[Slava]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I understand where you are both coming from, but there are some facts that support this action. Please try to read this without your anti NDP hats on, I'm not trying to justify their actions based on the party. We will have more tax revenue coming in, this will potentially help stop the bleeding. They will also maintain the services we currently have which people would not like to see go(nobody likes to downsize), this will also avoid paying ballooning catch up costs if they did reduce services and spending(ie road work). There have also been reports of oil bouncing back next year, that also potentially adds a boost. They are also trying to get pipelines approved(whether you agree or not with their way of doing it) which will also potentially provide a boost.

Now you probably noticed I said these thing could potentially help in most cases, what they are basically doing right now is waiting to see, sure is it us as taxpayers who could potentially end up with a bigger deficit to pay off if a year goes by and there are no improvements or not enough? Yes, but there is a potential that the problem could start showing signs of improvement as well, and we could get ourselves out of the situation we're in without cutting funding or programs unnecessarily.

Cutting programs now, as I've said before, can be potentially more expensive than maintaining programs in the long run. If we want something eventually we will pay for it one way or another. I'm not saying it should not be considered on a case by case basis, but if there is an opportunity to fix the problem without reducing our services I think that option needs to be explored first. It's a gamble either way, and this is the more sensible option to take first in my opinion. If this way doesn't work, you can turn to cuts. But if you start with cuts and that doesn't work, do you really think taxpayers are going to want to have taxes raised after you've already cut programs?

Its important to recognize that the tax revenue is a moving target though. So increased taxes doesn't automatically result in a certain amount because there are a lot of factors. People will find ways to avoid paying the increased rates, they will have less income reported and things like that.

Second, why does it always have to go right to program cuts? Why is there never anywhere rationally to trim other than front line staff, or chopping programs? Surely there are some areas where savings could be had. It just gets disingenuous right off the bat though.

Originally Posted by Makarov

With so many graduates of "Economics 101" posting in this thread, I'm surprised that more posters aren't familiar with the classic economic case for government spending to stimulate a sluggish economy. Agree with it or not, it's not some crazy, novel idea.

I am all for stimulation of the economy and Keynes. I think it's proven to work. Can you just let !e know how borrowing money for operations is stimulating things wisely? As far as I can tell that's a comp!ete disaster and frankly if people think that's a great idea they could use Economics 101.