Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I admit I didn't look at the numbers recently, but I remember the campaign being fairly neck and neck, and the majority coming as quite a shock. I don't recall polls ever pointing to a majority at any point. Definitely not gonna argue that though without looking anything up.

Sorry - meant to add this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio...election,_2011

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

A positive trend post recession. Looks like they have done a decent job getting back into the green.

We're technically in a recession yet again, so while they have "gotten back into the green" (and only then by raiding contingencies and selling assets), they haven't put Canada in a very good spot in the short and intermediate term, which as we know is all anyone will care about come election day.

And then you remember there would be no stimulus to help the recession without the Liberals and NDP forcing it, and that there's also rising unemployment currently, and it makes you wonder if the CPC achieving very little positive economically is worth unequivocally trusting that they are the only ones who can manage the economy. But I know, Justin is a pretty boy with nice hair and we can't trust that, we can only trust boring ass Steve and his $6 hair cut.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think you miss the issue. Running a surplus would be amazing.

Forcing a small surplus (when compared to recent deficits as the graph showed) by selling off assets just to get good optics in an election year while the country is in a recession is bad.

Ya, I'm not buying it. If we had a 1B deficit the same posters would be complaining that Harper had yet another deficit and can't balance the books. Constantly dumping stimulus money into the economy everytime it gets a sniffle is just silly.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Ya, I'm not buying it. If we had a 1B deficit the same posters would be complaining that Harper had yet another deficit and can't balance the books. Constantly dumping stimulus money into the economy everytime it gets a sniffle is just silly.

That's exactly what those posters ARE saying. That the so-called surplus is a fudging of the numbers to make it look like they have produced growth, when all they did was liquidate some government assets. They are saying that this 1B surplus isn't evidence of Harper's/the con's economic prowess at all and shouldn't be taken as such. What's more important thing is what they plan to do with the surplus.

And I wouldn't consider a 50% reduction in the global price of our most lucrative and important export to be a "sniffle". It's a pretty nasty cold at least.

[Fuzz]

They sold GM shares for about $3.2 Billion this year. So that more than makes up for the "surplus". Was now the time to sell, or was it a good time becuase the govt was desperate to show a surplus on election year?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle23828543/

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Yeah the surplus sounds nice, and then you look at this chart and well...

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.

[username]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The Liberals and NDP wouldn't do the exact same thing if they were in power?

I shutter to think where our deficit and economy would sit right now if either the Liberals or NDP were in power during that recession.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MattyC

And I wouldn't consider a 50% reduction in the global price of our most lucrative and important export to be a "sniffle". It's a pretty nasty cold at least.

Oil prices fluxuate, alway have and always will. It's not a good idea to take on tens of billions in debt everytime oil drops below a magic number.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The fact the conservatives have managed to trim deficits each year since then, and arrive at a surplus this year is commendable.

They traded assets for cash. How much economic value was gained in the process is debatable.

I do agree that the surplus/deficit argument (like raising or cutting taxes) is not an easy thing to measure and can be spun in a lot of different ways. Uneducated voters tend to look at it simply as surpluses = good, taxes = bad when there are many other things to factor in. When these things come to the front in the middle of an election, I can't blame people for being cynical about it. I personally never blamed the Conservatives for their deficits before this year, although I do disagree with some of the things they spent on and cut back on.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Oil prices fluxuate, alway have and always will. It's not a good idea to take on tens of billions in debt everytime oil drops below a magic number.

Well if you're confident enough that the oil price will bounce back to the point that you should be able to eat through most, if not all that debt in a few years, why not? You go into a deficit for a while to pay for things like infrastructure at a lower cost and end up being able to pay it back and then some when the market fluctuates back, in theory.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by username

I shutter to think where our deficit and economy would sit right now if either the Liberals or NDP were in power during that recession.

The Liberals massively reformed Ottawa to eliminate deficits and left a large surplus when they left office. They also likely would not have lowered the GST. All other things being equal, the deficit would have been essentially gone two years sooner. All told Chrétien/Martin were much better fiscal stewards than Harper has been.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

They traded assets for cash. How much economic value was gained in the process is debatable.

Injecting liquidity, providing stability, and directly supporting the auto industry (to name one) saved numerous jobs. Yet the direct impact of the stimulus is not an easily quantifiable number.

It is foolish to not consider the impact government stimulus had on reducing the economic shock of the Great Recession.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The Liberals massively reformed Ottawa to eliminate deficits and left a large surplus when they left office. They also likely would not have lowered the GST. All other things being equal, the deficit would have been essentially gone two years sooner. All told Chrétien/Martin were much better fiscal stewards than Harper has been.

They also did not have to deal with the Great Recession, so your argument is fundamentally flawed.

But they certainly did promote the liberal party in Quebec very well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal

[Caged Great]

The main reason why Canada came through the great recession as lightly as we did was because of policies that Martin put in that Harper was trying to get rid of prior to the crash.

If Harper had a majority pre 2008, Canada would have been hammered just as badly as the US and the rest of the world.

They are not fiscally sound as a party, just like any conservative/republican government. Too much emphasis on cutting taxes instead of doing things to grow the economy.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The Liberals massively reformed Ottawa to eliminate deficits and left a large surplus when they left office. They also likely would not have lowered the GST. All other things being equal, the deficit would have been essentially gone two years sooner. All told Chrétien/Martin were much better fiscal stewards than Harper has been.

It really is apples and oranges though. The Libs had the benefit of a booming global economy, Harper has had to deal with a severe global recession/depression for the majority of his tenure. Also while I would agree that the Chretien Libs did a good job getting the fiscal house in order let's not gloss over how they did it. They broke their key election promises by keeping the GST and slashing transfers to the provinces (which is basically just downloading the debt) plus they took a ton of money out of the EI fund. While you may not like Harper or his policies at least he has kept the large majority of his promises.

[Slava]

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)

[Fuzz]

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.

If the deficits of 2009/10 were indeed the result of stimulus spending to navigate the recession, why did it take 5 years to recover? Had the government had a sound fiscal plan, should the recover not have occurred much quicker? I suspect it had more to do with massive cuts to revenue, and the government has been struggling to find whatever services to Canadians they can cut to eek out a balanced budget. The fact is, we still have a revenue gap and it is going to be tough to recover from that.

[Senator Clay Davis]

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.

Ok, lets keep it real here

1. The CPC did not want to have a stimulus, they were forced to do one. If they had a majority in 2008, they would have done the usual neo con approach of cutting taxes and nothing else (maybe even cutting spending). And we'd be in economic hell right now. So you can thank the NDP and Liberals for the stimulus, not the CPC. Doing otherwise is laughable.

2. Stimulus is good in a downturn. Right now we're in another downturn, yet the CPC says no shot to any deficits going forward. Clearly, they want nothing to do with stimulus money unless they can push out a bunch of wasteful ads taking credit.

3. The strength and pillars of the economy that prevented a total crash here were put in place by the Liberals (they of balanced budgets and surpluses for a decade plus).

So you've now seen the two biggest reasons the economy didn't crash had more to do with the Liberals than the CPC. Yet somehow the CPC are truly the only choice to run the economy. I mean I guess..if we give them a minority where the Liberals and NDP can force them to do the right thing economically. A straight majority? Proven failure.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If the deficits of 2009/10 were indeed the result of stimulus spending to navigate the recession, why did it take 5 years to recover? Had the government had a sound fiscal plan, should the recover not have occurred much quicker? I suspect it had more to do with massive cuts to revenue, and the government has been struggling to find whatever services to Canadians they can cut to eek out a balanced budget. The fact is, we still have a revenue gap and it is going to be tough to recover from that.

That was the plan, to be in a surplus in 2015, when they instituted the stimulus budget in 2010.

So they have pretty much executed exactly what they said they would over that 5 year period.

Remember that both the NDP and liberals wanted even further spending in 2010 (and throughout that period).

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

That was the plan, to be in a surplus in 2015, when they instituted the stimulus budget in 2010.

So they have pretty much executed exactly what they said they would over that 5 year period.

And all it took was selling off assets to do it. Otherwise it would be another deficit.