We were fare from pauperized under cons rule, quite the contrary, as the facts tell us.

We won't fault a government for respecting their core electoral promises, will we?

They promised 10B$ deficit/year, they go for 30B$/year.  Ah, they promised to waste money.  So yeah, we are Reeks, and we should be grateful because we're getting scraps.

Well... yes. Middle-class families and senior citizens have become structurally and consistently poorer with passing years and they needed the relief. Hell, even to me they even haven't gone far enough, as lower middle-class citizens, with or without family, frankly need some tax relief too.

Much more complicated than simple CLP propaganda would have us believe:
http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/middle-class-cross-sheikh.pdf

On the contrary, it is the best time to increase spending.

No, BB is right.

A growing economy means increased tax revenues to soften the blunt of these multi-year spending increases over the longer term, while leaving a bit more leeway to balance the budget. The problem is, we both know, economy growth remains a prediction. This growth might not last or be as high as the economists had predicted...

Increase govt spending during a period of economic growth means increased inflation means increase in future interest rates to jugulate said inflation and then we will require more taxes to pay our debt.  In the long term, it means a less prosperous Canada, but that as always been the left's plan, especially the Feds, make us dependant on the government.

Truth be told, I don't believe budget deficits are a bad thing in themselves. Government budgets are not private estates. Neither, I believe, is needing to balance the books bad in itself on the other side of the spectrum.

Sure you don't.  You want to pass on the real expense to someone else while you reap the benefits.  Exactly what the Boomers did to us.

The problem was, under Harper it was threatening to become an obsessive goal for pure chest-thumping electoral gain

No.  Only your left leaning twisted mind did it seem that way.

while being detrimental to the overall well-being of Canadian citizens

Again, totally false.  We were better off than 15 years ago.

We were asked, again and again and again, the bear the brunt of all these sacrifices with no real tangle benefit in return (except the HST decrease which I frankly applauded...

And what exactly did you bear the brunt of?  Your income taxes were reduced.  The GST was reduced (I was against, personally, I would have preferred more income taxes decreases.  The fees to obtain a passport where slightly raised but in exchange you got it for 10 years instead of 5.

The only really bad thing they did, that was hurtful to Canadians, was dragging their feet on the climate change issue.  But no one has beared the brunt of that, yet.

until it was stolen from us under Charest by a corresponding QST hike) than a bunch of MPs proudly proclaiming they had balanced the books... when they in fact have not.

So, you should be happy, no?  You just said you don't have a problem with deficit and they should bring us prosperity.  By your account, Quebec should be an extremely prosperous society, more so than any other place in Canada.  Deficit spending = economic growth = more taxable revenues for the Government = more programs aimed at communities who bear the brunt of the Federal "massive" and "disconnected" cuts in spending.

Do you have stats to back up your argument?  I'd love to see how Quebec is the most best province of Canada now

So to my point of view it is not a 'danger' but a realignment of priorities. It was the time for some breathing space.

It was a time to stay the course, not veer hard to port.

[Grey Fox]

It is important to undo 10 years of conservative damage in all spheres of government. Deficits are a necessary step towards that.

Too much money & time was spent on Law & Order, National Defense & Public Security and not enough on Culture, adapting to climate change, public infrastructure, scientific research & helping people in general.

[Josephus]

Poor BB. 

He's getting reamed from both ends.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/albertas-finance-minister-discards-timeline-for-balanced-budget/article29374634/

[Barrister]

Poor BB. 

He's getting reamed from both ends.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/albertas-finance-minister-discards-timeline-for-balanced-budget/article29374634/

We all are, Josephus.

We all are.

[viper37]

Too much money & time was spent on Law & Order, National Defense & Public Security and not enough on Culture, adapting to climate change, public infrastructure, scientific research & helping people in general.

They increased provincial transfers and reduce our tax burdens.  It's up to the cities to coherently develop their infrastructures. It's not like the money wasn't there.

Law&Order: that was necessary.  We live in a much more secure society now than we did 20 years ago, at the height of the biker's wars.
National defense: The govt did not spend much more money than the Libs, but they reshifted their priorities to make sure our soldiers don't die a stupid death because they have green uniforms in the sands of Afghanistan or light vehicles that offer as much protection as your regular Jeep against en ied.
Culture: That's up to the provinces.  It does not concern Canada.  Besides, we already waste too much money on this.  It's not the State's Job to enforce monopolies and subsidize everything that can't survive on its own.  If people like our cinema and music, they should go see our movies and concerts instead of asking the govt to subsidize the rich.
Scientific research:  True, they failed miserably.  But the provincial government, under the PQ, and the continuint policies of the Liberal Party have done exactly the same, i.e. drastically reduce the financing of fundamental research in favour of applied research.  It is a costly mistake, typical of the short term vision of our governments, but I find it strange to see complaints about it from people who voted for parties doing exactly the same.
helping people in general: How can we help you?  By increasing your disposable income or by giving you 2000$/year while increasing your taxes by 3000$ within 5 years?   I know where Drakken stands, he would vote for the Liberal Party no matter what they'd do,  But you?  Honestly?  Haven't you learnt your lesson under a decade of Charest's rule?  The only reason Quebecers have maintained their standard of living is because of the Federal government's actions.

[viper37]

Poor BB. 

He's getting reamed from both ends.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/albertas-finance-minister-discards-timeline-for-balanced-budget/article29374634/

Alberta's situation ain't so bad yet.  Canada as a whole, however, is still very fragile.
The Albertan gov't should have kept the sales tax and used that money as rainy day fund.

[Barrister]

Poor BB. 

He's getting reamed from both ends.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/albertas-finance-minister-discards-timeline-for-balanced-budget/article29374634/

Alberta's situation ain't so bad yet.  Canada as a whole, however, is still very fragile.
The Albertan gov't should have kept the sales tax and used that money as rainy day fund.

Viper, I love ya, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Alberta has never had a sales tax.  And the situation is very bad.  Notice how Canada, population 35 million, is running a 29.4 billion dollar deficit, while Alberta, population 4 million, is running a $10.4 billion dollar deficit.

[Josephus]

Maybe if Alberta HAD a sales tax you wouldn't be so much in debt. 

[viper37]

Poor BB. 

He's getting reamed from both ends.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/albertas-finance-minister-discards-timeline-for-balanced-budget/article29374634/

Alberta's situation ain't so bad yet.  Canada as a whole, however, is still very fragile.
The Albertan gov't should have kept the sales tax and used that money as rainy day fund.

Viper, I love ya, but you don't know what you're talking about.

Alberta has never had a sales tax.  And the situation is very bad.  Notice how Canada, population 35 million, is running a 29.4 billion dollar deficit, while Alberta, population 4 million, is running a $10.4 billion dollar deficit.

Really?  I thought you had one that was abolished under Ralph Klein.  My bad, then

Well, you'll get increased equalization payments starting next year, I guess, so it should alleviate some of the problem?

By "not so bad", I mean that Albera is not going brankrupt in a short term horizon.  I did not mean there was nothing to do.

But your economy was geared toward natural resources and the previous govt took no steps in diversification, hoping they would just surf the wave if a tsunami came.  Alberta (and Saskatchewan) have always opposed any kind of transition toward green energy, seeing any mention of that as an attack on Western prosperity.

[Barrister]

Maybe if Alberta HAD a sales tax you wouldn't be so much in debt. 

Things are so bad here I would actually support a sales tax - if it went along with cuts to spending as well.  He do have the highest per-capita spending, along with the only province without a sales tax.  Maybe then we could actually forecast an end to deficits.

Notley's NDP however I'm pretty sure would just use it as a reason to increase spending further.

[Barrister]

Really?  I thought you had one that was abolished under Ralph Klein.  My bad, then

Nope.

SOme quick googling suggests Alberta briefly had one in the 30s, but that's been it.  No sales tax in the last 80 years.

[viper37]

Jean Lapierre has been confirmed dead in a plane crash on Magdelen Islands

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/29/small-plane-crashes-in-iles-de-la-madeleine-just-off-eastern-quebec.html

EDIT: two of his brothers and and one of his sisters were among the dead.

[Valmy]

Small planes sure seem to kill alot of people.