NDP told you so....and you still voted Liberal

[GrooveTunes]

now pay up.....http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/24/liberals-may-monetize-public-assets-to-help-bankroll-infrastructure/

[The Green Barbarian]

hell yeah we did, because the NDP sucks.

[Gone_Fishin]

God forbid the Liberals just reel in spending a bit so they don't have to sell our farm to pay for their idiotic ideas.

[hobbyguy]

Not a fan of this idea, but it is commonly done. Did you notice that one of the primary owners of the Brussels airport was the Ontario Teacher's ?

I prefer "pay as you go". Raise taxes to pay for investments.

[The Green Barbarian]

Not a fan of this idea, but it is commonly done. Did you notice that one of the primary owners of the Brussels airport was the Ontario Teacher's ?

I prefer "pay as you go". Raise taxes to pay for investments.

Is there a leftist alive who doesn't just willingly babble "raise taxes" as a constant mantra and cure-all for everything and anything they feel is a societal ill? Got a cold? Raise taxes, that will cure it. You stub you toe? Raise taxes, it will stop throbbing. Got a nosebleed? Don't put ice on it, raise taxes! Oh look, there was an earthquake in Iran. Better raise taxes so it doesn't happen here. Just unbelievable. No, raising taxes is not the answer to everything gullible leftists. This is a dumb and bad idea.

[Joe Public]

Is there a right winger out there that doesn't sing the mantra all day long that taxes should be lowered regardless of the deficit and record accumulated debt?

People elect governments to deliver the services they demand in an efficient manner. If the delivery of those services costs more than the revenues that the government takes in, we have a deficit. The federal Conservatives gave us 10 years of deficits resulting in a record debt due to a revenue stream which was far less than expenditures. Obviously they could not manage the fiscal situation and the people of Canada recognised that, and fired them. Most Canadians now recognise that it was not a failure of a Conservative government, but a abject and utter failure of Conservative ideology.

I like my government services. It gives Canadians what they want and need and most reasonable people realise that you have to pay for the services that you receive with taxes. I'm happy to pay taxes and it's a privilege to be able to do so. I'm happy to pay more taxes to have the current government restore the services that the previous government eliminated.

Only the extremist fringe of the far right wing desire to pay no taxes and receive no services, and the recent federal election has proven them to be a very small minority indeed.

[Rwede]

Is there a right winger out there that doesn't sing the mantra all day long that taxes should be lowered regardless of the deficit and record accumulated debt?

Justin is raising taxes AND accumulating debt twice as fast as any other government in history.

What's up with that?

[The Green Barbarian]

Is there a right winger out there that doesn't sing the mantra all day long that taxes should be lowered regardless of the deficit and record accumulated debt?
.

I think the actual thing most "right wingers" talk about is cutting spending. That goes hand in hand with lowering taxes. While idiot leftists just want to raise taxes, and never ever talk about cutting spending. Which is why they are so crappy at governing.

[hobbyguy]

Spending = services (almost)

If we want services, we have to pay for them. People want government services when they need them, left, right, center - doesn't matter. Somehow, at the fringes is the belief that you can have something for nothing.

However, what we do want is efficient government, not smaller government, and we want the government to be as unobtrusive as possible. And we certainly don't want the Duffy's of the world leaching.

In that sense, I agree with cutting spending on government operating budgets. But not on programs. Bigger bang for the buck. Paul Martin did that, reducing the number of bureaucrats per capita by 10%, but, sigh, "small government" Harper ballooned it right back up... oh well, Morneau has penciled in flatlined government operating budgets for 5 years - that should start improving things again.

[The Green Barbarian]

Spending = services (almost)
.

Unless you live in Manitoba, where under the NDP the formula was "spending = less services". Only the NDP could be that brutally incompetent, to continue upping spending, only to be hiring more and more bureaucrats and managers, and less actual workers. So to sum up, no, spending does not equal "services". Not by a long shot.

[The Green Barbarian]

. Paul Martin did that, reducing the number of bureaucrats per capita by 10%, but, sigh, "small government" Harper ballooned it right back up... .

This is one of the main lies you keep parroting HG. When I try to find anything to back up your lie, all I find is whining from brainless idiot leftist websites like Ipolitic who keep crying about how much Harper was cutting the size of government. So which is it? I know leftists like to suck and blow at the same time, and lie constantly to defend their backward unrealistic world-view, but I'm just curious.

http://ipolitics.ca/2012/04/30/harper-g ... d-of-cuts/

[hobbyguy]

2005: 243,971 federal employees, 32,077,339 population, equals 1 bureaucrat per 131 people.

2010: 282,980 federal employees, 33,930,830 population, equals 1 bureaucrat per 119 people.

Harper did chop it back (and messed up services) in his quest for a politically motivated balanced election budget. However, we know that Harper dramatically increased CSIS et al and filled their new "spook palace" he had built. You will note that those numbers are not included in the tally.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/modernizing-modernisation/stats/ssen-ane-eng.asp

So there you have it, 131/119 is a 10% increase in the number of bureaucrats per capita - not counting the extra "spooks" Harper hired...

By the way, instead of impugning someone's integrity, perhaps you could be bothered to look up the numbers yourself.

[The Green Barbarian]

2005: 243,971 federal employees, 32,077,339 population, equals 1 bureaucrat per 131 people.

2010: 282,980 federal employees, 33,930,830 population, equals 1 bureaucrat per 119 people.
By the way, instead of impugning someone's integrity, perhaps you could be bothered to look up the numbers yourself.

HG - I gave up on you having any integrity a long time ago. So he hired a bunch of people when times were tough and guys like you were screaming and crying that he wasn't doing enough. Then, he cuts it back and you howl again. I can't believe that you are trying to use a ramp up in hiring that ended 6 years ago and was replaced by a policy to cut back the bureaucracy as a statement that Harper "ramped up" the bureaucracy. That is just a bold-faced lie. SHAME ON YOU. Just disgusting.

[Muzza]

So he hired a bunch of people when times were tough and guys like you were screaming and crying that he wasn't doing enough.

This is what I was following when I lived in Ottawa. All the lefties were crying about all the civil servants that were being let go, but I did the research and the numbers were actually increasing. I couldn't believe it. All the complaining about something that was not even occurring!! That's when I realized.... some people just have to have something to complain about!

[The Green Barbarian]

This is what I was following when I lived in Ottawa. All the lefties were crying about all the civil servants that were being let go, but I did the research and the numbers were actually increasing. I couldn't believe it. All the complaining about something that was not even occurring!! That's when I realized.... some people just have to have something to complain about!

That's why its so stupid to be revising history and lying about how Harper "ramped up the bureaucracy". Just sickening how these two-faced boobs can cry out of one side of their mouth about how he didn't spend enough and didn't hire enough, and then cry six years later about the exact opposite side of the argument. Such massive lying hypocrites. Gross.