Canada's reputation
12-12-2015, 01:44 PM
#271
Rennlist Member
It's a generally principal of governance to accept a shortfall during economic downturns, but spending more than one takes in during good times is an entirely different matter, especially when it becomes a structural shortfall. Thats a one way ticket to the Greek situation.
12-13-2015, 02:03 PM
#272
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Vernon BC
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After producing a surplus in 2007-08 of $9.6 billion,
the Harper government delivered
a deficit of $5.8 billion in 2008-09 during the global recession.
In subsequent years, his Conservative governments generated shortfalls
of $55.6 billion in 2009-10;
$33.4 billion in 2010-11;
$26.3 billion in 2011-12;
$18.4 billion for 2012-13;
and $5.2 billion for 2013-14.
the Harper government delivered
a deficit of $5.8 billion in 2008-09 during the global recession.
In subsequent years, his Conservative governments generated shortfalls
of $55.6 billion in 2009-10;
$33.4 billion in 2010-11;
$26.3 billion in 2011-12;
$18.4 billion for 2012-13;
and $5.2 billion for 2013-14.
Yes, the Harper government ran deficits. Are you suggesting that makes deficit financing a good idea? Do you mean that because Trudeau has stated an intention to run even bigger deficits that makes his government somehow better than Harper's?
I (and others) have stated in this very thread, that Harper's deficits were a waste of money, a bad thing. Perhaps you missed it. Arguing that it's a good idea for Trudeau to drive the country toward bankruptcy because Harper did it is no argument at all, since you were clearly opposed to Harper's policies.
Harper's guilt for running deficits is mitigated somewhat by the fact that Harper was forced to increase the deficit under the threat of Liberal and NDP opposition who threatened to bring down the minority Conservative government and force another election if Harper didn't increase "stimulus" spending in the face of the financial crisis.
Let me simplify for you.
Harper's deficits-BAD
Trudeau's deficits- WORSE
If you disagree, at least make a consistent and coherent argument.
Last edited by Donster; 12-13-2015 at 02:35 PM.
12-13-2015, 10:33 PM
#274
I agree they are not optimal, at all. My point is everyone is harping(hi-oh) on Trudeau about his plans, crying over companies not doing well under it, meanwhile the last 6 or so years have been deficits under Harper ...regardless of whatever convoluted excuse you want to come up with, they were still deficits and all the Trudeau haters just seem to gloss over this fact. It really is that simple.
we will have to see just how big they turn out to be.Not much more any of us can do about it.
we will have to see just how big they turn out to be.Not much more any of us can do about it.
12-14-2015, 10:59 AM
#275
Race Car
I agree they are not optimal, at all. My point is everyone is harping(hi-oh) on Trudeau about his plans, crying over companies not doing well under it, meanwhile the last 6 or so years have been deficits under Harper ...regardless of whatever convoluted excuse you want to come up with, they were still deficits and all the Trudeau haters just seem to gloss over this fact. It really is that simple.
we will have to see just how big they turn out to be.Not much more any of us can do about it.
we will have to see just how big they turn out to be.Not much more any of us can do about it.
Why would you get on your soapbox and tell the whole world you actually plan on losing money?
12-14-2015, 11:29 AM
#276
Drifting
^ This is why, they just don't care about hiding the fact anymore!
12-14-2015, 01:46 PM
#277
Firstly, you can be opposed to some or most of Trudeau's policies without being opposed to all of them. You have cherry-picked a few positions you deem benign and then used them in a classic straw man argument.
Even Trudeau himself has admitted his refugee promises were unrealistic and the original plan has been radically altered, so being opposed to that particular policy would appear to be entirely appropriate. Many of Trudeau's other campaign promises (he made >300) will turn out to be unworkable or just empty election promises; it's inevitable. It's ridiculous to suggest that opposition to the Liberal party (which is healthy and necessary in a democracy) means opposition to every single one of their policies. Personally, I've voted Liberal more times than I've voted Conservative, I just don't think Junior has what it takes to be a capable PM.
As for Canada becoming Canada again, that's just meaningless sentimental twaddle. It comes across to me as naive and immature. Unless you mean the entire country is ruled by a small elite mainly from Quebec and southern Ontario. That Canada, I agree, is back.
Even Trudeau himself has admitted his refugee promises were unrealistic and the original plan has been radically altered, so being opposed to that particular policy would appear to be entirely appropriate. Many of Trudeau's other campaign promises (he made >300) will turn out to be unworkable or just empty election promises; it's inevitable. It's ridiculous to suggest that opposition to the Liberal party (which is healthy and necessary in a democracy) means opposition to every single one of their policies. Personally, I've voted Liberal more times than I've voted Conservative, I just don't think Junior has what it takes to be a capable PM.
As for Canada becoming Canada again, that's just meaningless sentimental twaddle. It comes across to me as naive and immature. Unless you mean the entire country is ruled by a small elite mainly from Quebec and southern Ontario. That Canada, I agree, is back.
As far as your "empty election promises" line, are you suggesting that politicians sometimes promise things that they can't deliver in order to gain a position in office! I've never heard of such a thing! :P
I may have drank some kool-aid, but I'll be honest, I was tired of Harper in office. I know it's been a buzzword recently, but I was tired of divisive politics. Who cares if a Muslim woman wants to wear a hijab? Not me, and hopefully, not the governing party of Canada.
I get the economic points. But if my options are deficit with trudeaus policies, or less deficit and another 4 years of Harper, I'll take option a.
12-14-2015, 02:03 PM
#278
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Vernon BC
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tesla is an interesting example to cite, given the topic is government spending/deficits.
Tesla is wholly dependent on government subsidies and handouts for its existence. Tesla loses a large amount of money on each and every car it sells despite massive federal and state subsidies. I forget the exact figures, but they're easily available. In some ways, the company is structured to extract maximal subsidies from government rather than to build and sell electric cars. (It's single battery swap station, for example). Withdraw the subsidies, and Tesla would be out of business within a year.
This is an example of how government gets things wrong. Almost nobody has a Tesla as their sole vehicle due to range limitations and charging times. Only wealthy people can afford a Tesla, even with the massive subsidies. So far, evidence suggests that electric vehicles actually increase urban congestion, since their range limitations mean they're mostly used for commuting to work in densely populated areas where public transit is available.
The idea was to encourage the creation of an electric car industry through subsidies designed to foster innovation. Instead, what you have is a toy for wealthy people partly paid for by taxpayers.
Tesla is wholly dependent on government subsidies and handouts for its existence. Tesla loses a large amount of money on each and every car it sells despite massive federal and state subsidies. I forget the exact figures, but they're easily available. In some ways, the company is structured to extract maximal subsidies from government rather than to build and sell electric cars. (It's single battery swap station, for example). Withdraw the subsidies, and Tesla would be out of business within a year.
This is an example of how government gets things wrong. Almost nobody has a Tesla as their sole vehicle due to range limitations and charging times. Only wealthy people can afford a Tesla, even with the massive subsidies. So far, evidence suggests that electric vehicles actually increase urban congestion, since their range limitations mean they're mostly used for commuting to work in densely populated areas where public transit is available.
The idea was to encourage the creation of an electric car industry through subsidies designed to foster innovation. Instead, what you have is a toy for wealthy people partly paid for by taxpayers.
12-14-2015, 05:09 PM
#279
Race Car
Right on Don. Not sure if my data is current but I think they've received around $2 billion and still loose about $4,000US per vehicle.
Whoever doesn't understand the difference between the Harper deficits and the planned Justine deficits really needs to enroll in an Eco 100 class. Hint: The year to date surplus is about $2.4 billion.
Whoever doesn't understand the difference between the Harper deficits and the planned Justine deficits really needs to enroll in an Eco 100 class. Hint: The year to date surplus is about $2.4 billion.
12-14-2015, 05:42 PM
#280
Drifting
I just can't believe Canada has put itself in this mess!
My EA is more qualified to run the country than Trudeau. He is a disgrace to a fine name. All of you who voted for him to avoid a majority government should be ashamed of yourself.
What a lightweight. The whole world is laughing at us.
My EA is more qualified to run the country than Trudeau. He is a disgrace to a fine name. All of you who voted for him to avoid a majority government should be ashamed of yourself.
What a lightweight. The whole world is laughing at us.
12-14-2015, 06:27 PM
#281
Drifting
Speaking of the world laughing at us I watched an interview with our new FA minister this weekend, my lord what a waste of skin 
12-14-2015, 08:48 PM
#284
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Vernon BC
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-15-2015, 12:44 AM
#285
Burning Brakes
Tesla is an interesting example to cite, given the topic is government spending/deficits. Tesla is wholly dependent on government subsidies and handouts for its existence. Tesla loses a large amount of money on each and every car it sells despite massive federal and state subsidies. I forget the exact figures, but they're easily available. In some ways, the company is structured to extract maximal subsidies from government rather than to build and sell electric cars. (It's single battery swap station, for example). Withdraw the subsidies, and Tesla would be out of business within a year. This is an example of how government gets things wrong. Almost nobody has a Tesla as their sole vehicle due to range limitations and charging times. Only wealthy people can afford a Tesla, even with the massive subsidies. So far, evidence suggests that electric vehicles actually increase urban congestion, since their range limitations mean they're mostly used for commuting to work in densely populated areas where public transit is available. The idea was to encourage the creation of an electric car industry through subsidies designed to foster innovation. Instead, what you have is a toy for wealthy people partly paid for by taxpayers.