Quote:
Originally Posted by IliketoPuck
And your point is what exactly?
Looking at those graphs it is pretty clear that the government stepped in to help stimulate the economy during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and handled said stimulus in textbook fashion. President Roosevelt addressed the Great Depression with staggering governmental stimulus; as did Obama during the Great Recession.
It's like people forget just how bad 2007-2009 was in comparison to other downturns in history.
The fact the conservatives have managed to trim deficits each year since then, and arrive at a surplus this year is commendable.
Saying: "the CPC only raised revenue because it is an election year" is hilarious partisanship.
The Liberals and NDP wouldn't do the exact same thing if they were in power? That would be if the country was even in a position to have a surplus with either of those parties calling the shots, given their ridiculous spending plans.
|
I think for me there is a larger concern there though. First you look at the years preceding that enormous bailout and the balance drops consistently. Then you see the big stimulus in 2009-10 and through the next few years there is really no push to get back to the black. While you can blame the stimulus package for some of that, some of this is just poor management. Targeting boutique tax credits instead of more prudent planning, and government handing out corporate welfare and pet projects.
Now today they announce a tiny little surplus and are going to campaign like this is a sign of fiscal prudence. Is it? Firstly, in reading through the budget document (skimming to be accurate), the gains seem short-lived as they're largely one-time items. Second, that surplus is spent and then some with things like that home reno tax credit, subsidies to manufacturers and of course even more expansion of the boutique credits. In other words, even if you claim that surplus is totally legit, its been frittered away.
So the choice as I see it is plain. Do you want a government that claims prudence and balanced budgets only to head back to deficit, or one that makes no claim of balance and instead tells you point blank that they'll run a deficit? (The NDP isn't a third option because there is no way they can balance the budget with the spending they've announced)