The best thing about a fall election...

[Brandon716]

Keynes only argued that a deficit should be run if necessary, not uncontrollable debt or debt incurred for the sake of incurring debt.

Lowering taxes to get a deficit going is never good policy.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

He doesn't look too good in that picture

 

[299 bloor call control.]

And CBC's latest poll shows a possible Tory majority:

Canadians set to vote Conservative: poll

Last Updated: Thursday, September 4, 2008 | 5:02 PM ET Comments69Recommend26

CBC News


Canadians would vote for the Conservatives in a federal election and believe Stephen Harper and Jack Layton would make better prime ministers than Stéphane Dion, according to a new poll sponsored by CBC News.
The survey, conducted by Environics between Friday and Tuesday, found that 38 per cent of Canadians would vote for the Conservative party if an election were held immediately.
By comparison, 28 per cent would vote for the Liberal party, 19 for the NDP, eight for the Bloc Québécois and seven for the Green party.
Even when undecided voters were asked to reveal whom they were inclined to vote for, the Conservatives still kept the lead: Conservatives (33 per cent), Liberals (24), NDP (16), Bloc (7), Green (6).
If the federal election were held today, which of the following parties would you vote for?

Total %
Conservative Party
38
Liberal Party
28
New Democratic Party
19
Bloc Québécois
8
Green Party
7

This latest poll shows that support for the Conservatives has grown since the beginning of the summer.
A similar survey done in late June and early July showed the Conservatives with 35 per cent support of decided voters, while the Liberals had 30, the NDP had 17, the Greens had 10 and the Bloc had 8.
The survey comes as an election looms in Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to visit Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean at 9 a.m. ET on Sunday and ask her to dissolve his minority Conservative government, the Canadian Press reported Thursday.
Canadians would then go to the polls on Oct. 14.
A total of 2,505 people from across the country were surveyed for the poll. It is considered accurate to within plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Conservatives lead in Ontario, Prairies, B.C.

When looking at the regions, the Conservatives have a firm lead in Ontario — 43 per cent of Ontarians would vote Conservative compared to 34 per cent Liberal.
In your opinion, which of the following party leaders would make the best prime minister of Canada?
Leader % Stephen Harper 39 Jack Layton 15 Stéphane Dion 13 Gilles Duceppe 4 Elizabeth May 3 None of the above 14 Don't know/No answer 12
The Conservatives also have firm support in the Prairies (53 Conservative, 22 Liberal) and in British Columbia (35 Conservative, 28 NDP, 26 Liberal).
But in Quebec, the Conservatives are a distant second to the Bloc, which has 34 per cent of the vote, compared to 23 Conservative and 22 Liberal.
In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have the lead (39 per cent Liberal, 33 Conservative).
While Canadians are leaning their support toward the Conservatives, they also have confidence in Conservative Leader Harper.
A total of 39 per cent said Harper would make the best prime minister, while 15 per cent chose the NDP’s Layton.
Only 13 per cent chose Liberal Dion, while 14 per cent said none of the leaders of the major parties would make a good prime minister.
Conservatives for economy, Liberals for environment

When Canadians were asked which political parties could best handle a variety of heated issues in Canada, the choice was most often the Conservatives.
Those responding to the poll said they believe the Conservatives are best able to deal with the economy, provide honest government, deal with crime and justice, represent the interests of people’s home provinces in Ottawa and deal with Afghanistan.
By comparison they thought the Liberals could best deal with environmental issues like global warming and environmental pollution. The Liberals are also best suited to handle national unity issues, respondents said.
The Liberals and Conservatives were tied when it came to health, chosen equally as the best party to handle the issue.
When considering the issues, the Liberals or the Conservatives were usually considered the first and second most capable parties.
However, the NDP came in second when it came to choosing the party most capable of providing an honest government — 27 per cent of respondents chose the Conservatives as most capable, 19 per cent chose the NDP and 14 per cent chose the Liberals.
The NDP, along with the Greens, were also considered strong when it came to the environment — Liberals got 21 per cent of the vote, with the NDP, Greens and Conservatives tied with 20 per cent.
More results from the Environics poll will be made available Sunday on CBCNews.ca and on CBC-TV and CBC Radio.

 

[lordmandeep]

No Kenesian economics does not work as govt go into deficits and then stay in deficits.

We can talk about all the economic theories we want but govts are not managed well enough for us to let them go into deficits.

Lowering taxes to get a deficit going is never good policy.

Like how the Mike Harris Tories sold the 407 for nothing so they could have extra money to bribe us with a tax cut because they never had any money to give a tax cut beforehand because they said they were fiscal conservatives but really cared about beating down the poor and helping out rich older people???


Seriously, Dalton is boring but he never did anything that stupid and he never will.

 

[TrickyRicky]

This is going to be a tough election call for me personally. I have no interest in a Tory majority and have a strong dislike for Steven Harper. That said the Liberals have shown no indication that they deserve my vote, such that I would not care to vote Liberal to offset a majority Conservative government. Personally I am ideologically opposed to the NDP and worse than that for more left wing people the NDP no longer stands for anything they once believed in. Looks like a throw away vote for me in my downtown riding, either Green or Conservative. Why Conservative? I'm taking it for the team to boost ratings. The more Toronto remains a bastion of Liberal or NDP support the less relevent it becomes. We need all our ridings to be tough wins with small margins of victory split between parties.

 

[afransen]

And CBC's latest poll shows a possible Tory majority:

I find that rather suspicious... it's quite out of step with even the Conservative-friendly Strategic Counsel poll.

We'll have to see if it is corroborated by other polls before we get too excited.

 

[Brandon716]

He doesn't look too good in that picture

The Hunchback at 24 Sussex

Coming to a theatre near you!

 

[Brandon716]

He doesn't look too good in that picture

..OR..

Babe 3: Potbelly Pig turned Con

 

[afransen]

Imo that is what a Govt should do and look at the rest of the G8. They are sinking in debt because they acted like a bunch of stupid idealists who think if you spend money you make more. Silly thought as it takes many years for any return to come back!!!

hey Chretien raised taxes and cut spending but imo if we stayed on course we would be worse off then the States now in Debt.

Deficits are simply bad, I cannot understand why some of you guys think they are okay.

Imo if you have a 10-40 billion deficit you need to cut or else in ten years you be bankrupt.


Imo Chretien was lazy and could off done much more, but he stayed out of Iraq and saved Canada from bankruptcy.

If we start with the two premises:

1. Our current level of debt, relative to GDP, is acceptable.
2. Our economy will grow, on average, at a compound nominal annual rate of 3%.

Then, it is perfectly acceptable to allow the debt to increase by 3% per year on average. That works out to something in the $13-15 billion range. In other words, we could have a deficit that size, and be no more indebted at the federal level.

Running surpluses or even balanced budgets will drive our debt:GDP ratio to rather low levels fairly quickly. This poses a problem, as government debt does serve a useful purpose in the economy. At some point, we should probably aim for some sort of steady-state debt:GDP ratio. As long as program spending remains less than government revenues, I am comfortable with using deficit financing for capital expenses, such as infrastructure and military hardware.

 

[afransen]

That's actually opposite of the mainstream Canadian view where we tax corporations and send the benefits to citizens who pay next to nothing for the benefits they derive. I forget the exact figures, but something like the top 10% of income tax filers pay for 50% of the governments revenue, or something like that....which is why those at the bottom have no problems with demanding more social programs. They're not paying for them. That being said, some services are best delivered by govts (child care, EI, etc).

I'm not really interested in value judgments on this issue, but I will say that I think it's more complicated than this. The poor are a resource to be exploited by the wealthy, so I won't shed many tears for them--this society makes their lifestyle possible, and in turn, I see nothing wrong with them paying for this society's upkeep.

I am intrigued by the European system, its challenges, its successes and its failures. Perhaps we can learn from them. And having a carbon market also allows us to connect with those international markets, possibly leading to intermarket futures trading down the road and policy commonality on counter-climate change efforts.

International carbon trading suffers from even greater challenges for preventing fraud.

I think you'll agree that the tax will be simpler to implement and administer, and therefore less wasteful in terms of bureacracy.

A carbon tax does not preclude us from participating in international carbon trading. If we want to subject ourselves to caps which can be offset by credits, this is all possible with a carbon tax.

In the long run, a carbon tax also has greater potential for fairness and uniform implementation around the world, as the tax will stay in the country of origin, and it rewards countries that have already made strides toward reducing emissions.

If they are charged the whole amount of the tax, then what proportion of it are they paying and what proportion am I the consumer paying....and in reality, will it probably be me paying the whole thing?

Depends on the time from. In the short term, energy consumption is pretty inelastic, so consumers will end up paying most of the tax. In the longer run, demand is more elastic, and so producers will pay an increasing percentage of the tax. Ultimately, the idea of taxing corporations is mostly fantasy. Corporate taxes fall hardest on the employees.

So yes, you will be paying almost the entire cost of the carbon tax through increased prices for goods. However, you (Joe Public) are also getting the biggest tax cut; nearly $2000 per year for the typical Canadian family of four.

Talking about agriculture....how are we gonna tax methane, which is worse for global warming than CO2. I would like to see farmers have to buy methane credits....though I suppose you could also have tax farmers per head of cattle at a standard rate.

The latter would indeed be easier to implement. There are some technologies that can reduce the amount of methane produced by cattle (anaerobic digesters for methane to produce heat or electricity, displacing hydrocarbons), and so taxing these emissions will provide substantial incentive to reduce them. Methane does break down in the atmosphere (half life of about 7 years), but it is still better to reduce these emissions. I'd say tackle the implementation of the carbon tax first, then worry about this. It's already a big bite to chew, politically speaking.

This is what worries me. Implementation. As it stands, the Green Shift seems to be like an attempt to shift revenue from the oil sands to eastern consumers. Sure, some energy intensive industries would be hit hard. But with most of our emissions coming from resource production, one can guess which industries will be particularly targeted under this plan. As an Ontarian, I see benefits. As a Canadian, I don't want to see the country fracture along the lines of those with oil and those without.

Well, this is certainly a line parroted by Conservatives and some pundits, but I haven't seen any attempt to model how much money would actually be flowing between regions.

I am tempted to dislike the Conservatives for their shenanigans in parliament, lack of openness, etc. But a minority is an artificial situation. The Martin Liberals were rather hostile too. That's the nature of minorities, they tend to be more about prepping for elections than governing.

I don't really have anything against Dion. But I still don't feel like the rest of their party has done anything to clean house.

I am tempted to say let the Conservatives have a majority, and if they do anything reckless, hey there's always 2012. That's the beauty about democracy.

See, I think that's a rather risky proposition. I honestly don't expect Harper to behave any better with a majority, considering he has had to keep his popularity from dipping too far these past 30 months. Remove any worry about that, and he could do some very drastic things in the first 18 months, hoping the heat will blow over by the time their 5 year mandate runs out.

 

[kEiThZ]

Keynes only argued that a deficit should be run if necessary, not uncontrollable debt or debt incurred for the sake of incurring debt.

Lowering taxes to get a deficit going is never good policy.

Not quite. Keynes argued that governments should provide stimulus during an economic downturn, by using saved funds and/or running a deficit.

Lowering taxes is not necessarily a bad policy. If the government is collecting too much revenue, which is what a surplus is, then it should reduce taxes. The end of the fiscal year spending sprees that result from high surpluses are just as irresponsible as structural deficits. These are roughly drafted policies that allow a government to simply blow unbudgeted funds on its own pet projects.

If the economy was great this year, the federal government could have run a surplus (and it probably still will) despite the GST cut and then nobody would be talking about deficits. So why is it the Conservatives fault if the economy tanked. I don't agree with which tax they cut, but I agree that increased stimulus via a tax cut was appropriate to pre-empt a sinking economy. And you should also recall that unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives dumped all the recent surpluses into debt reduction. So on the fiscal front, they have been responsible and haven't been blowing the funds away. And if worse comes, they can always raise taxes, or cut spending....though its probably a bad idea to do it in a downturn....

The comparison to the US and their irresponsible tax cuts are completely bogus. The US didn't run a decade of surpluses justifying their tax cuts. Canada isn't in a financially ruinous conflict. The US isn't on its way to an effectively zero debt/gdp ratio in our lifetime. Indeed, Canada will have a federal debt/gdp ratio of less than 20% by 2020. This was a Liberal goal that has been strictly adhered to by the Conservatives. As it stands, we might achieve that goal 5 years early if the Conservatives keep dumping surpluses into debt reduction. Given all this, neither Liberal, nor Conservative finance ministers showed any need for extra revenue. So cutting taxes was entirely appropriate.

We can debate if the money should have been spent elsewhere. And that's a different argument altogether. But I will note, that the tax cuts have made room for the provinces to raise taxes to address things like infrastructure, health care and education, which are all provincial responsibilities. That they won't speaks to their lack of political courage, not to any failure on the part of the feds....

 

[Brandon716]

Not quite. Keynes argued that governments should provide stimulus during an economic downturn, by using saved funds and/or running a deficit.

That's exactly what the point is. The idea isn't to bankrupt government, its to provide stimulus by running a deficit during an economic downturn.

The idea isn't to intentionally run a deficit for the sake of running a deficit.

 

[kEiThZ]

That's exactly what the point is. The idea isn't to bankrupt government, its to provide stimulus by running a deficit during an economic downturn.

The idea isn't to intentionally run a deficit for the sake of running a deficit.

And they haven't run a deficit, last I checked, even though the economy is struggling, particularly in Ontario. Running, a deficit in one fiscal quarter isn't indicative of anything. There could have been higher expenditures that quarter, or reduced tax revenues. A one-off doesn't necessarily indicate a trend.

Running a deficit during good times would be political suicide, especially in Canada and especially for the Conservatives who run on their good management, small government platform. And balanced budgets have become such a political norm, that Canadians can't imagine any other way....for example taking on "good" debt to build infrastructure. Although I think they should run a deficit this year and that the public will forgive them if they run one in 2008 or 2009, I will be really surprised if they actually do. They will simply cut or defer (a particularly Liberal habit) spending if necessary. And that's too bad, Ontario and Quebec could really use some economic stimulus right now.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is going to be a tough election call for me personally. I have no interest in a Tory majority and have a strong dislike for Steven Harper. That said the Liberals have shown no indication that they deserve my vote, such that I would not care to vote Liberal to offset a majority Conservative government. Personally I am ideologically opposed to the NDP and worse than that for more left wing people the NDP no longer stands for anything they once believed in. Looks like a throw away vote for me in my downtown riding, either Green or Conservative. Why Conservative? I'm taking it for the team to boost ratings. The more Toronto remains a bastion of Liberal or NDP support the less relevent it becomes. We need all our ridings to be tough wins with small margins of victory split between parties.

EXACTLY HOW I FEEL TOO! Good to know I am not alone out there......

NDP - Useless. All about big labour, and they forget that its the middle class that pays those fat pay cheques for public union workers.

Conservatives - Haven't moved enough to the centre and have just acted petty with all those useless small, ideological spending cuts....

Liberals - Haven't learned a thing from all the scandals. They still seem like they want to be in power for the sake of being in power. The Green Shift seems less like a platform and more like an excuse to be back in power.

Greens - A fringe vote based on environmental issues.....though I like their fiscal conservative, socially progressive principles.


I am leaning Green cause I wanna see them come up and see a real choice develop.

 

[kEiThZ]

No Keyesian economics does not work as govt go into deficits and then stay in deficits.

Just because some minister or bureaucrat is poor at implementing the theory does not mean it doesn't work.

We can talk about all the economic theories we want but govts are not managed well enough for us to let them go into deficits.

Then we should be addressing the issue of management and demanding that our political parties emphasize fiscal responsibility. To me that would include understanding when to run a deficit and when to run a surplus. Counter-cyclical budgeting can really lessen the impact of a recession. Right now, the fed should be pumping money into Ontario to prevent it from sinking into recession. If a deficit is necessary so be it....