Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Equating all that to the price of oil is simply disingenuous and entirely false. Period.
That isnt deficit...that is DEBT. That is money borrowed that has to be paid back...so step one would be stop borrowing money when you have no plan or way to pay it back. Common sense stuff really. Or at the very least keep borrowing down as much as possible even if it means no pet projects like changing light bulbs in homes for 350 million dollars? Again...common sense.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...licy-1.4646373
Im old enough to remember going through this crap under Getty and what had to happen to get out of that quagmire....well we are right back where that started thanks to Stelmach and Redford and certainly Notley and need a Klein like response to get out of it. He said he would erase debt with massive cuts province wide and he did. And he did so with a large majority in '93 that led to the single largest voter mandate in the provinces history in 2001. What he did...worked.... and it was approved overwhelmingly by 62% of those that voted. Unprecedented.
But more to the point....what about what was actually said by the sitting government vs what they actually achieved?
I mean they only missed their target by 96 Billion dollars over 48 months, so i guess we could let that slide without questioning them...right?  |
It still begs the question, what exactly is it that the UPC would have done?
They certainly have not indicated the political will to cut. Reading through their platform they are just going to do all the same stuff cheaper.
I'm not a fan of the light bulb program, and think they could have done things that would have done more on every level. But the UPC had no intention of collecting that revenue, so it would not have effected the debt at all, and from a Keynesian stand point it may been the right move to setup what was essentially a lower income government jobs program in the face of a recession.