No matter how you add it up, Harper’s fiscal record is a catastrophe

[Webster6]

I really don't know if a consumer based economy is possible to balance the budget of. Throw in a faith driven fiat currency created by wire transactions built to manufacture debt.

All that's really ever done is stimulus packages and the works to kick the can down the road to the next sucker put up to figure head the "change" campaign.

The only things I could see changing much are to 1. Eliminate the legality of central banking practices, and 2. Go back to having a precious metal backed currency.

Then maybe we can talk about balancing the budget, but until then I really don't think much can be done. Things are getting exponentially worse and steps are being taken that incrementally make things better. 1 step forward 5 steps back.

[Lancaster]

Do you have anything to support that? I would be interested in reading more on commodity prices supporting Canada's economy during the crisis.

I agree that the government doesn't control the economy. They (CPC) do have some effect, however, so they're not blameless. And I will continue to put emphasis on their economic stewardship (or lack thereof) so long as they continue to play up their supposed economic achievements.

Canada's tax rates aren't that much behind Scandinavian nations and Finland. Yet they have very strong social programs and supports in place. It's misrepresenting the reality when you say it's either between being "taxed mightily" to fund social programs being taxed less and having all these freedoms. I don't understand how moving something from a national scale down to local should save anyone money. Anyone not filthy rich, that is.

What we should be doing is moving our social programs into the 21st century.

I'm of the opinion that the NDP should come out with radical (by Canadian standards) policies that will see Canada explore guaranteed income, complete electoral reform (NDP is the only party supporting the recommendations by the Law Society of Canada), heavy subsidies to green energy projects boost the tech sector, including nation-wide gigabit internet infrastructure (and I wouldn't mind making all infrastructure public and having telecoms be service providers only), nuclear power development, expansive infrastructure funding coast to coast, etc.. Canada will continue to lag with status quo, and status quo has been the name of the gave more 50 years. We're not getting better.

As for commodity prices. I don't have the exact sources, but just look at Alberta now with low oil prices and what it was just a few years ago.... massive surpluses to now deficits. The federal government cashes in on those too. From beginning of the financial crisis, oil was about 50-60 bucks.... it averages out to around 80-90 up until recently. Wiki says oil, gas, mining makes up about 9% of GDP, but I don't have the trend chart on that. Not really keen on doing an actual financial analysis/breakdown just for a forum thread, but just a simple search and you know that commodities plays a huge role for Canada as an export nation.

Our taxation rate is about the same, but how often do we hear the mantra that more taxes are needed or maybe the rich needs to pay their "fair share"? Apparently a lot of folks believe that we aren't taxed enough currently. Should those people get what they want, we will be "taxed mightily".

Money needs to be allocated properly and efficiently, something we can all agree on, but I doubt it can be done without ruffling some feathers. I can't remember which European country, but they have universal healthcare, but they have like a voucher system where people can bring their "business" to any health care hospital/clinic/etc. Those medical facilities are run and operated like a private entity where profitability and service levels are rewarded (staffs given bonuses).

[Canada Hockey Place]

Catastrophe for whom?

American Oil companies, nope.

Chinese Oil companies, nope.

Cameco selling Uranium to the world's #1 weapons importer, nope.

General Dynamics selling armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, nope.

As long as you're in the oil or weapons, you're OK. The rest of us just made poor career choices or have a conscience depending on POV.

[Lockout Casualty]

As for commodity prices. I don't have the exact sources, but just look at Alberta now with low oil prices and what it was just a few years ago.... massive surpluses to now deficits. The federal government cashes in on those too. From beginning of the financial crisis, oil was about 50-60 bucks.... it averages out to around 80-90 up until recently. Wiki says oil, gas, mining makes up about 9% of GDP, but I don't have the trend chart on that. Not really keen on doing an actual financial analysis/breakdown just for a forum thread, but just a simple search and you know that commodities plays a huge role for Canada as an export nation.

Our taxation rate is about the same, but how often do we hear the mantra that more taxes are needed or maybe the rich needs to pay their "fair share"? Apparently a lot of folks believe that we aren't taxed enough currently. Should those people get what they want, we will be "taxed mightily".

Money needs to be allocated properly and efficiently, something we can all agree on, but I doubt it can be done without ruffling some feathers. I can't remember which European country, but they have universal healthcare, but they have like a voucher system where people can bring their "business" to any health care hospital/clinic/etc. Those medical facilities are run and operated like a private entity where profitability and service levels are rewarded (staffs given bonuses).

So I'll take that as no, you don't have any basis for your claim.

If you understand what's happening right now, you realize that the oil prices aren't an an actual huge national issue, especially compared to the dwindling manufacturing sector.

The issue is political for the CPC, because they took a 14 billion surplus, turned it into a nearly 6 billion deficit without actually having anything to show for it. They've cut GST by 2% costing us some 10+ billion per year, have been promising a balanced budget for years, could have had it balanced last year, instead decided to time it with the election this year (talk about politicizing the budget), didn't foresee the prices crumbling, and ended up having to dig themselves out of the hole with a shovel they themselves broke to get elected. Ergo, we have a delayed budget, the selling of assets at a loss (in the billions), pointless balanced budget legislation meant to appeal to simpletons who don't understand Parliament can't bind future Parliaments, and a general sense of panic from those who think that a balanced budget is the be-all, end-all of financial policy, it's not.

It's interesting how our taxation rate is nearly the same, after nine years of Conservatives, last four being majority, isn't it? Well, at least the size of the government bureaucracy has grown, including Harper's communications staff. You're delusional if you think the CPC is doing anything of the sort that you want them to. You're being paid lip service while the government won't even give you the courtesy of a reach around as you take it from behind. You want to make choices for yourself? Why don't you start with the easy ones, like why is marijuana illegal and pot growers have faced harsher punishments under the Harper regime, when it's been shown legalization doesn't cause the end of society as we know it.

This government isn't just mis-allocating funds to continue being in power, but it's doing so by ruffling the feathers of 60% of this country. It's an ideologically driven regime that is not concerned with the long term vision for Canada. It only sees as far as the next election.

At least with the Duffy trial, maybe they won't be using senators for partisan CPC activities anymore. (Thanks Duffy for keeping such detailed diary of your CPC fundraising activities that were billed to the tax payers!)

LOL! I was going to source every claim in this post to contrast yet another baseless and wrong post by Lancaster, but got carried away.

[Mustapha]

So I'll take that as no, you don't have any basis for your claim.

If you understand what's happening right now, you realize that the oil prices aren't an an actual huge national issue, especially compared to the dwindling manufacturing sector.

The issue is political for the CPC, because they took a 14 billion surplus, turned it into a nearly 6 billion deficit without actually having anything to show for it. They've cut GST by 2% costing us some 10+ billion per year, have been promising a balanced budget for years, could have had it balanced last year, instead decided to time it with the election this year (talk about politicizing the budget), didn't foresee the prices crumbling, and ended up having to dig themselves out of the hole with a shovel they themselves broke to get elected. Ergo, we have a delayed budget, the selling of assets at a loss (in the billions), pointless balanced budget legislation meant to appeal to simpletons who don't understand Parliament can't bind future Parliaments, and a general sense of panic from those who think that a balanced budget is the be-all, end-all of financial policy, it's not.

It's interesting how our taxation rate is nearly the same, after nine years of Conservatives, last four being majority, isn't it? Well, at least the size of the government bureaucracy has grown, including Harper's communications staff. You're delusional if you think the CPC is doing anything of the sort that you want them to. You're being paid lip service while the government won't even give you the courtesy of a reach around as you take it from behind. You want to make choices for yourself? Why don't you start with the easy ones, like why is marijuana illegal and pot growers have faced harsher punishments under the Harper regime, when it's been shown legalization doesn't cause the end of society as we know it.

This government isn't just mis-allocating funds to continue being in power, but it's doing so by ruffling the feathers of 60% of this country. It's an ideologically driven regime that is not concerned with the long term vision for Canada. It only sees as far as the next election.

At least with the Duffy trial, maybe they won't be using senators for partisan CPC activities anymore. (Thanks Duffy for keeping such detailed diary of your CPC fundraising activities that were billed to the tax payers!)

LOL! I was going to source every claim in this post to contrast yet another baseless and wrong post by Lancaster, but got carried away.

[Lockout Casualty]

YES! Internet recognition from strangers. My life is complete!

I'm number one! I'm number one!

[Mr.DirtyDangles]

Catastrophe for whom?

American Oil companies, nope.

Chinese Oil companies, nope.

Cameco selling Uranium to the world's #1 weapons importer, nope.

General Dynamics selling armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, nope.

As long as you're in the oil or weapons, you're OK. The rest of us just made poor career choices or have a conscience depending on POV.

Truth is a cold hearted bi....

[taxi]

Anyone trying to blame the budget deficit in 2009 on any particular political party needs to do some homework. What happened in 2009 was bigger than any single party in Canada. I honestly have no problem with any government running a deficit between 2009 and now.

The focus should be on whether Harper was indeed trying to de-regulate the banking and housing sectors. That shows much poorer judgment.

I would be inclined to vote for a party that ran on a promise to do something about the current price of real estate. It's out of hand, and the government needs to put in regulations to prevent foreign investment. This is Canada's most pressing issue. What good is improving other aspects of the economy, if Canadians cannot afford a place to live.

[otherwise]

Does anyone know of a conservative government in say the last 40 years that hasn't blown a surplus and gone into deficit?

[Russ]

Do you have anything to support that? I would be interested in reading more on commodity prices supporting Canada's economy during the crisis.

I agree that the government doesn't control the economy. They (CPC) do have some effect, however, so they're not blameless. And I will continue to put emphasis on their economic stewardship (or lack thereof) so long as they continue to play up their supposed economic achievements.

Canada's tax rates aren't that much behind Scandinavian nations and Finland. Yet they have very strong social programs and supports in place. It's misrepresenting the reality when you say it's either between being "taxed mightily" to fund social programs being taxed less and having all these freedoms. I don't understand how moving something from a national scale down to local should save anyone money. Anyone not filthy rich, that is.

What we should be doing is moving our social programs into the 21st century.

I'm of the opinion that the NDP should come out with radical (by Canadian standards) policies that will see Canada explore guaranteed income, complete electoral reform (NDP is the only party supporting the recommendations by the Law Society of Canada), heavy subsidies to green energy projects boost the tech sector, including nation-wide gigabit internet infrastructure (and I wouldn't mind making all infrastructure public and having telecoms be service providers only), nuclear power development, expansive infrastructure funding coast to coast, etc.. Canada will continue to lag with status quo, and status quo has been the name of the gave more 50 years. We're not getting better.

If only the NDP was stronger... Since Layton I don't feel they have a big enough voice to make a difference, its still going to be a 2 horse race going into the elections unfortunately.

[Hobble]

GO JETS GO!

[Lockout Casualty]

Anyone trying to blame the budget deficit in 2009 on any particular political party needs to do some homework. What happened in 2009 was bigger than any single party in Canada. I honestly have no problem with any government running a deficit between 2009 and now.

The focus should be on whether Harper was indeed trying to de-regulate the banking and housing sectors. That shows much poorer judgment.

I would be inclined to vote for a party that ran on a promise to do something about the current price of real estate. It's out of hand, and the government needs to put in regulations to prevent foreign investment. This is Canada's most pressing issue. What good is improving other aspects of the economy, if Canadians cannot afford a place to live.

Would you point to anyone suggesting that the deficit from 2009 and thereafter was his fault?

It could be argued the budget could have been balanced last year, and it was delayed for partisan purposes, which would be entirely within character for this party and its leader.

Nobody seems to ask why we even need a surplus. It is obvious to me that any surplus this government is attempting to eek out while the economy is grinding to a halt is purely political, and meant to aid their chances of reelection.

I couldn't find any articles from the mid 2000s that dealt with their economic policy. Consider it hearsay. That said, there are many, many examples of why they are bad financial stewards. Playing politics with the country's budget is only a small part of it.

[taxi]

Would you point to anyone suggesting that the deficit from 2009 and thereafter was his fault?

It could be argued the budget could have been balanced last year, and it was delayed for partisan purposes, which would be entirely within character for this party and its leader.

Nobody seems to ask why we even need a surplus. It is obvious to me that any surplus this government is attempting to eek out while the economy is grinding to a halt is purely political, and meant to aid their chances of reelection.

I couldn't find any articles from the mid 2000s that dealt with their economic policy. Consider it hearsay. That said, there are many, many examples of why they are bad financial stewards. Playing politics with the country's budget is only a small part of it.

The issue with that line of reasoning is that the other major political party, the liberals, have a much worse history of corruption and nepotism. Anything the conservatives have done have paled in comparison to the administration before them. I think a lot of that would be forgotten if the Liberals could just put forward a descent candidate. The seemingly uninvolved academic Ignatieff was a huge blunder. Similarly, if you are trying to shed a reputation of nepotism, I do not see how putting forward Trudeau's son is a good move.

This is where I think the US really has an edge on us. They select leaders via a primary system. The parties in Canada only select leaders from within the inner circle of the party. We end up with a group of people with little real life experience who are generally not well received by the public. The only thing our system rewards is devotion to the party. As such, we never get a fresh face or idea.

Unfortunately, I think that we are likely to see more of Harper in the future. The alternatives cannot get their act together, and, honestly, it shouldn't be that challenging. I've yet to meet anyone who actually likes Harper. He is just bland, which is better than the negatives that the Liberals are putting forth.

[Lockout Casualty]

The issue with that line of reasoning is that the other major political party, the liberals, have a much worse history of corruption and nepotism. Anything the conservatives have done have paled in comparison to the administration before them. I think a lot of that would be forgotten if the Liberals could just put forward a descent candidate. The seemingly uninvolved academic Ignatieff was a huge blunder. Similarly, if you are trying to shed a reputation of nepotism, I do not see how putting forward Trudeau's son is a good move.

This is where I think the US really has an edge on us. They select leaders via a primary system. The parties in Canada only select leaders from within the inner circle of the party. We end up with a group of people with little real life experience who are generally not well received by the public. The only thing our system rewards is devotion to the party. As such, we never get a fresh face or idea.

Unfortunately, I think that we are likely to see more of Harper in the future. The alternatives cannot get their act together, and, honestly, it shouldn't be that challenging. I've yet to meet anyone who actually likes Harper. He is just bland, which is better than the negatives that the Liberals are putting forth.

Sounds like you're still hung up on the sponsorship scandal. And I can't do much but laugh at your suggestion that Conservatives haven't done anything comparable. I guess acting undemocratic at every opportunity, including not cooperating with the robocall investigation, moving to limit debate for sweeping bills, including C-51 which has faced tremendous opposition, to omnibus bills that were 500 pages long and eclipsed any omnibus legislation made by the previous government (right after complaining about omnibus bills by the Liberals, longest of which was ~80 pages) aren't huge issues. Contrast that to Liberals who did fully cooperate with their investigation and didn't try to shield their members from it. I'd rather a party that a decade ago recognized huge issues among its ranks and dealt with them, than a party that is controlled by the PM and operates in as much secrecy as possible. After all, if they're explaining themselves, they're losing.

Even if I were to accept such a premise, it overlooks the amount of patronage appointments Harper has made in his tenure. Failed MPs in the Senate come to mind, so does Duffy's ineligibility.

And what's the issue with Trudeau being chosen to lead the party? He took the party from third place into the lead in polls for over a year. Under his leadership, Liberals have a very real chance of forming government, and he's attracted plenty of strong candidates for the next election. And hey, didn't the Liberals hold an open nomination for leader, and let the whole country vote?

Liberals have electoral reform as part of their platform. As is, it's definitely very broken.

Lego Hair Harper isn't just bland. He's secretive, controlling, and ideological. I cringe every time the CPC picks on something Trudeau said, when the Conservative PM himself doesn't take more than three pre-screened questions once in a blue moon. I can only imagine the sort of stuff that would come out of Harper's mouth if he went off the cuff half as often. The man has a reputation for a strong political game, but I highly doubt his reputation as an intellectual one.

[taxi]

Sounds like you're still hung up on the sponsorship scandal. And I can't do much but laugh at your suggestion that Conservatives haven't done anything comparable. I guess acting undemocratic at every opportunity, including not cooperating with the robocall investigation, moving to limit debate for sweeping bills, including C-51 which has faced tremendous opposition, to omnibus bills that were 500 pages long and eclipsed any omnibus legislation made by the previous government (right after complaining about omnibus bills by the Liberals, longest of which was ~80 pages) aren't huge issues. Contrast that to Liberals who did fully cooperate with their investigation and didn't try to shield their members from it. I'd rather a party that a decade ago recognized huge issues among its ranks and dealt with them, than a party that is controlled by the PM and operates in as much secrecy as possible. After all, if they're explaining themselves, they're losing.

Even if I were to accept such a premise, it overlooks the amount of patronage appointments Harper has made in his tenure. Failed MPs in the Senate come to mind, so does Duffy's ineligibility.

And what's the issue with Trudeau being chosen to lead the party? He took the party from third place into the lead in polls for over a year. Under his leadership, Liberals have a very real chance of forming government, and he's attracted plenty of strong candidates for the next election. And hey, didn't the Liberals hold an open nomination for leader, and let the whole country vote?

Liberals have electoral reform as part of their platform. As is, it's definitely very broken.

Lego Hair Harper isn't just bland. He's secretive, controlling, and ideological. I cringe every time the CPC picks on something Trudeau said, when the Conservative PM himself doesn't take more than three pre-screened questions once in a blue moon. I can only imagine the sort of stuff that would come out of Harper's mouth if he went off the cuff half as often. The man has a reputation for a strong political game, but I highly doubt his reputation as an intellectual one.

We just look for different things in leaders obviously. I want a leader with real life experience, which Trudeau does not have. And great for Trudeau, leading the polls during a time when it doesn't matter. The Conservatives have now picked up steam and are back in 1st. Honestly, they couldn't have picked a more divisive candidate. You also have to keep in mind that polls have been historically skewed towards the Liberals, and Conservative parties in Canada almost always do better in the elections than the polls:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/from-pre-writ-polls-to-election-day-history-is-not-on-ignatieffs-side/article568546/

Honestly, it pretty ridiculous that the Liberals cannot get their act together. And no, I was in no way praising Harper. In fact, I think he should be a pushover if the LIberals could just find an actual leader.

[aGENT]

We just look for different things in leaders obviously. I want a leader with real life experience, which Trudeau does not have. And great for Trudeau, leading the polls during a time when it doesn't matter. The Conservatives have now picked up steam and are back in 1st. Honestly, they couldn't have picked a more divisive candidate. You also have to keep in mind that polls have been historically skewed towards the Liberals, and Conservative parties in Canada almost always do better in the elections than the polls:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/from-pre-writ-polls-to-election-day-history-is-not-on-ignatieffs-side/article568546/

Honestly, it pretty ridiculous that the Liberals cannot get their act together. And no, I was in no way praising Harper. In fact, I think he should be a pushover if the LIberals could just find an actual leader.

Quite frankly, the biggest problem with politics, is politicians. You should be voting for the least politically experienced candidates available to you!

[taxi]

Quite frankly, the biggest problem with politics, is politicians. You should be voting for the least politically experienced candidates available to you!

Honestly, that 's not a bad philosophy, which is why I like the US system. In Canada our candidates are all people who worked their way up through the party, and it's the party who decides who runs. in the US any person can declare themselves a candidate for X party, and it's the primaries that decide who runs. In the US you have people who've actually proven themselves as leaders and success stories outside of the political system running.

[Lockout Casualty]

We just look for different things in leaders obviously. I want a leader with real life experience, which Trudeau does not have. And great for Trudeau, leading the polls during a time when it doesn't matter. The Conservatives have now picked up steam and are back in 1st. Honestly, they couldn't have picked a more divisive candidate. You also have to keep in mind that polls have been historically skewed towards the Liberals, and Conservative parties in Canada almost always do better in the elections than the polls:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/from-pre-writ-polls-to-election-day-history-is-not-on-ignatieffs-side/article568546/

Honestly, it pretty ridiculous that the Liberals cannot get their act together. And no, I was in no way praising Harper. In fact, I think he should be a pushover if the LIberals could just find an actual leader.

Real life experience? I take it you're voting NDP?

Seriously though, Harper wasn't much more qualified. Aside from working in the mail room of an oil company his daddy worked at, he hasn't actually had a career in the private sector. Period. He's a career politician, and one of the best at it. Like JR said, that's not a good trait for a leader.

What did you expect to happen when the Liberals elected a new leader? What other sign of resurgence of the Liberal party can there be until we have an election? Polls are the closest thing to judging a party's position between elections, and he's held steady at the top for a year and a half. Sure, I wanted Garneu or I think it was Hall Findley to be leader, but at the end of the day, I don't think the best qualified candidate on paper is necessarily makes the best leader. Without Trudeau, I wouldn't put put it past the Liberals to stay where they were and have no shot at forming government this election. Trudeau single-handed pulled the Liberals to within contention.

And that's despite the CPC attack ads that did everything but tell the truth. Because you know, Trudeau wants to sell drugs to high school kids between weekly striptease shows in the HoC.

All things considered, I don't see how you can say the Libs didn't get their act together.

[taxi]

Real life experience? I take it you're voting NDP?

Seriously though, Harper wasn't much more qualified. Aside from working in the mail room of an oil company his daddy worked at, he hasn't actually had a career in the private sector. Period. He's a career politician, and one of the best at it. Like JR said, that's not a good trait for a leader.

What did you expect to happen when the Liberals elected a new leader? What other sign of resurgence of the Liberal party can there be until we have an election? Polls are the closest thing to judging a party's position between elections, and he's held steady at the top for a year and a half. Sure, I wanted Garneu or I think it was Hall Findley to be leader, but at the end of the day, I don't think the best qualified candidate on paper is necessarily makes the best leader. Without Trudeau, I wouldn't put put it past the Liberals to stay where they were and have no shot at forming government this election. Trudeau single-handed pulled the Liberals to within contention.

And that's despite the CPC attack ads that did everything but tell the truth. Because you know, Trudeau wants to sell drugs to high school kids between weekly striptease shows in the HoC.

All things considered, I don't see how you can say the Libs didn't get their act together.

Never said Harper was qualified either. And yes, life experience is important. You act like it's shocking that someone would prefer a self-made candidate with proven competence over some party crony.

[Lockout Casualty]

Never said Harper was qualified either. And yes, life experience is important. You act like it's shocking that someone would prefer a self-made candidate with proven competence over some party crony.

I wasn't expressing surprise, was just saying that life experience leaves Mulcair as the only viable option out of the big three. That said, Trudeau is still more qualified to be a national leader than Harper. He had plenty of exposure to real world leaders at 24 Sussex when his dad was PM.