[andyt]

It's easy. Just cut all that government waste, the rich pay and benefits the the politicians and government workers get and we'd have plenty of money for all the programs we want while still paying very little in taxes. Just make sure not to give any govt money to those scummy poor people and their children, but instead give it to the struggling middle class. Electronic pacifiers, new F150's and trips to Cancun aren't cheap, you know. /sarcasm

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

It's easy. Just cut all that government waste, the rich pay and benefits the the politicians and government workers get and we'd have plenty of money for all the programs we want while still paying very little in taxes. Just make sure not to give any govt money to those scummy poor people and their children, but instead give it to the struggling middle class. Electronic pacifiers, new F150's and trips to Cancun aren't cheap, you know. /sarcasm

You really have a hate on for anyone who makes more than your "barista" wage don't you.

[andyt]

You mean I've been promoted? Kool.

[OnTheIce]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

And as for the whole debate over cutting taxes, I find it interesting that nobody ever seems to want to talk about what they might have to give up in terms of government services.

I touched on this in more detail in another thread, but governments fund all sorts of things we take for granted in our daily lives, and that benefit entrepreneurs and job-creators and ordinary citizens alike in many different ways.

One of the things that annoyed me most about Harper was the way he seemed to pretend we could have all the tax cuts and credits we wanted without ever having to give anything up in terms of services. I was baffled, for instance, as to how Harper planned to take the fight to ISIS and ISIL, implement income splitting and all the other tax benefits he was promising and pay down all the extra debt he'd accumulated, all without raising taxes, cutting frontline services, or taking on any more debt.

Conservative political projects like military strikes against the Middle Eastern terrorists-policies I strongly support, for the record-need to be paid for just like progressive projects, but I can't recall Harper ever seeming to realize this fact. Instead, we had Jim Flaherty bragging about how they didn't balance the budget on the backs of Canadians-which was a bald-faced lie. Even the phony "surplus" Harper seemed to deliver in his last year in office was only delivered by stealing from the EI and contingency funds, and selling the government's GM shares. When Joe Oliver was called out on it, all he could offer was the same "but the Liberals did it too!" crap.

This is exactly the point Alex Himmelfarb has been trying to make in Tax Is Not A Four Letter Word. Himmelfarb readily agrees that there are going to be screw-ups, ineptitude and waste in government, and when they come up, they need to be addressed. However, that overlooks everything else our taxes pay for that actually have a beneficial impact. Unfortunately, as Himmelfarb notes, tax cuts are treated almost as a "free lunch" whereby we can continue to have everything we've come to expect.

It wasn't always this way, mind you. 20 years ago, conservatives like Preston Manning, Mike Harris and Ralph Klein were blunt and up front with Canadians about what we'd have to do to balance the budget. They noted that we were going to have to give some things up, and the results wouldn't be pretty. Judge their policies and performances however you like, but they did have courage.

Unfortunately, Stephen Harper lacked that political courage-that was one of many disappointments for me during his premiership.

Harper raided EI? I think you have him confused with the Chretien/Martin Liberals.

Did government revenue increase or decrease during the Harper era?

[JaredMilne]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Harper raided EI? I think you have him confused with the Chretien/Martin Liberals.

Did government revenue increase or decrease during the Harper era?

*ahem*...

$1:

That hard work involved plucking money from the contingency fund—a $3-billion pot set aside in order to cushion any unexpected fluctuations at the end of the year, not the beginning. By removing two thirds of that fund in order to cover what would have otherwise been a deficit, Oliver is basically dipping into savings in order to turn a budget shortfall into a razor-thin surplus.

That's great news for Harper's re-election campaign, less-than-good-news if anything at all bad happens to Canada's economy.

Taking the $2 billion from the contingency fund would not actually cover the deficit by itself, however. Even with the amount raised by selling-off the GM shares, as they announced earlier in the month.

To get themselves over the line, the Conservatives had to dip into the Employment Insurance (EI) fund.

The accounting trick, a favourite of former Liberal governments, involves grabbing surpluses created by EI premiums and using them to cover costs. Generally, in times of high unemployment, the EI account goes into deficit and rates, which are taken off workers' paychecks, may go up. Then, when times are good, the higher premiums mean huge surpluses for the program. The Conservatives had long been critical of governments using that money for anything other than paying down the premiums. They even introduced changes that required the government to run the EI system on a break-even basis.

Except, those changes haven't taken effect yet. So, in the meantime, Ottawa can break open the EI piggy bank to get to the politically-opportune promised land of a balanced budget.

When VICE asked Oliver how he could justify raiding the EI fund, he said that Ottawa didn't need it to balance the budget. And, besides, Oliver said, their decision to pluck cash from the EI fund was nothing "compared to the Liberals."

[OnTheIce]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

*ahem*...

Yawn.

I do appreciate the Liberal exaggeration about the 'raiding' of a fund that's fully funded. Liberals always have a problem with how Conservatives balance a budget and vise-versa.

[Jin-Gitaxias]

My main problem with Stephen Harper is the Tar Sands. We should be focusing on nuclear power.

https://www.xkcd.com/1162/
http://xkcd.com/radiation/

This whole debate between oil and renewable energy is pointless. What about uranium? Don't listen to hippies and luddites. Nuclear Power is safe.

[Sunnyways]

Harper was a continuation of Chretien, really. He didn't deviate too much from that playbook other than on a few style points for the base. We saw yet more control from the PMO over the legislature. On the economy, he wasn't too bad.