Provincial politics
- Thread starter Schneller
- Start date
Yep, it's a sad picture. The outcome will not be good any way you slice it.
Heres how i understand things:
Balancing budget and paying own debt have 2 sides: decreasing government expenditures and increasing revenue. Revenue is collected by the government in the form of income taxes and sales taxes. A healthy economy generates a larger revenue stream.
Hudak seems to want to balance the budget and pay down debt by decreasing expenditure. (cutting back programs and laying off government employees) He's getting ahead of himself when he promises lower taxes, because that's the revenue stream side. He believes that lowering taxes will stimulate economic growth, but there's no guarantee that (multinational) companies won't simply pocket the difference to pay dividends to their shareholders, and Ronald Reagan has already demonstrated that the trickle down experiment didn't work except for making the already wealthy investors/shareholders wealthier. Laying off 100,000 well paid civil servants (teachers, nurses, firefighters, paramedics, etc.) is certain in his plan, creating new jobs with lower taxes is uncertain. If the economy falters, balancing the budget and paying down debt becomes more difficult because of the reduced revenue stream.
Balancing budget and paying own debt have 2 sides: decreasing government expenditures and increasing revenue. Revenue is collected by the government in the form of income taxes and sales taxes. A healthy economy generates a larger revenue stream.
Hudak seems to want to balance the budget and pay down debt by decreasing expenditure. (cutting back programs and laying off government employees) He's getting ahead of himself when he promises lower taxes, because that's the revenue stream side. He believes that lowering taxes will stimulate economic growth, but there's no guarantee that (multinational) companies won't simply pocket the difference to pay dividends to their shareholders, and Ronald Reagan has already demonstrated that the trickle down experiment didn't work except for making the already wealthy investors/shareholders wealthier. Laying off 100,000 well paid civil servants (teachers, nurses, firefighters, paramedics, etc.) is certain in his plan, creating new jobs with lower taxes is uncertain. If the economy falters, balancing the budget and paying down debt becomes more difficult because of the reduced revenue stream.
I like an analogy a came across yesterday .... the parties have each a patient in surgery ... here's the outcome:
NDP - surgery is not successful a patient dies
LIB - surgery is a mess w ith blood all over the place that one cannot even determine what the outcome was
PC - surgery is a success, but the patient ultimately dies
NDP - surgery is not successful a patient dies
LIB - surgery is a mess w ith blood all over the place that one cannot even determine what the outcome was
PC - surgery is a success, but the patient ultimately dies
When I hear someone predicting what party's action's or mayor's policies will mean to economy and jobs, I laugh ... they control like 1% of the outcome with their blablabla ... I'd say the less they do or talk the better. It's sort of the same thing when city claims that by bringing F1 to town it means x millions for the local economy .... just words and wild guesses at best which are in no way verifiable under any circumstances.
In another words, if jobs are created PC would claim it's because of their policies, if not, they will simply say it was out of their control. Now I know that TH made a pledge that he will resign should his numbers not fall where he claims them to be (I guess he will explain to us then what his magical math formula looks like) ... good on him.
In other words you have to give him two majority governments before he would resign, if his plan doesn't work out.
Smart TH's move ... I missed that.
I have to disagree, if the government invests heavily into let's say "Solar and wind" energy, there will eventually be a surge in jobs in those fields.
If the government cuts services and does not invest, there will eventually be a reduction in deficit but that does **** for the people that lost their jobs, or the people that are stuck in minimum wage because their field was cut and there are no jobs etc.
In business, revenues and a balanced sheet is achieved by investments in ideas that will eventually cause revenue and income, only bad business that are really in trouble start cutting everywhere which causes them to eventually bankrupt and go out of business due to the lack of ideas and investment. What we need is leaders that will invest in a smart way so they can eventually generate revenue (not tax revenue from the people) and decrease the deficit.
Tim H is not the guy to do this - Neither of them are but I will go with the person that will not immediately affect my ability to put bread on the table and that is talking about investment for the future.... she might be lying but hey, so is the other *******
Conservatives are the same in each country - Look in the US, Conservatives always talk about fiscal responsibility but ye they are the ones that put the US in the state they are. Its all a platform to get elected, reality is that they do not give a **** about fiscal responsibility and people buy into their crap
Last edited:
... though not necessarily in this country.
It was just an example to illustrate the point. If we invest in Apples, we will need to employ people to collect those apples... etc
The politicians can affect some things (like how large the government will be), but over all it's a spit in a bucket. The market/economy moves on it's own private wave (and thanks god for that). You simply cannot dictate to private corporations what to do with their money and how to do business. I am not going to touch stock market, because that's completely out of control to anyone apparently with the amount of speculation involved in that field on daily basis.
The surges in jobs come and go whether politicians do something or not. They can mess it up (like the green energy program), but even if that program was successful 100% it's a small project and would be very hard to prove what's the bottom line to all taxpayers (not just the ones who benefited by finding a job related to this activity) after let say 5-10 years of running ....
The surges in jobs come and go whether politicians do something or not. They can mess it up (like the green energy program), but even if that program was successful 100% it's a small project and would be very hard to prove what's the bottom line to all taxpayers (not just the ones who benefited by finding a job related to this activity) after let say 5-10 years of running ....
Except that (to follow the analogy) we've already incentivized the apple growers and instead of hiring more people to pick the apples they made the existing workers work harder and longer, or just imported pickers from Mexico and pocketed the incentive money. As I've said before, Hudak is just suggesting more of the same thing that has been done for the last decade, and has already failed.
There are times that my head just aches from all the slapping it gets, every time I hear a strictly dogmatic social conservative like Hudak open his mouth. Repeating the same tired tactics doesn't make them work any better.
Was that directed at me? I am not sure at what point did I give the impression I support Hudak?
I'm going to file this convo on the WTF folder and go get me an apple for lunch picked by god knows who!
My description applies equally well to the Liberals, as they are the ones who incentivized the 'apple growers' for the last 10 years. Specifically when it comes to so called green energy they provided incentives that should have made every farmer decide to put up a couple of windmills.
Liberal, conservative, or NDP; a proven failure doesn't become a possible success, just because it comes out of a different mouth.
What would you propose then as a solution?
I already suggested something, earlier in the thread. Instead of paying off the current companies that are queuing up at the trough, try bringing in some new companies who can actually stand on their own and make a profit. Several auto sector companies have expressed an interest. Then again getting out of things like auto manufacturing wouldn't be a bad idea. Try incentives for start-ups instead of conglomerates. Help the Province move from a manufacturing to an information/services base. Give incentives for the workforce to retrain, instead of only being able to slot widgets together on an assembly line.
Or go the Libertarian route and let all companies fend for themselves, without government assistance, and see if things are any better. Might be worse. Might not be.
Whichever way you go, one thing is abundantly clear; the current path just plain doesn't work. Right now the situation is like the old joke:
Shopper - These prices are incredible!
Store Owner - Yup, thet right there is 25% under cost.
Shopper - 25% under cost?! How do you stay in business?
Store Owner - Volume, volume, volume.
My question was in reference to your comment "Liberal, conservative, or NDP; a proven failure doesn't become a possible success, just because it comes out of a different mouth." was: who would you vote for then?
That is the problem! They are all bad so we are left voting for who we think is the less "bad" not for the best candidate.
