babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Fiscal Responsibility: a Conservative myth?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Fiscal Responsibility: a Conservative myth?
Shibboleth
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4954

posted 01 June 2004 06:57 PM      Profile for Shibboleth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP website is reporting that the Conservatives have the least conservative platform with an estimated 89 billion dollar price tag. About 28 billion more expensive than the NDP's and 44 billion than the liberals. The claim just doesn't seem to mesh. Any truth to this?

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: Shibboleth ]

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: Shibboleth ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
BugBear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3379

posted 01 June 2004 07:05 PM      Profile for BugBear   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yep. It's the usual mix of VooDoo economics. Tax breks for the rich and more guns.
From: 2nd London Tractor Factory | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Shibboleth
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4954

posted 01 June 2004 07:07 PM      Profile for Shibboleth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
wierd...
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 01 June 2004 07:12 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not only is it true, you can read it in the Globe and Mail!

http://tinyurl.com/26xgr

Ottawa, Quinte West, Ont. — The cost of the Conservative election platform is soaring, after Leader Stephen Harper acknowledged yesterday that his party's plan for bolstering Canada's military would cost billions more than the $1.6-billion laid out in the party handbook.

The platform is expected to add up to a total of $88-billion over four years, Conservatives say, but that doesn't include the unbudgeted costs of meeting Mr. Harper's long-term military goals.


Yesterday's announcement adds billions to the ballooning price tag already attached to the Conservative platform.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 01 June 2004 07:16 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
Makes sense

It is a "NET" cost, so it includes the lost revenue from the tax cuts.

Then figure the cost of his military spending, all those new jails and screws, the abortion dissuaders, er, counsellors, .... well, it adds up.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 01 June 2004 07:58 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah the Conservatives are proposing a mix of huge personal tax cuts, and investment in the military, law and order, healther care ect, and a balanced budget. Clearly an unrealistic platform.

I read that the Liberal platform is counting on budget surpluses totaling 40 Billion dollars over the next five years(they always lowball the surpluses it seems), the NDP is counting of 60 Billion dollars, and the Conservatives 90 Billion dollars.

There is no way the Conservatives can keep all their promises without running a deficit. No way.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 01 June 2004 08:04 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When the NDP platform was released, the headline in the Edmonton Journal stated $80 or $90M. I guess this is the "gross" rather than the "net cost", i.e. the cost of the new spending without subtracting the new revenues. It will be interesting to see how the CanWest papers spin the Conservatives platform costs.

Also, I wonder when Shane, sir_springer, dark_blue and Oatmeal will be along to criticize the fiscal irresponsibility of the Cons.


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 01 June 2004 09:13 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you really think the Cons plan is that "fiscally" irresponsible? I don't. To think the Cons plans add a net 88 billion is to believe them when they say they won't gut social programs. I accept they will buy all those guns and cut taxes. This works just fine when you recognize what you know they will really do to social programs.

No, they are not that bad at managing the money. The are just liars about suddenly being in favour of public health and education. As soon as you recognize that, their numbers balance just fine.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 01 June 2004 09:16 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shibboleth:
Would you mind editing the title of your thread to be more descriptive?
The extra threads are not as much of a problem as the people who use teaser-like headlines or non-descriptive headlines. People should be able to know pretty much where the thread is going from the headline and be able to decide if they want to go there. Otherwise, the creation of the thread is actually a tad destructive.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 01 June 2004 09:23 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow -- that is better! That is a great headline! You should offer it -- free -- to our friends in the media.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 01 June 2004 09:30 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
No, they are not that bad at managing the money.

What right-wing government has been good at managing money? Mulroney, Harris/Eves, Devine, VanderZalm, Campbell, Reagan/Bush I, Bush II? They've been cheered by the neo-con and neo-lib media for their financial genius in cutting social spending, but they all left office with lots of red ink in the books.

The only right-wing government that has been able to balance the books consistently is the Klein government; but then my German Shepherd could balance the books in Alberta while providing better public services than Klein.


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 01 June 2004 09:51 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
MacD: sorry but I don't think you get my point. The Cons are good at this. They do it on purpose.
Let me make this really clear: if the government was not in the red, the people would demand social programs the Cons are philosophically against. The only way to stop them is to remove the economic ability from governments to deliver and the tool to do that is tax cuts. The Liberals are incompetant but the Cons are doing exactly what they intend. The legacy of a Con government is low taxes and a broke government unable to deliver anything but the big military they want to have.

If you want to know what people intended just look at the result and see who benefits. This is why the Cons in Ontario brought in all that tax legislation because they knew the government could not afford any of the things they were against unless taxes were raised. They wanted to make raising taxes as painful as possible politically and keep the goverenemnt chronically broke.

Now do you get it? This is not incompetence it is design!


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Shibboleth
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4954

posted 01 June 2004 09:53 PM      Profile for Shibboleth     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think, too often, several concepts get confused (or, in a scary alternative, not confused but the lines are consciously blurred) by the electorate. The governments that are percieved to be the best money managers are the ones who leave the population with the most money untouched.

"Whoever doesn't take my money can handle it the best." That certainly says something about a cynicsm in our society, and a lack of trust. And, I guess, there is no reason for me to be surprised. It seems only natural that people will wish to hold government at arms length when every single day we hear about government mis-management, mis-spending, mistakes....when every single day we hear about government failures.

We trust those who we give nothing of value to.

It's too bad.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 01 June 2004 09:57 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay. I was interpreting "bad" in terms of the consequences. If we look at intent instead, I agree with you.
From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 01 June 2004 09:59 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry to continue:

But look at the United States. The republicans cannot run a surplus. If they did they would be forced to bring in a national health program. They NEED to keep this option unaffordable as that is the only argument that keeps Americans opposed to it since they all know they need it.

The right always says tax cuts are a mark of good management. They rely on that argument.

To that end, the Liberals do actually believe in spending some public money. That is why they would run a surplus in order to make that possible. NDP governments desperately try to run surpluses for the same reason. We want to do something positive with the money and want to fight arguments that the programs cannot be afforded.

In the end Conservatives will screw up the economy but it is not because they are stupid or incompetent. It is because they are trying to deny the public spending the people otherwise would demand.

Now look at any right wing government and you will see, no matter how good thngs get economically they will always keep the government books in trouble in order to avoid social programs. If they got a pile of free money and had no more taxes to cut, they would build the biggest Army you can imagine just to get rid of the money.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 01 June 2004 10:00 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Think we gotta start labelling Harpoon the "$90 billion man"...see if it "sticks"
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 01 June 2004 10:03 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's a good idea -- e-mail head office!
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
mkwb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5939

posted 01 June 2004 10:57 PM      Profile for mkwb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jeesh people. Go back to college and take Macroeconomics 101.

Lower taxes, higher spending in key areas, = more disposable income for corporations and workers, creating a sustainable economic growth which produces a more healthy economy.

But I guess most NDP supporters are former Liberal Arts students in College and didn't take any useful courses which would benefit their point of view in this area of fiscal policy.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 01 June 2004 11:02 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
Uh, I teach Macroeconomics 101. Available evidence suggests that the fiscal multiplier is pretty close to 1. Decreased taxes and increased spending means deficits.

And as Mme Cromwell says to our boys on occasion, change ton attitude.

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 01 June 2004 11:02 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mkwb:

But I guess most NDP supporters are former Liberal Arts students in College and didn't take any useful courses which would benefit their point of view in this area of fiscal policy.

**PLONK**


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 June 2004 11:06 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And as Mme Cromwell says to our boys on occasion, change ton attitude.

Does she follow it with...ou be'donc, t'en mangeras une bonne?

Just wondering.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 01 June 2004 11:08 PM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mkwb:
But I guess most NDP supporters are former Liberal Arts students in College and didn't take any useful courses which would benefit their point of view in this area of fiscal policy.

That "Edit/Delete Post" button, how it taunts me with its promise of omnipotence, then mocks me with its inability to edit the posts of others.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 01 June 2004 11:20 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

Does she follow it with...ou be'donc, t'en mangeras une bonne?


No, she leaves the threat unspecified. But if you've ever been on the receiving end of a tirade from an angry French-Canadian mother (and I know that we both have had some experience there ), the last thing you'd want to do is provoke her further by asking et sinon?.

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265

posted 01 June 2004 11:25 PM      Profile for Dr. Mr. Ben   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
Uh, I teach Macroeconomics 101. Available evidence suggests that the fiscal multiplier is pretty close to 1. Decreased taxes and increased spending means deficits.

I am on the last train to lolsville. Way to hand it to him, Oliver.


From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
mkwb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5939

posted 01 June 2004 11:26 PM      Profile for mkwb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oliver,

I am assumming the the money they are planning on spending is only a redistribution of wealth.

Considering the Gov't spends over 19 billion on subsidies and grants for business's, explain to me how sustainable growth due from tax breaks is not more beneficial than subsidised industry? I assume you understand the constraints gov't subsidies creates in a market economy.

If the Torys redistribute that 19 billion dollars into key investments - which will directly stimulate the private sector - and concurrently decrease the taxes of these companies a considerable amount this leaves them with more income.

Consequently, an economy which relies more on private sector stimulation rather than gov't stimulation is formed.

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: mkwb ]


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 June 2004 11:28 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Man, that corporate welfare goes up 5 billion everytime it's referenced. Damn guvmint.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mkwb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5939

posted 01 June 2004 11:33 PM      Profile for mkwb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you'd rather the government just give the Taxpayers money to the Corporations via subsidies or would you at least like to see them earn it through free enterprise??


Hinterland:

Resource conservation and industrial development:

16.2 billion


Sidenote: Social Services Expenditures for 2003:

145.3 BILLION.

*Source : Stats Canada

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: mkwb ]


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 June 2004 11:35 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I hope you're not talking to me. I don't talk to lippy little newcomers who come charging in insulting everyone and being snotty.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 01 June 2004 11:36 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
I want to know where that $19b number came from.

Here's the 2003 Public Accounts. The summary is on page 1.9 (the 15th page of the file).

More detailed breakdowns are available here.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
mkwb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5939

posted 01 June 2004 11:42 PM      Profile for mkwb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
I hope you're not talking to me. I don't talk to lippy little newcomers who come charging in insulting everyone and being snotty.


Not being a socialist is not snotty my friend.


Oliver: Thanks for the info. I've been looking for that page.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
mkwb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5939

posted 01 June 2004 11:44 PM      Profile for mkwb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland:

Though you never answered the question I asked.

[ 01 June 2004: Message edited by: mkwb ]


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 June 2004 11:47 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I know.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mkwb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5939

posted 01 June 2004 11:56 PM      Profile for mkwb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I assume you dont have one then?


Figures.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 01 June 2004 11:57 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mkwb:

Social Services Expenditures for 2003:

145.3 BILLION.

*Source : Stats Canada


I don't know where you got that number from, but total federal programme spending in 2003 was $146b. I'm pretty sure that they spent rather more than $700,000 on things other than social programmes. Hell, they spent $11b on national defence alone.

Or is that a social service expenditure?


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 01 June 2004 11:58 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
I took economics 101 and 102. (I think.)

Seems to me though, that conservatives' "tax-cuts" have also req'd layoffs and cuts to lower levels of gov't, and increased debt usually.

How this translates into more money into the economy escapes me.

mkwd (or whatever), conservative parties generally have shitty economic records, conservative "intellectuals" generally produce crap, and neo-liberal economic policies have produced far more harm than good over the past 25 years. I'd say a little humility would be in order.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Art J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2259

posted 01 June 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for Art J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Government subsidy to business or a tax cuts below certain rates for business amount to the same thing; they`re both subsidies. Direct subsidies are only more focused in their effect.
From: British Columbia Inc. - Let us Prey | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
mkwb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5939

posted 02 June 2004 12:03 AM      Profile for mkwb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:

I don't know where you got that number from, but total federal programme spending in 2003 was $146b. I'm pretty sure that they spent rather more than $700,000 on things other than social programmes. Hell, they spent $11b on national defence alone.

Or is that a social service expenditure?



Oliver;

I took this stat right off the 2003 Expenditures chart from stats Canada.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/govt48b.htm

And yes, it is the total Social Services expenditure.

What are your views on the 40$ Billion surplus in the EI fund? Furthermore, do you think its fair that the Liberals have used OUR money to balance the books and create these surpluses??


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Art J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2259

posted 02 June 2004 12:07 AM      Profile for Art J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...conservative parties generally have shitty economic records, conservative "intellectuals" generally produce crap, and neo-liberal economic policies have produced far more harm than good over the past 25 years. I'd say a little humility would be in order.

Absolutely, true. Supply side economics, or trickle down economics as it`s often known, has failed in nearly every instance that it`s been tried. As far as I know the only way it can appear to succeed is if the country or province or region in question has vast amounts of oil resources very close to the surface and in large amounts, just waiting to be exploited.

[ 02 June 2004: Message edited by: Art J ]


From: British Columbia Inc. - Let us Prey | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 June 2004 12:09 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What fascinates me is how Martin can't stay on message. One day he's saying Harper is a scary right-winger. The next day he's attacking Harper for "making fairytale promises in areas like defence that would push Ottawa into the red." So I guess Martin is the real fiscal conservative right-winger. Oops.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Art J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2259

posted 02 June 2004 12:23 AM      Profile for Art J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I took this stat right off the 2003 Expenditures chart from stats Canada.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/govt48b.htm

And yes, it is the total Social Services expenditure.


That's *consolidated* revenues and expenditures, which means it includes federal, provincial, and local governments.


From: British Columbia Inc. - Let us Prey | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 June 2004 12:50 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Haw, haw, haw . Let's see the "Torys" redistribute that 19 bill..er 16.3 billion (...do I hear higher? lower?).

...oy, I think someone must have gone to Athabasca U.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mkwb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5939

posted 02 June 2004 02:00 AM      Profile for mkwb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes I realize its the total consolidated Expenditure. But, you must realize that federal transfer payments supplement this fund (Resource Development) and are distributed through the federal jurisdiction.

Therefore, the Federal government does administer this consolidated account and does have the power over its debits and credits.

Futhermore, the intial 19 billion dollar figure was quoted from a Liberal candidate.

quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

...oy, I think someone must have gone to Athabasca U.



Hinterland: The Universities I attended where I gained my undergrad and graduate degrees are far more reputable than Athabasca U.

FInally, Hinterland, unless you can come up with a 'educated' argument to my initial question dont bother replying on this thread as your pitiful arguments are useless.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
King Ralph
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5941

posted 02 June 2004 02:52 AM      Profile for King Ralph   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Absolutely, true. Supply side economics, or trickle down economics as it`s often known, has failed in nearly every instance that it`s been tried. As far as I know the only way it can appear to succeed is if the country or province or region in question has vast amounts of oil resources very close to the surface and in large amounts, just waiting to be exploited.

Ok so that eliminates Alberta as an example to the opposite. However if you take a look at the NEP you will see that over taxing the region had a devestating effect. So Oil industry or lumber industry it doesnt matter, the lower the taxes the healtheir the economy. Alberta is one huge example, we have low taxes no pst and pherhaps the best health care system in the country. We have amongst the highest paid doctors nurse and teachers, and on top of this we fuel all the social progams put in place federally. So to critique the conservative economic policy is ridiculous when I see that most people in here are NDP supporters. Last time i checked the NDP's track record in gov't provincially was absolutely terrible. BC for example is still trying to recover.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 02 June 2004 04:00 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, those balanced budgets the NDP left behind were such a burden that Gordon Campbell had no choice but to turn them into the biggest deficits in BC history. And turn BC into a have-not province for the first time.

I hate when that happens.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 02 June 2004 04:33 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any dispassionate observer would clearly see that, for all its faults, the BCNDP ran the province far better, fiscally and otherwise, than the right-wing So-Creds who came before and the right-wing BCLiberals (who are pretty much the same crowd) who are currently running it into the ground.

quote:
FInally, Hinterland, unless you can come up with a 'educated' argument to my initial question dont bother replying on this thread as your pitiful arguments are useless.

Hinterland isn't arguing with you, buddy, he's just taunting you. Can't you tell the difference?

Now, suppose one of you geniuses could provide an example of a fiscally responsible right-wing government? I'd like to hear about it.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 07:55 AM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are you picking on Athabasca U? It's a world leader in distance education. It's not their fault if they had give Ralph good grades, the man could snuff out their existance in a second. If you actually look at the courses offered, their a more left leaning university. Plus he also seemed to have black mailed the University of Alberta into an embarrassing letter of some sort too, I don't see anyone dissing the University of Alberta.
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 07:56 AM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are you picking on Athabasca U? It's a world leader in distance education. It's not their fault if they had give Ralph good grades, the man could snuff out their existance in a second. If you actually look at the courses offered, their a more left leaning university. Plus he also seemed to have black mailed the University of Alberta into an embarrassing letter of some sort too, I don't see anyone dissing the University of Alberta.
From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 June 2004 09:57 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mkwb:
Considering the Gov't spends over 19 billion on subsidies and grants for business's

I think we had that chat about the $15-19 billion corporate welfare myth already. There's just no way the feds are giving up that much in outright subsidies. Maybe in tax expenditures and subsidies combined, but not in direct subsidies.

And in any case the NDP would like to raise corporate income taxes if feasible, which would likely mean wiping out many tax expenditures anyway.

PS. to OCromwell and Hinterland: I would not like to eat my hat.

[ 02 June 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 02 June 2004 01:48 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I hope you're not talking to me. I don't talk to lippy little newcomers who come charging in insulting everyone and being snotty.

Thanks pal, I had to wipe jello off my monitor after that one!


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5061

posted 02 June 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for Fester        Edit/Delete Post
It gets worse?

Harper launches HMCS KA-CHING!
OTTAWA – As if his calls to join George Bush's inter-galactic Star Wars space adventure weren't bad enough, now Stephen Harper's defence plan says a Conservative government would “procure at least two hybrid [aircraft] carriers.”

And how much would that cost?

A lot.

Just ask the United Kingdom , who is waiting delivery of two carriers from defence contractor BAE Systems. When the British Ministry of Defence first announced the contract in January 2003, the cost was estimated at £2.9 billion. Less than six months later, the cost ballooned to £4 billion.

That converts to 9.2 billion loonies — about twice the four-year military budget increase Harper announced in Trenton , Ont. on Monday.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
add 9.2 billion to Harpers total for two hybrid aircraft carriers. That I believe is in addition to military funding he promised on monday, which is above what he promised in his platform.

This guy is nuts, there is no way in hell he'll survive the debate, the man has lost his freaking mind!


From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 June 2004 01:58 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jesus! Boy, did I low-ball that estimate of $1.5 billion in the other thread.

$10 billion for two aircraft carriers is nuts. Harper would have to steal the entire EI fund to avoid torching education and health care, and he'd probably get away with it, too.

[ 02 June 2004: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rev. Phoenix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5140

posted 02 June 2004 01:59 PM      Profile for Rev. Phoenix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rev. Phoenix:
add 9.2 billion to Harpers total for two hybrid aircraft carriers. That I believe is in addition to military funding he promised on monday, which is above what he promised in his platform.

This guy is nuts, there is no way in hell he'll survive the debate, the man has lost his freaking mind!

I see fester beat me to it



From: Bradford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 02 June 2004 07:57 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
RE: King Ralph and the NEP,

I'd be curious to know the methodology of that study.
It doesn't seem to me that Alberta (and hence, Ottawa's finances) were too devastated by anything so that it's affected transfer payments to the other provinces.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
simonvallee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5141

posted 02 June 2004 08:26 PM      Profile for simonvallee   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Government subsidy to business or a tax cuts below certain rates for business amount to the same thing; they`re both subsidies. Direct subsidies are only more focused in their effect.

No, there is a difference.

Government subsidies, if well used, can help stimulate the competition between enterprises in the same sector by helping financially new struggling companies. It can help avoid the self-destructing cycle of a free market economy, where a leading company continues to further its lead on others, reducing competition to naught and becoming a partical monopoly, which is never good (except public monopolies who have been known to bring good revenue and good services, see Hydro-Québec).

However, tax cuts will benefit those companies who make a lot of profits already, giving them even more strength to face the young competition.


This is why I'm not opposed to some "corporate welfare", it helps control a little more the economy to insure that companies are forced by competition to answer people's needs. But when the government helps big companies who make dozens or hundreds of millions in profits, I find it ridiculous.


From: Boucherville, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Liberaler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5674

posted 02 June 2004 08:34 PM      Profile for Liberaler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper wants to impose tax cuts for Canada. We have seen what tax cuts have done to Ontario. I am sure you guys don't want to see the same for our country. Tax cuts don't work. Look at the United States, years of tax cuts have led to massive debts for the States. And I am pretty sure us Canadians don't want the same thing to happen here. I know I back the Liberals, but do you guys agree?
From: Toronto Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kinetix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5296

posted 02 June 2004 09:07 PM      Profile for Kinetix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Liberaler:
Harper wants to impose tax cuts for Canada. We have seen what tax cuts have done to Ontario. I am sure you guys don't want to see the same for our country. Tax cuts don't work. Look at the United States, years of tax cuts have led to massive debts for the States. And I am pretty sure us Canadians don't want the same thing to happen here. I know I back the Liberals, but do you guys agree?

noroma, is that you?


From: Montréal, Québec | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Liberaler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5674

posted 02 June 2004 09:24 PM      Profile for Liberaler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kinetix:

noroma, is that you?



No Who is Noroma?


From: Toronto Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 June 2004 09:28 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was thinking Dini, personally.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
steam.machine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4916

posted 03 June 2004 04:06 AM      Profile for steam.machine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have to agree with Sean on the Conservative methodology of keeping governments broke. I remember Grant Devine's right hand man Eric Bernston tell a reporter one time that they were gonna make it very difficult for the NDP in Saskatchewan to govern in the future, provided they ever got back into power.

He wasn't kidding...we all know what Romanow had to do to clean up the Tory mess. That wasn't due to just sheer incompetence of the Devine crew as the Fraud Scandal clearly showed!


From: Calgary | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 03 June 2004 07:22 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rev. Phoenix:
add 9.2 billion to Harpers total for two hybrid aircraft carriers.

We need Rick Mercer to be asking the most important question of the campaign:

Just how small is Stephen Harper's penis?

Or even Warren Kinsella to go on Canada AM with a chart showing how much longer an aircraft carrier is than a Porsche.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
mkwb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5939

posted 08 June 2004 04:40 PM      Profile for mkwb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Newbie:

We need Rick Mercer to be asking the most important question of the campaign:

Just how small is Stephen Harper's penis?

Or even Warren Kinsella to go on Canada AM with a chart showing how much longer an aircraft carrier is than a Porsche.


HAHA!! That is a good one.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca