[DerbyX]

It depends on which jobs. Canada has had its strongest economy and least unemployment under a strong dollar. In the early 90s cross-boarder shopping was a great concern to Canadian shop owners along the boarders. Canadians flocked in droves for deals if you remember even with a weak dollar. That hurt businesses here. Any job that depended on importing suffered as well.

Of course thats just anecdotal. The fact is that all the reasons the cons are giving Harper a pass for his deficit are ones that apply equally to Chretien yet they won't be fair about.

[Lemmy]

Proculation Proculation:

a weak dollar is good for jobs.

Export-related jobs. Not other jobs. And a weak dollar is bad for all consumers.

[sandorski]

ryan29 ryan29:

now that the liberals think deficits are a bad thing , are they going to start calling for other finance ministers removals as well , what about Dwight Duncan from Ontario , he's running a big deficit , maybe he should be asked to quit too . its only fair if they think Flaherty is doing such a bad job that others also doing a bad job by there way of thinking should also be taking some heat .

"Now"? Paul Martin ring a bell?

[Proculation]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Proculation Proculation:

a weak dollar is good for jobs.

Export-related jobs. Not other jobs. And a weak dollar is bad for all consumers.

Yes but we are mostly a exportation nation.

[Proculation]

DerbyX DerbyX:

It depends on which jobs. Canada has had its strongest economy and least unemployment under a strong dollar. In the early 90s cross-boarder shopping was a great concern to Canadian shop owners along the boarders. Canadians flocked in droves for deals if you remember even with a weak dollar. That hurt businesses here. Any job that depended on importing suffered as well.

Of course thats just anecdotal. The fact is that all the reasons the cons are giving Harper a pass for his deficit are ones that apply equally to Chretien yet they won't be fair about.

Not all conservatives. Look, I removed my blue "C"

[EyeBrock]

Well, even the press/media are seeing the hypocrisy in the Lib baying for Flaherty over the deficit that they basically forced Harper into.

I listened to the CBC this morning and they were discussing how the Libs and Tories policies on the ‘stimulus’ package are virtually identical.
It doesn’t take a very sophisticated voter to suss out that this is just partisan heckling.

I thought the Libs were getting better but I think Iggy is annoyed at Harper’s attack ads and he’s returning one childish message with another.

Anybody who can’t see this is just partisan politics at it’s best/worst is just being partisan.

PS This ignore thing is great!

[Scape]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Proculation Proculation:

In 2 to 3 years, we will loose all the effort we made on the debt for 12 years... Thanks Harper !

In fairness, it's not entirely his fault. He can't be blamed for the global economy.

What is his fault is for not having a safety net under us when the rug was pulled out from under us. There was nothing wrong with cutting taxes (although he should have cut income tax, not a consumption tax) OR increasing spending.

His error was doing both at the same time. That is his fault entirely.

They did increase spending, or rather maintained unsustainable ones

$1:

Mr. Flaherty was quick to blame this big expansion in debt and spending on the economic climate. Technically, that's true. But that obscures the real problem. The real culprit in the ballooning fiscal mess is the chronic inability of governments to control and limit spending. In good times and bad, politicians of all political stripe spend until they create crises that can be resolved only with draconian measures.

The "We borrowed it. Now you pay for it" mentality - fuelled by dubious and fantastic economic theories about the need for "fiscal stimulus" to get the economy up and running - means future tax increases and/or spending cuts to pay for the borrowing.

The immediate causes of the looming expansion in Ottawa's deficit, estimated in last January's budget at $33.7-billion, appear to break down into three distinct sources:

• Slower growth in the economy and a lower rate of inflation mean federal tax revenues will fall by about $8-billion below the January forecast.

• Increased spending on Employment Insurance and other undisclosed items could add another $3-billion.

• The General Motors of Canada bailout is now thought to be heading toward $8-billion, on top of about $3-billion already allotted to Chrysler.

Whatever the precise numbers, Canada's fiscal outlook is deteriorating in the face of an economy that is taking a turn for the worse, despite all the talk of little green shoots and the search for obscure signs of recovery.

If it's any consolation, the United States is in far worse fiscal shape. Tax receipts are falling well below previous levels, and spending is rocketing upward, leading some to predict the U.S. federal deficit could reach US$2-trillion this year.

But blaming growing deficits on the recession and unforeseen turns in the economy is a political device rather than a solid explanation. Today's deficits in Ottawa are a direct product of five years of fiscal expansionism and continued spending increases. Spending has been rising at twice the rate of population growth and inflation, an unsustainable trend.

[DerbyX]

Proculation Proculation:

DerbyX DerbyX:

It depends on which jobs. Canada has had its strongest economy and least unemployment under a strong dollar. In the early 90s cross-boarder shopping was a great concern to Canadian shop owners along the boarders. Canadians flocked in droves for deals if you remember even with a weak dollar. That hurt businesses here. Any job that depended on importing suffered as well.

Of course thats just anecdotal. The fact is that all the reasons the cons are giving Harper a pass for his deficit are ones that apply equally to Chretien yet they won't be fair about.

Not all conservatives. Look, I removed my blue "C"

Speaking of user avatars, shall we renew our bet in the CFL?

[Proculation]

I do not follow football. I think I have watched one superbowl in my life and it was boring.

[DerbyX]

You haven't been watching the CFL? Who are you and what have you done with proc?

[Proculation]

I know we have a team here in Montreal (Alouettes) but no I do not watch football at all.

[DerbyX]

Sorry, I got you confused with pimpbrewski.

[Scape]

Outlaw out-of-control government spending

$1:

The growth in federal and provincial government spending has been startling. Over the past five years (2003-2008), average annual increases in government program spending ranged from a low of 3.6% in Prince Edward Island to an astounding 11.4% in Alberta (the federal government averaged 6.2%).

Over this period, every Canadian government -- federal and all 10 provincial governments -- increased spending at substantially higher rates than what was needed to compensate for inflation and population growth. Put differently, every government significantly increased per-person program spending after adjusting for inflation over the past five years.

Even more worrying, most governments increased program spending faster than the rate of economic growth (GDP). In fact, only four Canadian provinces -- British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador -- have managed to limit program spending to less than the rate of growth in the economy.

All of the above examples make it abundantly clear that Canadians need constitutional protection from profligate governments. That protection is best provided by tax and expenditure limitation laws.

Next year the Fed is expected to top 10.2%

[EyeBrock]

No party is advocating spending less though scape. Any ideas?

[Lemmy]

Proculation Proculation:

Yes but we are mostly a exportation nation.

That's only partly true. We're only an export nation with the USA. We have a negative trade balance with virtually every other country. So, when we're talking about exporting to the USA, it only matters that we have a price advantage. The size of that advantage isn't that important. We get the same benefits with a US$0.90 Cdn dollar as from a $US0.70 Cdn dollar. If you polled a group of trade economists, I suspect they would say the ideal exchange rate would be between 88 and 94 cents US (enough to give us a price advantage over Americans without killing our purchasing power). Trade economics is not my area of expertise, but if I could pick a number, I'd choose a 92 cent dollar.