[dino_bobba_renno]

the 13.5 billion put towards the debt was in 07/08. Sorry the Libs can't take credit for that. But by your logic they should share some credit for the increase in debt in 06/07.

[ASLplease]

The day someone changes the name of EI (Employment Insurance) to Employment Tax, is the day that I will say it is ok to balance the budget on the backs of unemployed families.

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

the 13.5 billion put towards the debt was in 07/08. Sorry the Libs can't take credit for that. But by your logic they should share some credit for the increase in debt in 06/07.

If you want to be blunt actually the Libs can take credit for 07/08, at least for the surplus. It was pretty much their budget Harper was following. That Harper put it towards the debt is to his credit though. If you really want to split hairs that amount can be said to have come directly from the EI fund so I guess Harper stole it also.

The debt dropped about 52 billion from 2001 to 2007. Harper doesn't get credit for all of that.

Of course when the debt goes down its Harpers credit but when it goes up then suddenly its not?

Double-standard?

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

The day someone changes the name of EI (Employment Insurance) to Employment Tax, is the day that I will say it is ok to balance the budget on the backs of unemployed families.

Well, it is tax deductable (both for employers and employees) so yes it does decrease tax owed to the government so yes it should used in general revenue if needed.

Of course if you want the EI program to run independently like auto insurance away from the government then thats OK. EI premiums are no longer tax deductible for anyone and employers will have a legitimate case as for why they should not have to pay into a fund they cannot collect from. Currently they pay about 60% of the EI fund.

Employees/workers will pay into it and collect it according to rules that the employees themselves set. Aside from some minor oversight for the program the government doesn't interfere.

I might be onto something. What do you think of that suggestion ASLplease?

[gigs]

Wow, somebody is definately on the LPC payroll around here!

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

The day someone changes the name of EI (Employment Insurance) to Employment Tax, is the day that I will say it is ok to balance the budget on the backs of unemployed families.

Well, it is tax deductable (both for employers and employees) so yes it does decrease tax owed to the government so yes it should used in general revenue if needed.

So is the CPP, maybe we should use the CPP in general revenue, too.

$1:

Of course if you want the EI program to run independently like auto insurance away from the government then thats OK. EI premiums are no longer tax deductible for anyone and employers will have a legitimate case as for why they should not have to pay into a fund they cannot collect from. Currently they pay about 60% of the EI fund.

running it independantly like the CPP would be fine, imo.

$1:

Employees/workers will pay into it and collect it according to rules that the employees themselves set. Aside from some minor oversight for the program the government doesn't interfere.

I might be onto something. What do you think of that suggestion ASLplease?

i am in favor of a universal insurance plan, not a tax scheme that is disquised by the word 'insurance'.

[ASLplease]

$1:

Well, it is tax deductable (both for employers and employees) so yes it does decrease tax owed to the government so yes it should used in general revenue if needed.

Sorry, I have to pick at this statement 1 more time.

Your RRSP contribution decreases tax revenu,too. If you choose to do so, I think it would be a nice gesture for you to donate your RRSP plan to general revenue.

[DerbyX]

gigs gigs:

Wow, somebody is definately on the LPC payroll around here!

Better then being bought and paid for by the cons.

[ASLplease]

Derby, taxes is a minimum contribution. If you feel you aren't paying enough taxes, I am sure the government will accept additional payments.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

$1:

Well, it is tax deductable (both for employers and employees) so yes it does decrease tax owed to the government so yes it should used in general revenue if needed.

Sorry, I have to pick at this statement 1 more time.

Your RRSP contribution decreases tax revenu,too. If you choose to do so, I think it would be a nice gesture for you to donate your RRSP plan to general revenue.

Yes but the government uses that money also just like a bank uses your money in your account. Thats how savings bonds work also.

In addition, with the RRSP you pay tax when you take it out. They defer their tax share now and collect it later as an incentive for people to invest in their future.

In addition, they do use the CPP just like that. They keep an accounting but just like banks they use that money if needed when they save more in interest payments by doing so.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Derby, taxes is a minimum contribution. If you feel you aren't paying enough taxes, I am sure the government will accept additional payments.

If you feel you are paying to much feel free to decline government services like roads and health care.

[dino_bobba_renno]

DerbyX DerbyX:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

the 13.5 billion put towards the debt was in 07/08. Sorry the Libs can't take credit for that. But by your logic they should share some credit for the increase in debt in 06/07.

If you want to be blunt actually the Libs can take credit for 07/08, at least for the surplus. It was pretty much their budget Harper was following. That Harper put it towards the debt is to his credit though. If you really want to split hairs that amount can be said to have come directly from the EI fund so I guess Harper stole it also.

The debt dropped about 52 billion from 2001 to 2007. Harper doesn't get credit for all of that.

Of course when the debt goes down its Harpers credit but when it goes up then suddenly its not?

Double-standard?

National debt 2001/2002 = 702.9 billion
National debt 2005/2006 = 702.5 billion


Hell I'll even throw you a bone, they paid of 10 billion in 2000/2001 but it's a pretty far cry from 52 billion.

[DerbyX]

2001 512 billion.
2007 458 billion.

http://www.debtclock.ca/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=42

We have been over this before. Everybody who monitors the debt uses this stat including the government. This is the amount that dropped in proportion to the surplus. No matter what you say you won't be correct in that harper alone paid down the debt and all the Libs did was shift numbers.

Martin did the cutting

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/IN ... story.html

$1:

Cutting Spending

Only three federal finance ministers since 1983 were able to chop spending. They are:
Ralph Goodale, Liberal, 2005-06: $1.15 billion less than prior year
Paul Martin, Liberal, 1996-97: $9.52 billion less than prior year
Paul Martin, Liberal, 1995-96: $2.4 billion less than prior year

Michael Wilson, Progressive Conservative, 1985-86: $805 million less than prior year
Harper government spending record
2006-07: +$13 billion (+6.9 per cent)
2007-08: +$11.2 billion (+5.6 per cent)
*2008-09: +6.8 billion (+3.3 per cent)
*2009-10: +34.9 billion (+14.5 per cent)

If you think the numbers add up to only Harper paying down the debt then you are flat out wrong.

There is no way Harper somehow spent an extra 13 billion and paid down 13.5 billion of the debt (which isn't part of spending).

We did not suddenly get an extra 27 billion in revenue.

[ASLplease]

are those numbers adjusted for inflation, cost of living, amount stolen from EI fund, amount gouged from defence budget, etc?

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

are those numbers adjusted for inflation, cost of living, amount stolen from EI fund, amount gouged from defence budget, etc?

The numbers are compared to the previous year so dollar adjusting isn't warranted especially when we are talking about government spending increases by %. Harper outstripped growth by a fair margin each and every year. Thats why the red ink. The recession just made it worse. Spending like a drunken fool sent it into orbit.

Gouged from the defence budget?

It seems that you claim the Liberals were awful in terms of the budget but you always claim;

1) They simply stole 10s of billions from the EI fund
2) They gouged the military
3) They downloaded to the provinces
4) They unfairly raised taxes.

Do you have any idea how many more billions we would have been in debt had we actually elected a conservative government?

Not only do you seem to be continually claiming that a con government would have never used the EI fund (wrong because Harper is doing just that) but that they would have been incredibly supportive funding wise for the military (wrong again because Harper has cancelled more promises then he kept) and they would have lowered taxes because they aren't a tax and spend party (wrong a third time because Harper raised the tax rate 0.5% to pay for the first GST 1% cut).

We don't need to imagine how awful a conservative government would have been back then, even a red tory one under the PC banner. We have all the evidence we need with our so called right wing champion Harper running a massive red ink government.