Federal Budget 2014-15

[hobbyguy]

LV - time for you to take off the rose colored glasses and actually take a realistic logic look at the Harper Con economic performance.

Facts, old chap, do not make a person a "radical leftist". None of us likes inconvenient facts, but facts are facts.

Just because the NDP have proven in BC that "they can't run a popcorn stand", doesn't mean that the far right Harper Cons get a free pass on the notion that "they can run a popcorn stand" - because they have proven they can't.

All you have to is look at the graph of total government expenditures provided by that radical leftist rag, the Financial Post, to see that indeed, the Harper Cons are "tax and spenders", and fiscally irresponsible.

All you have to do is look at the current account problems (which are a big reason for the lower Loonie) and record run of balance of trade deficits to realize that they don't have a clue how to properly manage the economy.

I understand why you want the far right Harper Cons to have good fiscal and economic record, but their record is, if you look at the facts, that they have not. I would venture to say that if it were an NDP government you would be "all over them" using those same facts.

The parallels that we see in economic and fiscal management between the NDP in BC and the far right Harper Cons are rather instructive. I think they demonstrate quite clearly that in a country as diverse as Canada, a narrow view just doesn't work. That has been the criticism of conservatives like former PM Joe Clark, that this Harper government has been too narrow. That same criticism could be leveled at the last NDP government we had in BC.

The economy is complex and interconnected web that requires a balanced and careful hand on the reins. It is arguable that no narrow partisan view can possibly achieve the required balance. That makes sense because a democracy, and that is the political system that is the foundation of economic prosperity, is inherently a balance designed to represent the interests of almost all.

I will, however, continue to give the Harper Cons credit for one thing, they have excelled at creating the myth of good economic stewardship and fiscal management in the face of facts that tell a completely different story. Like a good con man, they are telling us what we want to hear, and hoping we don't bother to check the facts. Nasty thing those facts.

[erinmore3775]

Hobbyguy has mad some very valid points. The opening paragraph of the budget states that "Canada's Action Plan is working..." and contnues to outline all of the current government's successes. However, an analysis of the budget by the National Post clearly outlines that over the last 7 years Canada has not faired particularly well and has largely ridden on the shirttails of the improving world economy.

Eight years after the January, 2006 election that brought the Conservatives to power under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Alex Roberts looks at the state of the Canadian economy. Not to be confused with the Harper’s Magazine’s monthly index of “ironic statistics arranged for thoughtful effect.”

Estimated amount spent on taxpayer-funded advertisements since 2009 touting the “Economic Action Plan” and the government’s economic record : $113,000,000
National unemployment rate in January, 2006: 6.6
National unemployment rate in December, 2013: 7.2
Increase in the number of unemployed in Canada since January 2006: 236,200
Youth unemployment rate, January 2006: 12.2
Youth unemployment rate, December 2013: 14.0
Rank of Canada’s unemployment rate in 2013 compared to other G7 countries: 3rd
Rank of Canada among the 34 OECD nations in employment creation 2007-2012: 20th
Number of governments since 1935 that have presided over a slower rate of real economic growth per capita than the Harper Conservatives: 0
Number of consecutive annual federal budget deficits: 6
Number of budget deficit targets hit by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: 0

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/11/canada-federal-budget-2014-by-the-numbers-deficit-goes-down-revenue-goes-up/ (Referenced by Hobbyguy...interesting reading)

The current government has continually advertised itself as one of good management and a world leader in economic policies. However, failing to solve governmental procurement fiascos over 7 years, balancing a budget with a " multi-billion dollar poison pill for those procurements" for any government in the future, and effectively doubling the costs of benefits for retired federal civil servants (specifically armed forces personnel and RCMP) are not examples of good management that would fly well in the business community!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/retired ... -1.2535875

As a shareholder (taxpayer) in the corporation of Canada, I am disappointed with leadership in the executive offices of the corporation. However, I must take some responsibility for their presence in the corporate office. I was taken in by their "advertised myths" (read the Conservative Party Election Platform) of good fiscal management, controlled spending, support for our military, and an open and transparent government. Comparisons to other provincial or other possible political management teams is pointless. In the real business world, the world the current government constantly points to, judgements are made on finite and tangible performance. They are not buried under the wallpaper of media commercials or in the fine print of a proposal (bill) rushed through its enactment process. Real business success is based upon production of a "product" that can be used by and benefits a broad spectrum of the population. It does not cater to an ideological niche.

The economy is complex and interconnected web that requires a balanced and careful hand on the reins. It is arguable that no narrow partisan view can possibly achieve the required balance. That makes sense because a democracy, and that is the political system that is the foundation of economic prosperity, is inherently a balance designed to represent the interests of almost all. (Hobbyguy)

In this way the current federal government has failed us all.

[NAB]

Looks like the income splitting commitment may be on the chopping block now..

Nab

[Atomoa]

Retired soldiers, Mounties hit by Conservative budget changes

Retired soldiers and Mounties, along with wounded veterans and their families, are among a group of former federal employees that the government targeted for savings in its budget Tuesday.

In its economic plan, the government announced it was going after $7.5 billion in savings by forcing participants in the government’s health plan for public servants to pay half of the costs, up from 25 per cent. Before 2006, it was even lower.

Get your leg blown off in the line of duty?

You're paying half the medical costs after you retire, so the CPC can have the lowest corporate tax rate for CPC friends.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/retired ... -1.2535875

[maryjane48]

disgusting , making soldiers and cops pay for half after serving by putting your life on the line

[Rwede]

I put my life on the line driving to work in this traffic every day. And I don't get a defined benefit pension out of it like the afore mentioned do.

Maybe someone should pay for me, too?

[Atomoa]

I put my life on the line driving to work in this traffic every day. And I don't get a defined benefit pension out of it like the afore mentioned do.

Maybe someone should pay for me, too?

I think the CPC should run their next election based on this platform.

Oh wait - they are.

[Captain Awesome]

The talk about how govt should spend less and live withing the means are all the rage these days. But it swiftly changes as soon as the cuts actually come in.

- Don't cut this
- Also, it's wrong to cut these
- Don't even think about cutting this
- I'd rather you cut the first one

And so on and so on. So, if somebody advocates for spending less and making govt smaller, be prepared they'll cut something important to you.

[Rwede]

The thing is, will we survive with these cuts? The answer is yes, but we're all spoiled brats who have been responsible for our own rise in national debt by screaming for a lot of "nice to haves" instead of accepting a more spartan set of social services.

The only screaming that is louder than that for the "nice to haves" is the screaming when the govt asks us to pay for it all.

[Atomoa]

Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state.

Smaller government means to reduce that. The very idea that we should reduce our capability to govern ourselves (and let business govern our society instead - that is where this conversation is at) is senseless.

What do you exchange as a free human for protection / lifestyle from government? You give the government your submission. You follow the laws and pay the taxes.

If we reduce "what we get" (services) and yet are still expected to have rulers and submit to them...why doesn't everyone just break off on their own and look after themselves?

...and ruin all progression humanity has made over the last 1000 years?

Calling our parents "spoiled brats" is so regressive - the most prosperous and progressive generation to walk the face of the earth since the dawn of humanity - they worked hard, paid taxes and were looked after by a decent social saftey net and social service structure that enabled them to prosper to the record-breaking levels.

The rise and fall of the middle class - "back to the dark ages!" can be heard from the right..."smaller government!"

[Rwede]

If we reduce "what we get" (services) and yet are still expected to have rulers and submit to them...why doesn't everyone just break off on their own and look after themselves?

You wouldn't last 5 minutes. I'd do just fine. I don't think we want that to happen to you.

[maryjane48]

You wouldn't last 5 minutes. I'd do just fine. I don't think we want that to happen to you.

not so fast there cowboy, if things turned to anarchy your type of folks would be among the first disposed of .

[hobbyguy]

CA - perhaps you can explain the conundrum of the Harper Con "cuts" then.

They have increased government spending by 67%+ (6.7% per year - well beyond inflation).
They have increased the civil service ranks by 25,000+ and the bureaucrats/capita is up by 10%+.
Programs that benefit working class folks, veterans etc. are being cut.

Logic says, if you are cutting programs, spending should go down (which IS what happened with Chretien/Martin).
Logic says, if you are cutting programs, the number of bureaucrats should go down, especially on a per capita basis (which is what happened when Chretien/Martin were cutting).
Logic says, if you are increasing spending dramatically, and increasing the number of bureaucrats significantly, programs are not being cut.

But under the Harper Cons - spending, and the national debt, are going up, up and away. It defies logic.

So where is all that money going? (Aside from advertising).

That is the conundrum of the Harper government.

[Atomoa]

I'd do just fine.

History says otherwise. Humanity only progressed when we banded together.

I find it interesting that you are throwing your support behind a political party that stands to do as little as possible for the people. AKA "small government"

...but they still want to be paid with the peoples money.

...and use government power to enrich their enrichers.

If you'd do just fine on your own - start by inventing, building and maintaining your own internet and start re-paying the federal government for your grade 12 education/lifetime of hospital visits - then check your bank accounts.

...under the Harper Cons - spending, and the national debt, are going up, up and away. It defies logic.

Run the government into the ground on purpose and then let the public turn and eliminate government completely (and turn the keys of Canada over to the private sector 100%)

[Rwede]

As I said, I'd do fine. Many who cannot feed or clothe themselves would not.