BC is returning to its big spending ways of the 1990s

[Smurf]

burnedatstake wrote:

why exactly is spending such a terrible thing? when the liberals had their alleged surpluses what exactly do right wingers think they did with them? put it in a sovereign wealth fund like norway? no - they used it to lather on the costs they knew would creep up with their bad estimates. all at the expense of crown corps.
i find it crazy that there is a double standard in regards to the ndp. if the liberals were in power right now spending on the things they deemed worthy - there would be no problem with the right wing cohorts. now the ndp is in power and the liberals and their supporters have suddenly found a conscience in regards to finances. its actually comical.

While I agree with alanjh595 I will make a quick comment on "why exactly is spending such a terrible thing?" Firstly the fact that you would even ask that question tells a lot in itself. The simple answer is the money to spend has to come from somewhere and in this case that is the people of BC. Exactly how many taxes do you think the people of BC should have to endure and for what.

Do you just spend your personal money willy nilly or do you follow some type of budget that keeps it within your means? The NDP are not keeping their spending within their (actually our) means.

[burnedatstake]

Do you just spend your personal money willy nilly or do you follow some type of budget that keeps it within your means? The NDP are not keeping their spending within their (actually our) means.

where exactly do you get off (as someone who voted for a government for so long that didnt keep us within our means) preaching from the mountaintops? icbc is in shambles because they were used as a credit card - thus the liberals were not within their means at all. hydro was another piggy bank - thus we were not within our means. projects went overbudget - thus we didnt live within our means.
and the whole time we could have created revenue sources with taxes the liberals were constantly trying to slash those. the only revenue sources worth noting were the housing bubble - and the casinos that the liberal government turned a blind eye towards brazen criminal activity. bravo liberals!
not to mention selling off assets for nowhere near market value during their tenure. and you and your ilk are going to sit here and talk economics? when economics 101 couldnt even be followed by the liberals? come on.

[Gone_Fishin]

where exactly do you get off (as someone who voted for a government for so long that didnt keep us within our means) preaching from the mountaintops? icbc is in shambles because they were used as a credit card - thus the liberals were not within their means at all.

Where do you get off voting for the NDP which stole $778 million in a single year from ICBC so that Ujjahl could balance his fudge-it-budget?

[Queen K]

where exactly do you get off (as someone who voted for a government for so long that didnt keep us within our means) preaching from the mountaintops? icbc is in shambles because they were used as a credit card - thus the liberals were not within their means at all.

Where do you get off voting for the NDP which stole $778 million in a single year from ICBC so that Ujjahl could balance his fudge-it-budget?

And who votes for a Liberal party which deducted monies from people on welfare for the cost of their methadone treatment. Or would you approve of being billed for your own self induced illness?

[jimmy4321]

ICBC, the end it's coming Lol
It's a political hot potato, just a matter of time they realize it ain't worth it.

[Gone_Fishin]

And who votes for a Liberal party which deducted monies from people on welfare for the cost of their methadone treatment. Or would you approve of being billed for your own self induced illness?

I'd vote for that. Junkies shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers for their filthy chosen lifestyles.

[Queen K]

And who votes for a Liberal party which deducted monies from people on welfare for the cost of their methadone treatment. Or would you approve of being billed for your own self induced illness?

I'd vote for that. Junkies shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers for their filthy chosen lifestyles.

Some would say alcoholism is also a 'filthy chosen lifestyle" and where does that leave smokers? And people who buy boxed food for their kids instead of making food from scratch. Be very very careful what you wish for GF. I see the toe in the door with that Liberal policy and good thing a court struck the practise down. You'd agree if anything health issue you have can be linked to all the booze you drink. AND if you noticed, those "junkies" are trying to kick the habit, not keep it. Shame on you.

Thank your lucky stars a "junkie" thought to sue for equality for healthcare, otherwise who knows where it would not end.

OH, and yes, chosen lifestyles are adopted by many which have consequences.

[mikest2]

Some would say alcoholism is also a 'filthy chosen lifestyle" and where does that leave smokers? And people who buy boxed food for their kids instead of making food from scratch. Be very very careful what you wish for GF. I see the toe in the door with that Liberal policy and good thing a court struck the practise down. You'd agree if anything health issue you have can be linked to all the booze you drink. AND if you noticed, those "junkies" are trying to kick the habit, not keep it. Shame on you.

Thank your lucky stars a "junkie" thought to sue for equality for healthcare, otherwise who knows where it would not end.

OH, and yes, chosen lifestyles are adopted by many which have consequences.

Tobacco and alcohol carry huge taxes, the object of those taxes should be to treat the associated maladies. Heroin, as far as I know, is tax free.

[Queen K]

People on welfare and disability were being subjected to $20 per month deduction to pay for their methadone. It was discrimination and the courts agreed.

Is BC returning to its big spending ways of the 90s? Maybe the libs held back so tight the money has to flow again. Did anyone complain that the new healthcare center will be built in both Kamloops and Kelowna, up dating ancient old facilities that need to be having graduating students to replace a retiring work force? The BC Liberals knew it was needed but didn't do it.

The NDPG are.

[hobbyguy]

People on welfare and disability were being subjected to $20 per month deduction to pay for their methadone. It was discrimination and the courts agreed.

Is BC returning to its big spending ways of the 90s? Maybe the libs held back so tight the money has to flow again. Did anyone complain that the new healthcare center will be built in both Kamloops and Kelowna, up dating ancient old facilities that need to be having graduating students to replace a retiring work force? The BC Liberals knew it was needed but didn't do it.

The NDPG are.

Don't get me going about health care institutional bias... always the "solution" is more of the same - and pols love it 'cuz they can cut ribbons and grin for the cameras.

Overall there is an optimum spending level for democracies. Perhaps the Liberals spending fell below that. However, you do need to realize that spending levels per se are only of value to the public if the $$$ are spent wisely. The BC NDP/LEAP are clearly not doing that when forking large sums of money over to dinosaur failing unions and paying off the BC NDP party's debts with $$$ stolen from taxpayers.

[flamingfingers]

B.C.'s Decade Under NDP Was Anything But 'Lost'

After 16 years in government, the B.C. Liberals are still using the "Lost Decade" to refer to the NDP's last period of governance in order to scare voters. Was the economy under the NDP in the '90s that bad? People on the street said in the '90s they were able to buy a house, but nowadays even professionals are not able to.

The Liberals' so-called "Lost Decade" is contrary to the facts.

During the Liberals' governing years, the debt load increase has been alarming.

When Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell stepped down, I wrote an article "Gordon Campbell's $100-billion debt legacy." The B.C. debt load at that time was $53.4 billion, plus $80.2 billion in contractual obligations.

The contractual obligations are mainly from two sources. First, capital projects built under Public-Private-Partnership (P3), where the government signed long-term contracts with private corporations to build a bridge or a hospital. The corporations would borrow the capital, build and manage the project, and the government would pay for the use of it by long-term regular payments. Since the corporations' borrowing cost would be much higher than the conventional government-borrow-and-build method, plus profit sharing by the investors, the P3 model costs a lot more (but it won't be listed as debt).]/quote]

The B.C. Liberals have added $139.9 billion of debt - 10 times more than the NDP.

So what is B.C.'s current debt load?

The answer is, the provincial debt is $66.7 billion, plus an additional $101.1 billion in contractual obligations. That is a total of $167.7 billion!

Veteran provincial political pundit Vaughn Palmer recently wrote an article and pointed out that the province of B.C. has the most signed contractual obligations among all the provinces.

When the Social Credit left office in 1991, the provincial debt was $20 billion. When the NDP stepped down in 2001, they left $1.2 billion surplus and a debt load of $33.8 billion. Thus, the NDP had increased the provincial debt by $13.8 billion, whereas the B.C. Liberals have added $139.9 billion of debt under its governance up to now -- that is, 10 times more than that of the NDP.

[hobbyguy]

Oh gawd, there goes FF with dipper talking points.

Contractual obligations are not debt. Nor are contractual obligations necessarily negative, some are, some aren't. A contractual obligation to provide new ferries may or may not be negative depending on the procurement implementation and necessity analysis. The "green" power contractual obligations have been generally negative, and steps were already being taken to let those contracts expire 9and replace with site C).

The nonsense about the 1990s BC NDP not being a lost decade is just that. It is proven nonsense, and the biggest piece of proof was the 77-2 record shellacking the useless NDP took at the end. This data also shows the useless record the BC NDP put up: http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/provincial-forecasts/prov_fiscal.pdf

Notice in that data that the net debt/GDP ratio hit an all time high - with very little to show for it. That's because the BC NDP constantly ran operating deficits - the very worst kind of deficits - that's like you buying champagne and caviar on a credit card you can't pay off! If you run operating balances and surpluses, then adding to the debt for things like new highways etc. is not so bad - as that is like the mortgage on a house - you can pay it off and have something in the end.

Forget it FF - the 1990s were an absolute mess. But this current lot on are on a path to make them look like the good old days.

And as for the "you could buy a house" specious argument, that's just a propaganda statement. Yup, and you can today - it just depends on where you want to live. Houses in the prime Vancouver areas were already out of reach for the average buyer in the 1990s. Many of the houses that were "affordable" in Vancouver were junk. Like the one the family in Kits now has to pay "sticky fingers" Horgna's punitive taxes on - that "house" is assessed at 68,000 - but the land at over 2,000,000.

You should read this to see what reality looks like, and to realize that the BC NDP/LEAP bogus "affordable housing" pitch is just a carnival barker's come on to get votes - and it won't help anyone to buy a home. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-18/australias-proprty-crunch-foreign-investment/10131090 Yup, there it is, the BC NDP/LEAP stoking racist and xenophobic garbage to buy a few votes (and pick people's wallets!) - just awful!

[flamingfingers]

^^Well, glad to see that you didn't dispute the fact that the BC Liberals increased the provincial debt 10 times more than the NDP.

BC is the most indebted province in Canada still holds true.

Thanks to the BC Liberals!!!

[Urbane]

Oh gawd, there goes FF with dipper talking points.

Contractual obligations are not debt. Nor are contractual obligations necessarily negative, some are, some aren't. A contractual obligation to provide new ferries may or may not be negative depending on the procurement implementation and necessity analysis. The "green" power contractual obligations have been generally negative, and steps were already being taken to let those contracts expire 9and replace with site C).

The nonsense about the 1990s BC NDP not being a lost decade is just that. It is proven nonsense, and the biggest piece of proof was the 77-2 record shellacking the useless NDP took at the end. This data also shows the useless record the BC NDP put up: http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/provincial-forecasts/prov_fiscal.pdf

Notice in that data that the net debt/GDP ratio hit an all time high - with very little to show for it. That's because the BC NDP constantly ran operating deficits - the very worst kind of deficits - that's like you buying champagne and caviar on a credit card you can't pay off! If you run operating balances and surpluses, then adding to the debt for things like new highways etc. is not so bad - as that is like the mortgage on a house - you can pay it off and have something in the end.

Forget it FF - the 1990s were an absolute mess. But this current lot on are on a path to make them look like the good old days.

And as for the "you could buy a house" specious argument, that's just a propaganda statement. Yup, and you can today - it just depends on where you want to live. Houses in the prime Vancouver areas were already out of reach for the average buyer in the 1990s. Many of the houses that were "affordable" in Vancouver were junk. Like the one the family in Kits now has to pay "sticky fingers" Horgna's punitive taxes on - that "house" is assessed at 68,000 - but the land at over 2,000,000.

You should read this to see what reality looks like, and to realize that the BC NDP/LEAP bogus "affordable housing" pitch is just a carnival barker's come on to get votes - and it won't help anyone to buy a home. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-18/australias-proprty-crunch-foreign-investment/10131090 Yup, there it is, the BC NDP/LEAP stoking racist and xenophobic garbage to buy a few votes (and pick people's wallets!) - just awful!

Well said! It's sad to see NDP'ers using NDP talking points to try and disprove what we know to be true. Those of us who lived through the 1990's know what happened and we also know that BC voters turfed out the NDP 77 to 2. The NDP wasn't turfed out because they were doing a great job. They were turfed out because they made a real mess of things. Their record speaks for itself and it's not pretty.

[burnedatstake]

Overall there is an optimum spending level for democracies. Perhaps the Liberals spending fell below that. However, you do need to realize that spending levels per se are only of value to the public if the $$$ are spent wisely. The BC NDP/LEAP are clearly not doing that when forking large sums of money over to dinosaur failing unions and paying off the BC NDP party's debts with $$$ stolen from taxpayers.

ok so there you have it. there is only so much money in the kitty to spend. so the ndp isnt spending more or less than the liberals. they just spend it differently. instead of the liberals lavishing money on donors and big business it is now going to unions. boo fricken hoo!