[Regina]

I give up........

[Xort]

Primiers don't like it because it means they have to find their own money to pay for services.

Suck it up and raise taxes, or cut spending in other areas to free up money.

[Curtman]

Regina Regina:

I give up........

Alrighty.. I just don't think it's fair to get upset with BF, for CTV updating the article. When he posted the story, that was the title. If there's spin, it came from CTV, not him.

[bootlegga]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

No, Harper likely will be forced to do so too - the difference is he inherited a $14 BILLION surplus from the Liberals, unlike Chretien who inherited a $30+ BILLION deficit.

And Chretien didn't face a World-wide economic recession where every Nation was borrowing money to pump stimulus money to get the economy going again.

Really, I seem to recall the early 90s being a mild recession - who knows, maybe my memory ain't as good as it once was.

Even so, Chretien had to start from $30 billion in the hole - Harper already had a surplus.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Now, while he might still have gone into deficit, the deficit would be far smaller had he not eliminated in his first couple years in office. Apparently everyone in the world except for our supposed 'economist' PM could see the storm clouds on the horizon.

What did he eliminate in his first few years in office that would have lowered the deficit? I hope you're not referring to the surplus money.

2% off the GST, cuts to corporate taxes, etc - that took a $14 billion surplus and shrunk it to a billion or so.

Now, I'm not an economist, but what I remember from econ class was that sound economic policy is to stay in surplus UNTIL a recession hits, then you drop taxes and spend like a crazy person, you don't do that when the economy is booming.

Children often hear the same thing - "save for a rainy day".

Like I said, Harper apparently didn't learn very much while getting his Masters in Economics...so much for his 'expertise' in that area.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Then what did he do after the bubble burst - and while the US was mired in recession - he passed MORE tax cuts for corporations made a bad situation worse.

Frankly, he's done everything in his power to make a mess of our country's economics. Yes, there's nothing he can do about commoidty prices, global financial fraud and everything else going on, but he is in part responsible for our deficit being as large as it is.

Then how to you explain our lowering unemployment rate the the fact that Canada was in much better shape coming out of the recession than just about anyone else?

Honestly - our banks didn't go in the toilet like everyone elses. That, coupled with resource demand from China helped us avert a full blown meltdown like south of the border.

If Harper isn't to blame for the recession, which he isn't, then he sure as hell doesn't get to take credit for those things either - initiatives started under the Chretien government. Hell, until a year or so ago, Harper didn't want anything to do with China, remember?

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

The thing is that conservatives like you give him a pass on all of this.

I'll agree the deficit is not entirely his fault, but a fair-sized part definitely is.

I don't blame people, regardless of their political stripes for situations that are out of their control. Quibbling over a few billion dollars in tax cuts during a massive recession is small-minded thinking while ignoring the big picture.

Sorry, but that $14 billion surplus was close to a tenth of the entire federal budget - it was not a few billion dollars. $14 billion dollars would have bought all of Harper's on-again, off-again defence promises and then some. Or it would have given a billion to each province to help weather the recession.

That $14 billion could have done a helluva lot of things. Instead it curried favour with his supporters and weakened our financial picture right before a recession everyone else could see coming.

Like I said, had he banked it - like the Liberals did - he probably wouldn't have had to go $100 billion in the hole, and his deficit wouldn't have been in the $30 billion range last year.

As I said, he's not responsible for the entire deficit, but he definitely shares some of the blame for it.

[bootlegga]

RUEZ RUEZ:

bootlegga bootlegga:

No, Harper likely will be forced to do so too - the difference is he inherited a $14 BILLION surplus from the Liberals, unlike Chretien who inherited a $30+ BILLION deficit.

Sure, and then the world got bitch slapped with a recession. How does that figure into your equation?

Oh, you mean the one Harper swore wouldn't effect Canada during the 2008 election?

Exactly, more proof of his 'expertise' in economics. Everyone else in the world knew we were headed for a shitstorm, but he arrogantly promised it wouldn't effect us and his government wouldn't go into a deficit.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Regina Regina:

I give up........

Alrighty.. I just don't think it's fair to get upset with BF, for CTV updating the article. When he posted the story, that was the title. If there's spin, it came from CTV, not him.

It was never the title.

BF changed the title when the link was posted. I clicked on the link right when it was posted on this site and the title wasn't the same.

[Regina]

I changed the title to what it is now. It was never the same as the link's title and CTV hasn't change it from the first time I saw it.

[Xort]

bootlegga bootlegga:

2% off the GST, cuts to corporate taxes, etc - that took a $14 billion surplus and shrunk it to a billion or so.

Sorry, but that $14 billion surplus was close to a tenth of the entire federal budget - it was not a few billion dollars. $14 billion dollars would have bought all of Harper's on-again, off-again defence promises and then some. Or it would have given a billion to each province to help weather the recession.

That $14 billion could have done a helluva lot of things. Instead it curried favour with his supporters and weakened our financial picture right before a recession everyone else could see coming.

You write as if that $14 billion is somehow lost, rather than left in the hands and wallets of Canadians.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Really, I seem to recall the early 90s being a mild recession - who knows, maybe my memory ain't as good as it once was.

A mild recession compared to a Global financial crisis and multiple failures in the US banking sector isn't even comparable.

bootlegga bootlegga:

2% off the GST, cuts to corporate taxes, etc - that took a $14 billion surplus and shrunk it to a billion or so.

Now, I'm not an economist, but what I remember from econ class was that sound economic policy is to stay in surplus UNTIL a recession hits, then you drop taxes and spend like a crazy person, you don't do that when the economy is booming.

Our government was in surplus before the recession hit and went into deficit in the 2008 budget. 9.6 billion actually.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Children often hear the same thing - "save for a rainy day".

Like I said, Harper apparently didn't learn very much while getting his Masters in Economics...so much for his 'expertise' in that area.

You don't save anything when you owe billions and pay billions in interest. We paid 30.2 billion last year in interest alone.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Sorry, but that $14 billion surplus was close to a tenth of the entire federal budget - it was not a few billion dollars. $14 billion dollars would have bought all of Harper's on-again, off-again defence promises and then some. Or it would have given a billion to each province to help weather the recession.

That $14 billion could have done a helluva lot of things. Instead it curried favour with his supporters and weakened our financial picture right before a recession everyone else could see coming.

Like I said, had he banked it - like the Liberals did - he probably wouldn't have had to go $100 billion in the hole, and his deficit wouldn't have been in the $30 billion range last year.

Wow! You do know that that money didn't just disappear, right?

That money, 25 billion in 2 years, went to pay off the debt. The same debt that costs us billions to maintain. The debt that the previous governments added to.

The money was "banked" in the proper way. You don't just keep it in your pocket.

I completely agree that he should have left things status quo to squeeze as much money out to pay off our debt before the recession hit.

[OnTheIce]

Xort Xort:

You write as if that $14 billion is somehow lost, rather than left in the hands and wallets of Canadians.

Frankly, using surplus money to pay down debt is blasphemy in the eyes of many Liberals and NDP, as we have seen.

Paying down the debt is often referred to as "pissing the money away".

[Curtman]

Regina Regina:

I changed the title to what it is now. It was never the same as the link's title and CTV hasn't change it from the first time I saw it.

The title of the article is currently:

Premiers say they could lose $36B in health funding

$1:

The Canadian Press
Published Friday, Jul. 27, 2012 9:04AM EDT
Last Updated Friday, Jul. 27, 2012 10:37AM EDT

You'll find even the URL that he posted reflects the title he posted. That URL redirects you to a new URL with the updated story. I know its petty to argue about this. I've seen this happen many times where the OP is not at fault.

[OnTheIce]

Curtman Curtman:

Regina Regina:

I changed the title to what it is now. It was never the same as the link's title and CTV hasn't change it from the first time I saw it.

The title of the article is currently:

Premiers say they could lose $36B in health funding

$1:

The Canadian Press
Published Friday, Jul. 27, 2012 9:04AM EDT
Last Updated Friday, Jul. 27, 2012 10:37AM EDT

You'll find even the URL that he posted reflects the title he posted. That URL redirects you to a new URL with the updated story. I know its petty to argue about this. I've seen this happen many times where the OP is not at fault.

Curtman, I know this is difficult to understand, but the title that BF posted was never the title of the article he posted. Has it been changed since? Perhaps, but that doesn't discount the fact that he changed the title with his posting of the news article.

I read the article right after it was posted here and the title's weren't the same.

[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Curtman Curtman:

Regina Regina:

I changed the title to what it is now. It was never the same as the link's title and CTV hasn't change it from the first time I saw it.

The title of the article is currently:

Premiers say they could lose $36B in health funding

$1:

The Canadian Press
Published Friday, Jul. 27, 2012 9:04AM EDT
Last Updated Friday, Jul. 27, 2012 10:37AM EDT

You'll find even the URL that he posted reflects the title he posted. That URL redirects you to a new URL with the updated story. I know its petty to argue about this. I've seen this happen many times where the OP is not at fault.

Curtman, I know this is difficult to understand, but the title that BF posted was never the title of the article he posted. Has it been changed since? Perhaps, but that doesn't discount the fact that he changed the title with his posting of the news article.

I read the article right after it was posted here and the title's weren't the same.

You are wrong. The picture I posted shows the article with the original title still in Google's cache. Is this one of your global conspiracy theories? Google, BF, and
CTV are all out to get you?

Look at the URL on the sidebar. Right click the link, copy link location. Paste it. Read it. Know that you are wrong.

[bootlegga]

Xort Xort:

bootlegga bootlegga:

2% off the GST, cuts to corporate taxes, etc - that took a $14 billion surplus and shrunk it to a billion or so.

Sorry, but that $14 billion surplus was close to a tenth of the entire federal budget - it was not a few billion dollars. $14 billion dollars would have bought all of Harper's on-again, off-again defence promises and then some. Or it would have given a billion to each province to help weather the recession.

That $14 billion could have done a helluva lot of things. Instead it curried favour with his supporters and weakened our financial picture right before a recession everyone else could see coming.

You write as if that $14 billion is somehow lost, rather than left in the hands and wallets of Canadians.

Yeah, you're right - why pay down our $500 billion debt when we can just hand it over the boomers to stick in their savings accounts...

[Freakinoldguy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Xort Xort:

bootlegga bootlegga:

2% off the GST, cuts to corporate taxes, etc - that took a $14 billion surplus and shrunk it to a billion or so.

Sorry, but that $14 billion surplus was close to a tenth of the entire federal budget - it was not a few billion dollars. $14 billion dollars would have bought all of Harper's on-again, off-again defence promises and then some. Or it would have given a billion to each province to help weather the recession.

That $14 billion could have done a helluva lot of things. Instead it curried favour with his supporters and weakened our financial picture right before a recession everyone else could see coming.

You write as if that $14 billion is somehow lost, rather than left in the hands and wallets of Canadians.

Yeah, you're right - why pay down our $500 billion debt when we can just hand it over the boomers to stick in their savings accounts...

Problem with Boomers?