Canadian Scientists Mourn the Death of Evidence

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It'd be an easier sell if this was part of larger cuts

Spending is being cut all over the place.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

but seeing as the deficit is rising this is truly ideology above all.

It is?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Spending is being cut all over the place.


It is?

To the first point, cutting spending is irrelavent if your spending increases are larger than the cuts. Saying "Hey, we cut 30% of expenditures" is very much irrelavent when spending goes up 500%. Again, cutting funding here doesn't mean dick when you add all the costs C-38 will add. So them claiming this as a budgetary move is simply a lie.

To the second point, well the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is definitely not a left leaning organization, and they have the website that runs the debt clock, and from that website...

Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975 when it began to explode; growing for the next 12 years at more than 20% per year. It broke the $100 billion mark in 1981 and the $200 billion mark in 1985. While the growth slowed in 1988, our federal debt continued to climb, breaking $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked in 1997 at $563 billion.

Between 1997 and 2008, it slowly declined to $458 billion. After that, it all changed. Our federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09, by $55.4 billion in 2009-10, $34 billion in 2010-11, $31 billion in 2011-12. It's expected to grow by $21.1 billion in 2012-13. Further, it's expected to grow until 2015-16. In just three years from 2008 to 2011 all the debt repayment ($105 billion) of the previous eight years was completely wiped out.

http://www.debtclock.ca/index.php?op...d=45&Itemid=42

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion...059/story.html



It's just kind of shocking that the Conservatives are trying to move so many steps backwards from the rest of the world.

Why is it shocking when a conservative government acts in such a brutish and illogical way? "Conservative" means resistant to change.

"I don't like it. What is it?"

This is the standard operating procedure: attempt to slow progress as much as possible for those currently benefiting from the status quo.

Next step, subsidize antiquated and established energy industries, limit social policy to antiquated enforcement policies (tough on crime), attempt to demonize judicial branch while attempting to pass unconstitutional, regressive laws and finally, reduce reportable scale of defense/war expenditures while keeping them stagnant or increasing them.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Why is it shocking when a conservative government acts in such a brutish and illogical way? "Conservative" means resistant to change.

"I don't like it. What is it?"

This is the standard operating procedure: attempt to slow progress as much as possible for those currently benefiting from the status quo.

Next step, subsidize antiquated and established energy industries, limit social policy to antiquated enforcement policies (tough on crime), attempt to demonize judicial branch while attempting to pass unconstitutional, regressive laws and finally, reduce reportable scale of defense/war expenditures while keeping them stagnant or increasing them.

Well I guess I meant "shocking" as in it's shocking that people believe this kind of political ideology promotes longterm sustainability.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Saying "Hey, we cut 30% of expenditures" is very much irrelavent when spending goes up 500%.

Try using real numbers in your examples, hard to debate made up numbers. I will agree that spending has gone up too much, a lot of that had to do with all the stimulus spending. Now they are cutting back spending which is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

To the second point, well the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is definitely not a left leaning organization, and they have the website that runs the debt clock, and from that website...

There is a difference between debt and deficit.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Guess you didn't read the paper today either...

Canada's trade deficit unexpectedly rose in May, pushed up by record imports while exporters struggled to make any progress in the face of the European economic crisis.

The May deficit edged up to C$793 million ($777 million) from C$623 million in April, Statistics Canada said on Wednesday. Market analysts surveyed by Reuters had expected a deficit of C$380 million.

Exports are vital for the Canadian economy and accounted for around 31 percent of gross domestic product in 2011. Exporters have for years faced challenges from the strong Canadian dollar, weak markets and increased foreign competition.

http://money.ca.msn.com/investing/ne...-woes-hit-home

Anyway you cut it, the debt, or deficit or anything like that is rising. And its because while they claim to be fiscal conservatives, these Conservatives are much closer to neo-cons than anything else.

[Jacks]

Trade deficit is not the same as budget deficit which is not the same as government debt.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Anyway you cut it, the debt, or deficit or anything like that is rising.

No, it is not.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Seeing as no doubt you fully support this Jacks, I'm curious what your reasons for doing so are. And if you don't think this is ideologically motivated, then what would you call it? Ignore the deficit talk, you cannot deny things like the Crime Bill will ultimately be massive expenditures by the government, so saying this is a budgetary move just rings hollow.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Seeing as no doubt you fully support this Jacks, I'm curious what your reasons for doing so are.

I never said I support it. I don't know enough about the departments or areas that have had their funding cut or the product that they produce. It is possible for a government program to not be a good enough product to continue funding it. Funny how people complain that Harper is spending too much and then complain when he cuts funding to anything. The CBC mocked the CPC for increasing the public service and then says that laying any of them off is an attack on our social network.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And if you don't think this is ideologically motivated, then what would you call it?

I'd call it getting spending under control. Not everything has to have a hidden motive.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ignore the deficit talk, you cannot deny things like the Crime Bill will ultimately be massive expenditures by the government, so saying this is a budgetary move just rings hollow.

Yes, our justic system costs money, too much money. That doesn't mean we can't reduce spending anywhere else.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I wouldn't say there's a hidden motive at all. It's a classic bait and switch: "See, we've cut this and that and this", but of course neglect to mention how every other expenditure has increased. It's easy to sell to a conservative base that these are government cuts to things that impede corporate profitablity and thus job creation. But as evidence from the polls, most people nationally aren't buying it, hence why the polls say the NDP would win a minority government if an election were held today.

The Crime Bill is such a staggering and astornomical waste, and the best part for the Conservatives is most of the costs associated with it won't come into effect until around election time 2015, meaning of course there won't be years of information to show what a waste it is. The American Prison system is a massive failure, we shouldn't be trying to emulate it.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I wouldn't say there's a hidden motive at all. It's a classic bait and switch: "See, we've cut this and that and this", but of course neglect to mention how every other expenditure has increased.

Now you're just being dramatic.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's easy to sell to a conservative base that these are government cuts to things that impede corporate profitablity and thus job creation.

Yes, because everyone who is a Conservative is obviously stupid.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But as evidence from the polls, most people nationally aren't buying it, hence why the polls say the NDP would win a minority government if an election were held today.

I wouldn't put too much weight in a poll 3 years away from an election. No government has had over 50% support since Mulroney. Making cuts to spending is rarely popular.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The Crime Bill is such a staggering and astornomical waste

There are various opinions on that, we aren't ever going to agree.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Seeing as no doubt you fully support this Jacks, I'm curious what your reasons for doing so are.

I'm not sure if that's what he's saying at all. My interpretation is that he wants to run the numbers fully to see if what you're saying is actually right. All that happened was that you pulled up an article on trade deficit, which is a single part in the balance sheet.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Yes, because everyone who is a Conservative is obviously stupid.

Not obviously stupid...studies have proven to be stupid.

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conserv...180403506.html

[MarchHare]

I anticipate good things from this thread...

[Senator Clay Davis]

Sorry to disappoint, but this thread will eventually become redundant, so rather than go through this in 90+ posts, lets keep it simple:

There is a subsection of people who will defend the CPC blindly, regardless of what the facts or others suggest

There is a subsection of people who will always distrust the CPC, Stephen Harper in particular, regardless of what the facts or others suggest.

In 2015, we'll obviously see which side of the coin ends up winning.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conserv...180403506.html

I'd be interested in looking at the strength of the correlation though. I mean, they even point out that these are simple averages. The difference in means, raw value, and and the standard deviation of each results are something I can't find in the article (not to mention there are concerns with IQ as a measurement of intelligence in its accuracy and percision...it actually would be quite tough to decide how to measure the actual intelligence of a person).

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Sorry to disappoint, but this thread will eventually become redundant, so rather than go through this in 90+ posts, lets keep it simple:

There is a subsection of people who will defend the CPC blindly, regardless of what the facts or others suggest

There is a subsection of people who will always distrust the CPC, Stephen Harper in particular, regardless of what the facts or others suggest.

In 2015, we'll obviously see which side of the coin ends up winning.

I disagree. I think those may be the two loudest sides, but I'm much more interested in seeing what the figures are, what historical data says, and how much of a deviance this is from the normal behaviour of government (if at all!) before making an opinion.

EDIT - If we go by what Kybosh says, it sounds like this might have just been the breaking point in what has been a long heading trend.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I don't actually think all conservatives are stupid, or most stupid people are conservatives. I thought that was pretty funny though. No doubt there's a similar poll suggesting all liberals tend to be gay people and minorities.

[Jacks]

You don't know the difference between debt, deficit and trade deficit and I'm the stupid one?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I don't actually think all conservatives are stupid, or most stupid people are conservatives. I thought that was pretty funny though. No doubt there's a similar poll suggesting all liberals tend to be gay people and minorities.

So then why did you say that in the first place? I mean, if you don't actually believe it, why did you make the claim? And then pull out a study to make the claim?

[GP_Matt]

I am not sure why the trade deficit has been brought up, other than it is in the news at the moment, but it is pretty irrelevant to this whole conversation.
The trade deficit just means that the value of imports were less than that of exports over a given time. It has nothing to do directly with government finances and isn't really a great number to compare economies with either.
The budget deficit however is shrinking and is still the lowest in the G7.