eh?

Limiting national debt payments is serious business. No doobt aboot it.

Seems like a good plan. Although I'm sure people will be along shortly yelling that we just need to slash taxes and we wouldn't have the surplus in the first place.

Personally I think a) we still have debt and are paying it off and b)spending some money on infastructure is desperately needed. Both of these trump slashing taxes. (in my book)

I am squishing your debt!

I have to lean towards paying down the debt while you can. The debt isn't a meaningless lump, no matter what Cheney or others day. It eats money, the payments on interest on the debt are anchors around the government. You have to pay that interest before you can even think about expanding any program (incl. the military).

Things have been really good for the last ten years, the deficit spending is history (hopefully will stay that way for a long while) and they've made a good dent in the debt. But I'm sure the cash still being spend on interest payments is very high.

Besides, when times are good pay down the debt, if the economy goes in the shiatter then run some stimulation package and maybe incur some debt.

/Of course the USA has been running massive deficits in the good times, which means the bad times are going to really really hurt.

Responsible governments pay down debt during good times to make up for the debt they build during bad times.



/one of the last fiscally conservative Republicans

I'm thinking about getting up off the Chesterfield and going down to Timmies for a double-double, then maybe picking up a mickey at the LCBO before heading to the pogey office to pick up my cheque, eh?

So how do you massively buy back long term bonds before their maturation date?

I really disagree with this. In the current system, any surplus must go towards paying down the debt. It's a great system, because paying down the debt is not really to the advantage of the government in power compared to other things that could be done with the money (Remember the 'lock-box' in 2000?). If we start to chip away at the system, pretty soon all of our surplus will be pissed away.

If he wants to set up a reserve fund, he can put it in the budget when he is in power.

The first presidental nominee that comes out and has a plan to fix the national debt, keep in mind, a good plan will have my vote. Do away with social security, socilized health care, pointless wars, and stimulus packages.

/Both parties are total fark ups

There are plenty of areas that a surplus can be used, infrastucture, hospitals/doctors, military, education, but - the government is aiming to have the debt paid off by 2021. So long term, it's probably better hammer at it as much as possible now. Especially with the strength of the dollar. We have no idea what the financial situation will be like in ten to fifteen years; we have to be concerned about the USA's economy.

When Harper paid down the debt with the surplus and cut taxes by the amount saved on interest payments it made my cold conservative heart grow about three sizes.

Lando Lincoln: I am squishing your debt!

Flatdebt?

40below: I'm thinking about getting up off the Chesterfield and going down to Timmies for a double-double, then maybe picking up a mickey at the LCBO before heading to the pogey office to pick up my cheque, eh?

Don't forget to add random "u"'s wherever you can.

Canada is the only country in the Group of Seven leading industrialized countries to be running fiscal surpluses.

WOOT!

OldScotch: There are plenty of areas that a surplus can be used, infrastucture, hospitals/doctors, military, education, but - the government is aiming to have the debt paid off by 2021. So long term, it's probably better hammer at it as much as possible now. Especially with the strength of the dollar.

I have to disagree. If we neglect infrastructure now we'll end up having to pay more for it in the future. If we try to do that during a period of economic decline we'll end up financing it with more debt at potentially greater interest rates. I would much rather see a small, steady decline in the debt accompanied by infrastructure investment and maybe some small tax breaks if there is any remaining surplus. As a percentage of GDP the debt has gone from over 70% to under 40% in 10 years. It is manageable at this level and carrying some debt is not a bad thing.

40below: I'm thinking about getting up off the Chesterfield and going down to Timmies for a double-double, then maybe picking up a mickey at the LCBO before heading to the pogey office to pick up my cheque, eh?

Don't forget the smokes!

Paying debt in this economic environment is utterly the worst thing we could do. Money is cheap right now for one. Two, if we pay debt it will strengthen out dollar further slowing our economy and wiping out the good deed that is paying down debt. It's a counter intuitive situation we have going on here right now but we really shouldn't pay any debt, dump money into infrastructure to buoy the economy during this down turn.

loabn: OldScotch: There are plenty of areas that a surplus can be used, infrastucture, hospitals/doctors, military, education, but - the government is aiming to have the debt paid off by 2021. So long term, it's probably better hammer at it as much as possible now. Especially with the strength of the dollar.

I have to disagree. If we neglect infrastructure now we'll end up having to pay more for it in the future. If we try to do that during a period of economic decline we'll end up financing it with more debt at potentially greater interest rates. I would much rather see a small, steady decline in the debt accompanied by infrastructure investment and maybe some small tax breaks if there is any remaining surplus. As a percentage of GDP the debt has gone from over 70% to under 40% in 10 years. It is manageable at this level and carrying some debt is not a bad thing.

Rational discourse, alive and well in Canadian political threads.

This can't be true. We are run by cash thieving communist parasites. We are fit only for mockery by our southron betters as they point and laugh and flourish their cultural icons, steeped in jaunty cartoon romanticism.

40below: I'm thinking about getting up off the Chesterfield and going down to Timmies for a double-double, then maybe picking up a mickey at the LCBO before heading to the pogey office to pick up my cheque, eh?



I AM THE LIQUOR STORE!

entropic_existence

Seems like a good plan. Although I'm sure people will be along shortly yelling that we just need to slash taxes and we wouldn't have the surplus in the first place.

I disagree entirely. Paying down the debt during strong economic times is key, so that in the future if we get another liberal trudeou wanna-be who runs the debt back up we will at least be somewhat better off. It's a means of hedging canadas bet.

This is enough to make me vote against the liberals. I usually vote for the people i think are going to be least corrupt, but so far the liberals want to raise taxes back up while limiting debt repayment? No thanks..

At a time when many industrialized countries are still running deficits, the federal government announced this week that Canada's national debt will drop by another $13.2 billion when last year's fiscal surplus is applied to debt repayment.

Canada is the only G-7 country with a budget surplus.

The move will reduce Canada's debt, as a proportion of the country's gross domestic product, to 35.1 per cent - its lowest level in 24 years.

That's a far cry from the situation in the early 1990s, when Canada was spending more than it took in - something it had done for the better part of two decades.

"For 20 years, they ran continually high deficits and continually growing debt, and Canada was skyrocketing out of control," recalled University of Toronto economist Jack Carr.

But Paul Martin, then the Liberal finance minister, embarked on a steady campaign of deficit-cutting and debt payments - a mission continued by the federal Conservatives.


DON'T SCREW UP A GOOD THING. We know we could be looking at more out of control spending in the future, and we should prepare for that eventuality when the times are good. It's like that story... the grasshopper and the ant.. you know. We could get another charismatic leader who promises the people the world on a government platter. Paul martin made some good moves for us as a nation and we'd be fools to deviate from that path at this point.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/09/27/debt.html

loabn

But our infrastructure spending is on the rise as well! We need to to keep up with our population growth. It was dropping while we ran up our debt...

Building Canada provides for a federal investment of $33 billion over seven years through to 2014 - the largest single federal commitment to public infrastructure of this type



http://www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca/plandocs/booklet-livret/booklet- livret02-eng.html

*puts on tinfoil toque*

From the CBC money article.

Alberta is the only province that is completely debt-free. It is also the only province with a triple-A credit rating.

You know, as an Albertan, I guess we can be proud of that, but what so many Albertans don't realize is that with $100 a barrel oil, it's really not that tough.

It's like getting dealt blackjack and thinking that your hard work and determination is now going to pay you 3:2.

BoozePenguin: I disagree entirely. Paying down the debt during strong economic times is key, so that in the future if we get another liberal trudeou wanna-be who runs the debt back up we will at least be somewhat better off. It's a means of hedging canadas bet.

This is enough to make me vote against the liberals. I usually vote for the people i think are going to be least corrupt, but so far the liberals want to raise taxes back up while limiting debt repayment? No thanks..

I had to read the article a second time because of you...where exactly do you get all this shiat from? The article (very short) outlines a plan to create a contingency fund of a guaranteed 3 billion of which will be allocated towards debt repayment unless there is a disaster requiring federal aid.

nowhere in there do I see any secret-trudeau-zombie-reincarnation theory OR anything resembling tax changes.

BoozePenguin: DON'T SCREW UP A GOOD THING. We know we could be looking at more out of control spending in the future, and we should prepare for that eventuality when the times are good. It's like that story... the grasshopper and the ant.. you know. We could get another charismatic leader who promises the people the world on a government platter. Paul martin made some good moves for us as a nation and we'd be fools to deviate from that path at this point.

again, I don't see the connection between your objection and dion's plan. He's suggesting an institutionalized (therefore, set expectations) balance of debt repayment and spending on critical infrastructure (which, if you live in a city you know that it's desperately needed). There is no 'deviation' from the course, it's just a plan to make things more official instead of every year the government saying that they'll throw 'x dollars from this surplus we just found out about' towards x y and z.

there's nothing in there suggesting that Dion wouldn't put more down towards the debt, just he'd have a guaranteed reserve for debt repayment every year.

here, let me show you something:

"Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has earmarked at least C$3 billion a year to pay down debt but this fiscal year, ending on March 31, he has pledged to pay down C$10 billion."


HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT? It's exactly what Flaherty was going to do anyways. Did you even READ the article?


Now that I've done that, I say this is a good idea, actually. I think the paying down of the debt is important...long term, it'll mean that we'll get more for our tax dollars, particularly when in the decline (paying less portion per dollar towards the debt). Paying down the debt is ambitious, but if it can be done it'll mean that we could either lower taxes or significantly improved services for the axes we pay as less gets leeched off in interest payments.

Rev.K: You know, as an Albertan, I guess we can be proud of that, but what so many Albertans don't realize is that with $100 a barrel oil, it's really not that tough.

It's like getting dealt blackjack and thinking that your hard work and determination is now going to pay you 3:2.

heh, yeah, we're swimming in oil money and that makes it really, really easy to pay off your debts quickly.

Now we just need a government with the balls to do something ambitious, like a massive injection of cash for badly needed infrastructure...

CanadianCommie:
heh, yeah, we're swimming in oil money and that makes it really, really easy to pay off your debts quickly.

Now we just need a government with the balls to do something ambitious, like a massive injection of cash for badly needed infrastructure...

The other point I was going to make is that it's pretty clear now that under King Ralph's watch, billions and billions in oil royalties didn't go to the province, but straight into the pockets of big business, meaning the debt could have been paid off even faster, but wasn't.

/Absolutely, without question, not voting PC on March 3rd.

CanadianCommie

there's nothing in there suggesting that Dion wouldn't put more down towards the debt, just he'd have a guaranteed reserve for debt repayment every year.

FTFA:

A future Liberal government would limit debt repayments to C$3 billion ($3 billion) a year, applying any fiscal surplus in excess of that to infrastructure, Liberal leader Stephane Dion said on Friday.

He pledged to set a C$3 billion contingency reserve each year which would go to the debt if not used for things like ice storms or floods or economic challenges.

"Today I announce that a Liberal government will invest the entire amount of any future unanticipated surplus that exceeds our C$3-billion reserve into Canada's infrastructure that so desperately needs renewal," Dion said in the prepared text of a speech he was giving in Ottawa.

Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has earmarked at least C$3 billion a year to pay down debt but this fiscal year, ending on March 31, he has pledged to pay down C$10 billion.

Doesn't the article say the liberals would limit debt repayment by 7 billion, to 3 billion?

I might be confused here, but "limit" is the word i picked up on.

The article (very short) outlines a plan to create a contingency fund of a guaranteed 3 billion of which will be allocated towards debt repayment unless there is a disaster requiring federal aid.

yes, so at least 3 billion would be payed toward the debt annually, but what i got from the article is no more then that.

Basically both parties agree too pay at least 3 billion, which makes me happy. The liberals want to take the other 7 billion and put it into infrastructure rather then debt repayment.

As far as raising taxes goes -

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=f0ee4aad-d537-42cb-ab5 e -a416819d30bb&k=43855

although if it was coupled with a drop in income taxes i would be happy. Haven't seen that yet though. Cause i think the conservative GST reduction was more of a campaign trick then anything, a cut in income taxes would have been better.

And look, i'm not talking about some liberal conspiracy. But canada has a history of governments that spend more then they make. It could happen again. I don't see why this has anythign to do with a conspiracy.

but if it can be done it'll mean that we could either lower taxes or significantly improved services for the axes we pay as less gets leeched off in interest payments.

i agree, 100%. I think one of us may be misunderstanding the article.. still not sure who..

Everything the liberals do seems like a ploy for votes to me.

/Conservatives are no better, they just already have their stooge in power.

BoozePenguin:
Cause i think the conservative GST reduction was more of a campaign trick then anything, a cut in income taxes would have been better.


Ya think?!

The GST reduction had absolutely NOTHING to do with meaningful tax relief for Canadians. It was just more of the Stephen Harper Window Dressing Minority Government Roadshow designed to show everyone that he's going after the tax that everyone hates. What a pathetic gesture.

Personally I don't think Dion is much of a leader, but my distaste for Harper runs just as deep because he has no shame in polishing a turd of a policy and selling it like gold to Canadians.

LavenderWolf

Everything the liberals politicians do seems like a ploy for votes to me.

fixed it for you

Rev.K

Well yeah, but i don't see the aggressive debt repayment started by paul martin as a turd at all.

Should have dropped income taxes instead. That's where the majority of the burden lies. Our corporate taxes are already low enough.

Rev.K

And doesn't every government do that? Look at the turds the liberals polished, like the long gun registry... That doesn't void some of the good that they did for the country.

BoozePenguin:
Well yeah, but i don't see the aggressive debt repayment started by paul martin as a turd at all.

No, it's not, but that's not HIS policy is it?

Rev.K

Well no, but they're leaving it alone which is good enough for me.

What does it matter who started it? props to paul martin for that, but what i'm worried about is not which ass kissing politician gets to put his name next to it, but who continues along a path that has done good for canada. I'm not a partisan.. It was good when the liberals started it and its been good when the conservatives continued on it, and expanded it.

That's my view anyways. I couldn't care less who latches on to it if it's good for canada. it's what politicians do.

BoozePenguin:
And doesn't every government do that? Look at the turds the liberals polished, like the long gun registry... That doesn't void some of the good that they did for the country.

Oh yes, another garbage policy if there was one, well, I actually think the gun registry is just a poor execution which is why it doesn't really solve the problem it aims to, but that's a whole other debate.

Anyway, governments all polish turds, but with Harper he's not held to the fire because he always manages to pick the issue perfectly so that his critics will look bad for complaining about it. His PR crew is incredibly slick and he's got savvy, I'll give him that. The problem is, at least according to this voter, is that it makes him look pretty slimy, and I live in Calgary for f*ck sake.

Rev.K: The other point I was going to make is that it's pretty clear now that under King Ralph's watch, billions and billions in oil royalties didn't go to the province, but straight

into the pockets of big business, meaning the debt could have been paid off even faster, but wasn't.

/Absolutely, without question, not voting PC on March 3rd.

same here, but it won't make a difference in my riding, I have to contend with Iris Evans (aka the government juggernaut candidate in the safest zone EVAR) as my incumbent. *sigh*

The rural ridings are going straight Pcoontil you hit the real crazies in the south which MIGHT vote wildrose. however, the real action will be in Calgary and Edmonton.


BoozePenguin: Doesn't the article say the liberals would limit debt repayment by 7 billion, to 3 billion?

I might be confused here, but "limit" is the word i picked up on.

you are drawing conclusions of rampant debt-spending from the word 'limit', which in no way suggest a ramping up of spending or significant deviation from the debt repayment plan.


BoozePenguin: yes, so at least 3 billion would be payed toward the debt annually, but what i got from the article is no more then that.

Basically both parties agree too pay at least 3 billion, which makes me happy. The liberals want to take the other 7 billion and put it into infrastructure rather then debt repayment.

no confusion here, one guy pledged a minimum of 3 billion, with the potential for a big fat add-on. The other is saying that they'll pay 3 billion or so, and put the rest (over the short term) towards infrastructure.

BoozePenguin: As far as raising taxes goes -

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=f0ee4aad-d537-42cb-ab5e -a416819d30bb&k=43855

although if it was coupled with a drop in income taxes i would be happy. Haven't seen that yet though. Cause i think the conservative GST reduction was more of a campaign trick then anything, a cut in income taxes would have been better.

And look, i'm not talking about some liberal conspiracy. But canada has a history of governments that spend more then they make. It could happen again. I don't see why this has anythign to do with a conspiracy.

well, for one: Dion gave a cop-out answer to distance himself from the GST reduction. He did not pledge to raise taxes, rather he said he'd consider rolling back the GST reduction if elected. that's a pretty big difference. Also, whether or not there's a history of governments overspending (there is) has no real basis of proof as to say the liberals will do so in the future if elected, which is a silly idea.

Rev.K: Ya think?!

The GST reduction had absolutely NOTHING to do with meaningful tax relief for Canadians. It was just more of the Stephen Harper Window Dressing Minority Government Roadshow designed to show everyone that he's going after the tax that everyone hates. What a pathetic gesture.

Personally I don't think Dion is much of a leader, but my distaste for Harper runs just as deep because he has no shame in polishing a turd of a policy and selling it like gold to Canadians.

on the last decrease to 5% I saved 2 farking pennies on the purchase of a coke at work. 2 farking pennies. the only tangible benefit to such a decrease is in the big purchases, like homes and tricked-out beemers, which the average canadian probably doesn't care much about.

It was purely political and cost a lot of money to decrease with minimal 9if any) tangible benefits. It's the easiest bribe they've ever committed and people are lapping it up.

BoozePenguin:
Well no, but they're leaving it alone which is good enough for me.

What does it matter who started it? props to paul martin for that, but what i'm worried about is not which ass kissing politician gets to put his name next to it, but who continues along a path that has done good for canada. I'm not a partisan.. It was good when the liberals started it and its been good when the conservatives continued on it, and expanded it.

That's my view anyways. I couldn't care less who latches on to it if it's good for canada. it's what politicians do.

Well that's a great approach to have, and few look at issues like that.

In the case of debt repayment, it's just politics. It's a good thing, but the Conservatives are never going to praise a Liberal policy.

Rev.K

It's the douche or turd dilemma, that's all.

And look, i live in Winnipeg. We do need infrastructure spending too! I just see so much waste around me (NDP government).. I doubt the money would be effectively spent anyways. At least not around here.

And yes, harper is a slick bastard. In my mind he's the turd and dions the douche. Take your pick :p

BoozePenguin: That doesn't void some of the good that they did for the country

AdScam?
Shawinigate?
Sea Kings?
The Mulroney libel payout?
Gun registry?

I'm trying to think of the good things the gLibs did for the country, but I'm having a hard time.

40below

Paul martins debt repayment plan

In the present times, the Liberal party has favoured a variety of policies from both right and left, but mostly left of the political spectrum. It has been a strong champion of balanced budgets, and eliminated the deficit completely from the federal budget a few years after coming to power in 1993, by reducing spending on and/or downloading social programs to provinces. It had legalized same-sex marriage and use of cannabis for medical purposes, and has been proposing complete decriminalization of possession of small amounts of it. The party also holds progressive views on various other social issues like abortion.

I don't love the liberals either, but i can't stand the conservatives stance on drugs. You're sliding into the partisan-land....

The corruption was the consequence of too long in power, because the conservatives were a joke of an opposition for so long.

And, by the way, i LOVE the fact that the majority of the canadian left is in the realm of the liberals and not the NDP..

Makes me happy, anyways.

I was happy for the GST reduction because now my morning coffee costs under a toonie, instead of over it. Stupid pennies.

I disagree on the GST thing. I think that was great. You guys have to keep in mind that we live in Alberta. Other provinces have the PST, they were paying up to around 15% in sales taxes. A cut in that really does make a difference, even though it's small.

For people living in the lowest tax bracket, IE the one that doesn't pay taxes, a GST cut is the only way to reduce their tax burden. And virtually their entire income except for rent and food is going to stuff that is affected by sales taxes. They may only save a few hundred dollars a year, but I don't think that's so bad. You say income taxes should have been cut, well, I say six of one, a half dozen of the other.

CanadianCommie: there's nothing in there suggesting that Dion wouldn't put more down towards the debt, just he'd have a guaranteed reserve for debt repayment every year.

I think you misunderstood.

"Today I announce that a Liberal government will invest the entire amount of any future unanticipated surplus that exceeds our C$3-billion reserve into Canada's infrastructure that so desperately needs renewal," Dion said

hockeyfarker: I disagree on the GST thing. I think that was great. You guys have to keep in mind that we live in Alberta. Other provinces have the PST, they were paying up to around 15% in sales taxes. A cut in that really does make a difference, even though it's small.

With the original 1% tax cut, if you make $50,000 a year and could spend your entire income on GST taxable goods (which is impossible due to income taxes). Your savings is $500 per year. Now at 2%, you're looking at saving $1,000 per year, and again, only if you can spend 100% of your gross income, which as I said before is impossible because you still have to pay income tax.

So the actual savings is even lower than this. Big f*cking deal.

hockeyfarker

Plus, most of the people you are talking about are working at jobs that require other people to spend their disposable income, waiters, etc, etc, which is eaten into by taxes. People will cut back on eating out at a restaurant so they can pay their rent, and that hurts low income earners.

Plus, when i look at my paycheck and see the amounts getting taken by the government it drives me crazy.. it's like, my rent all over again being taken out of my pay check! so i get to save less, and have almost no "disposable" income!

I like Dion's idea. Pay down the debt at 3 billion a year, and then put the rest towards our healthcare system, our education and insane tuition prices, and things we desperately need like affordable housing.

/Canadian

hockeyfarker: I think you misunderstood.

I don't see that being as solid, considering it depends on what is or isn't the surplus and what is or isn't the demand down the road.

I see it as a 'cap' in the sense that it's a soft cap. It could just as easily change, but it's a pledged 3 billion (or less if there's a disaster) which could be topped up by more, but rather it's not a priority to do so because there are greater priorities.