Posts
Hugh has two recent posts basically about confusing interactions with partisan Conservatives. I've had many of the same conversations myself. I couldn't have been that only person that burst out laughing from the Tory vs Conservative video because it mimicked of some of my past conversations. I was a member from founding in 2004 until I quit a couple years ago after the massive deficits, so I still have plenty of friends and acquaintances within the party (plus I'm still an Ontario PC member, and there is some overlap in membership). I find the people in the comments on Hugh's post are more amplified than people I speak to in person, but I suppose that's just the nature of the internet.
My basic question for CPC partisans is, do you either think that the CPC's position is closer to either #1 or #2?
1) Harper and Flaherty actually believe the stimulus is/was needed to help the economy. (This is not whether stimulus was needed to stay in power and CPC is better than the Liberal/NDP/BQ coalition, etc. I don't care about politics in this discussion. I just want to know whether you actually think that the CPC believes the stimulus was helping.)
or
2) Harper and Flaherty know the stimulus was a waste of money, but were lying when talking about the benefits.
I hear both of these basic explanations used, sometimes by the same people. I really am earnestly trying to understand the partisan position. If CPC actually is closer to #1, then I have no business being in the party under this leadership. It is fine to have different opinions, but this isn't what I signed up for when I joined the party, volunteered and donated. If they are closer to #2, this just seems wrong to me. Also, if #2 is correct, yet they keep saying they support what they are doing, how can then they go and turn around and be completely opposite if they won a majority?
Please don't comment that I am only looking for perfection or that I'm an unrealistic ideologue or any other attack on me. I don't mind being attacked, but it just isn't that interesting to read on every post. I simply want to know if CPC did the stimulus because they actually thought it was a good idea (again, good idea for the economy, not for their political lives), or if they actually thought it is a bad idea and did it anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I don't see the Conservative Uoptia Party anywhere. Are you going to start it? I don't see it as much of a choice. You seem like a chronic complainer. Nothing would get anywhere with you in charge because you might just be incapable of patience or compromise. -Not something I would hitch my wagon to. When these guys get their majority they will have no excuse. Things are looking up finally. We'll have our deficit gone and Governemnt that has the ability to make cuts just as the economy gets going. This will be the best decade in Canadian History.... except for you. You will complain it didn't come fast enough when you did everything you could to hold it back. You can't lead, you can't follow and you are in the way. MOVE!
Alex, I get it. I require a perfect utopia. I'm unrealistic, I won't give an inch, I'm insane, etc.
I just want to know if they actually think the stimulus was good for Canada (as they keep saying) or if they were lying as defending it. Is asking the question really that offensive?
I think that governments believed that spending would help cushion the fall but that it alone could not re-stimulate the economies of the first world. Business was either too scared or too weak in order to lead us out of a recession on their own, not that they choose to do this anyways. As usual it is the public that has done it by consumer spending or supporting government spending (in this case debt). The only way the spending spree will stop is if everyone is willing to suffer for the greater good and quite frankly the rich are the last to want to do that. Hey I'm no Liberal but the rich are not as tough as they claim to be. (real conservative)
You going to keep asking the same question till you get the answer you want???You cant handle the truth apparently.IT WAS NEEDED AND GOOD.
Merry Christmas
Thanks bertie for answering. Well if the answer is #1, I'm glad I left the party, though I'm sorry I wasted so much of my time volunteering. I wish they would have been honest with their members that they were for increasing size of government if the economy took a hit.
I think the gov't knew it wouldn't help much, but did it because they had to, or else get defeated. Once they did it, they had to defend it, or else they'd look really stupid.
Go back and look at the rhetoric from Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper between the October '08 election, and the fiscal update that led to the coalition agreement.
That didn't sound like a government that was prepared to engage in a 30 billion dollar stimulus plan.
They sounded like a gov't that wanted to cut spending, and try to keep the deficit small, if not keep the budget in surplus.
May I rephrase the question?
They are either fools or cowards.
I'm not sure, but since #2 has the word "lie" in it, it is probably more accurate.
Everything that is said on this blog would be relevant and helpful if it came two years into a Harper Conservative MAJORITY.
We hear constantly about a "hidden agenda".
On the off chance that there is one maybe help us win a majority, see how that goes, and if the CPC is still acting like Liberals THEN complain.
As is Harper keeps winning by-elections, Harper keeps winning elections (seats increased EVERY time).
Let him win a mandate and 4 years of breathing room. Give him time to roll out the secret agenda.
Its just silly, counter-productive, and impatient to expect radical change in a hostile 24/7 media environment that could see an election at any moment.
If you own a house you need to make upgrades and repairs. Maintenance is not the same a adding a in ground pool.
The Government did not fund a pool they did upgrades and repairs with 100 billion.
According the the REPORTS from the auditor general several areas were neglected for years by several governments.
The Liberals 1990's decided to balance the books on cutting funds and transfers to provinces in excess of twenty five billion in health education and social services.
Infrastructure deficit. Repairing upgrading our water infrastructure is estimated at $ 13 billion. (I think)
If you examine the reports and big ticket items since the CPC were given a mandate they have increased spending on Health by six per cent annually. Look at the Reports by the PBO.
He is concerned about the rate of spending above inflation on big ticket items to provinces.
You are free to ask/argue if CPC are liars/cowards and the spending did not work.
Is this for a term paper? Do you run a household or live with your parents?
You guys sound very young with very little real world experience.
I am going to guess the second.
While you argue regarding it was necessary or useful the roof has been replaced. The windows need to be updated next.
This reminds me Hedy Fry comparing the C logo and Hudson's Bay depiction on their Olympic clothing.
Just a great deal of noise about nothing.
The Federal Government spent very little money vs the US to deliver shovel ready programs. Between 70-90% are going to be done within two years.
You like to throw around terms that don't matter to most people.
Free trading fiscal conservative free market utopia sounds wonderful!
Ok I'm sorry. You aren't crazy. I know what you are about and I'm about that too. Thats the whole problem. The route from A to B isnn't always a straight line. Thats what I'm saying. I even like when you point it out. I don't like like when you try to take down our only chance. No they aren't perfect. Yes their haphazard balance sheet looks a lot like mine, but they will succeed as will I and you, together. Time is coming to put all that aside and push. You know whats coming. Proverbial stars are aligning and I'd like it a lot if every swinging bleep was on the line and aiming for the enemy.
Heres to a Merry Christmas and the good work to come after.
Allow to me to posit what will undoubtedly be the most unpopular comment so far.
From a rigidly logical standpoint, the stimulus program was pointless. Borrowing money (from the economy), then spending it almost randomly (to put it back into...the economy?) on roads and other happy sounding items is useless. It's essentially borrowing from your own account to pay off another of your own accounts. As I've seen is common, however, the rigid libertarian or utilitarian viewpoint isn't always entirely thought through.
The saddest part for me of the last 4 years is what we've seen of human emotion. I should say, the importance of human emotion. The market is a beautiful thing which if left alone would (not just could) accomplish more social good than every socialist who ever drew a breath combined.
We've seen only symbolism over substance and unfortunately the former seems more important. People were worried, more specifically investors of all stripes were scared silly (in case we forgot two years ago). If we hadn't had a stimulus program, they'd have ripped the economy to shreds by their fear (I remember those few weeks in 2008). What they wanted were comforting words, and that's essentially all the stimulus was. Unfortunately, if we hadn't, there's no guarantee what would have happened. We could stand with our noses high like a bunch of proud moron Titanic passengers resolutely refusing to notice the ship's going down. Standing one's guns despite all odds is admirable but usually stupid. The situation wasn't about market mathematics or reason, just human emotion. People were scared children and wanted a sucker, even if it didn't help it, or if they didn't need it.
In their shoes I would have done the same in principle, although there were more direct ways to stimulate immediately rather than this sprinkling of roads and arenas. Most people knew full well this wouldn't help from a logical standpoint. Unfortunately the vast majority of people (and especially investors) are illogical, puerile, selfish and driven by fear and insecurity more than anything. This in mind (as with bailing out the banks in the U.S.), they had no choice but to do it, logical aside. Yes, this is what humanity has become (or has always been, possibly).
In response to (the oversimplified) choice of 1 and 2, I'd go with both. Although choice #2 is far more justified than you phrased it. As much as I can respect libertarians on many levels, I'm convinced that had they been in charge, we'd be in a whole lot more trouble than we are. This isn't their own fault in any way. It's the fault of the general populace being ridiculous. But I guess that's a pretty Tory thing to say...
CanadianSense, what immature drivel. If you aren't able to make arguments without a personal attack, please don't bother commenting on my posts in the future. It just isn't useful to discussion. I'm not going to bother defending myself, as who I am is pretty irrelevant to the question I asked. So go ahead and assume this is a for a term paper, I live in my parents' basement and that I'm in high school.
You think the CPC did what they did because they (and you) think it is a good idea, fine. I was just curious what people that still support the party think of this.
It is not a personal attack to ask about your experience, expertise in politics/macroeconomics/global geo politics.
You suggested the experts-political leaders were wrong and dishonest for their decisions. Reminds of Katy Couric trying to rewrite Iraq war with C.Rice.
I am a "truther" apparently for accepting compromise and spending on projects I don't like.
What specifically according to your background and or experience gives you the credibility in your opinion to suggest the actions taken were incorrect?
Student Government experience at U of T? A degree in political science? Debating club champion in high school?
Managing a household raising a family is a reality check. Do you have large line of credit or personal loans taken out on your education? Do you have grants?
Are your parents funding your education?
How do you think low interest rates will affect your parents retirement and the repayments of loans for your education?
Canada is heavily dependents on trade with the United States. Many of the programs including the auto bailout are linked to them.
Perhaps you can explain how Canada can say NO to them.
Provinces and cities lined up and agreed to make repairs and upgrades that were shovel ready and complete in short term.
We are also spending money on long term projects.
The provinces and federal government are both running deficits. Are you suggesting the Federal government repeat the Chretien-Martin downloads to the provinces to cook the books again?
Would you support your university fees jump 100% next year because it is irresponsible for the Fed/Province to spend money we don't have?
What is more important to fund with taxpayers dollars? a water treatment plant or your BA in Political Science?
Not personal just thinking about the spending and those experts who cite post secondary is an investment and not an earmark.
You didn't ask anything. Or well you did sort of, then said, "You guys sound very young with very little real world experience."
I think that type of crap adds nothing to a discussion.
If you really need to know... I haven't lived with my parents in 10 years. I have 2 university degrees (math & business) and have no student debt left. I work in finance and have a professional designation as well. Happy? Am I allowed to have an opinion now?
None of what I said about myself matters whatsoever though. Someone that has a good point that is 15 and lives with their parents, still has a good point. I'm not getting into a debate about whether stimulus spending is a good idea or not. I clearly was wondering whether the CPC thought it was a good idea or political opportunism. Yes, I think it was a bad idea, but that wasn't even close to the point of the post.
The "truther" thing isn't about accepting compromise. It is about if you don't like a policy, then the CPC does it, then you start cheering when that policy is implemented. There is nothing, it seems, that Harper could do for some people to critisize him. That is who I define as a "Harper truther".
Interesting question.
I don't know that I agree with either choices, but I can understand how people, especially former or current Conservative Party members feel with regard to the stimulous money that was spent.
I have to choose #1 on the premise that it had to do with several factors. The first being Keynesian economics that governing countries still seem to cling to since the Great Depression (which I wish they wouldn't).
Second, the fact that this is a minority Conservative government, and thirdly, because all of the Opposition Parties were crying for stimulous spending like a baby crying for it's bottle. Wasn't everyone wanting the government to play nice with everyone?
I think the better question to ask is was the stimulous money spent wisely? What was all this money spent on? What was the end result of this spending? Who benefitted most? How many jobs were actually created?
Debating about whether we should or should not have spent money is moot at this point.
renegade tory, I'd be more inclined to agree with the CPC that they were forced to do the stimulus of that size if the coalition wasn't calling for a *smaller* deficit.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html
Remember, back in December 2008 when stimulus was brought up by the coalition, it was in the neighborhood of $30B. So why did CPC give more than that? You'd think since they are in government and proposing the budgget, the deficit should have ended up somewhere between $0 and $30B to get the Liberals to support the budget.
Completely separate topic, but for that January budget, the CPC was so freaking high in the polls that I wish they would have stuck to their guns and had no stimulus. They were polling in majority territory, so an election over an actual issue may have propelled them into a majority with an actual madate for smaller government. Opinion polls at the time said Canadians were about 50/50 on stimulus and bailouts, so there was plenty of room to win on the issue.
If they truly believe the stimulus spending was good for Canada, I wonder what changed from December 2008 to January 2009. Certainly once the stimulus started being spent, the CPC was bragging all the time about how it was helping.
Are you asking if our CPC led minority government acts like every other political party once they have the responsibility to govern? (Is that is your real question)
Mike Pom did a nice summary as did Alex and Kursk.
I only know this reality. I don't know of a reality where political parties in power ACT on rigid principles.
The CPC have truthers-cheerleaders who don't publicly criticize the flip flops, change in policy, share your disillusionment with our political leaders.
I suspect the majority of us voters don't carry a partisan card belonging to any of the four parties. We also don't spend years in the trenches buying their ideas, solutions as gospel. We did not expect "the return of the king" or Camelot with our PM. You have been much more active in the Conservative movement.
Pragmatic or cynical not sure. I will leave that to you and the history books.
I have shared what the I think are the concerns of the majority. At present the public is not angry with our PM or his government. It is much different than in the US.
I have not read a single comment suggesting your opinions or questions should not be allowed to stand.
I have asked about your expertise , if you have benefited from the entitlement system built by our political parties. Looking for bias or a flaw in your logic.
Have a Merry Christmas and good luck with your search for the altruistic political party that will not bend on their principles or values.
"Are you asking if our CPC led minority government acts like every other political party once they have the responsibility to govern? (Is that is your real question)"
Sadly, I agree with you, which is why I don't care who wins the next election. But if all political parties are the same, who does anyone care if Ignatief or Harper is in power? If they are going to be the exact same after being elected, there is no point. There have been actual elections over issues in the past though.
"good luck with your search for the altruistic political party that will not bend on their principles or values."
I've never said that is what I'm looking for. Total straw man.
The Conservatives haven't just bent, they've broke. If they believe the stimulus was a good idea, that isn't bending to the political realities, it is actually being on the other side from me. Doing a bad policy for political reasons is flexability, doing a bad policy because you believe in it is not flexability. You don't have to be flexed to do what you want.
Here is my problem. From the same people I get the argument that the stimulus was good for Canada the way Harper did it, but also that the Conservatives had to do it for political reasons (essentially saying they didn't want to). That is a contradiction. This is my issue.
If the stimulus was good, but the CPC didn't want it, shouldn't stimulus supporters be cheering on the coalition for causing the CPC to do it?
Okay to sum up the answers here:
#1: 4
#2: 4
It seems pretty evenly split here.
Happy home invasion day everyone!
I agree with Mike Pom. His analysis that both options are true is probably as close to the truth as you can get. I believe the CPC would have been turfed and that we would have a stimulus package rammed down our throats, followed by a host of new social programs that would prolong our efforts at getting back into surplus. Until the CPC get a majority, I fear they'll be buying our support with our own money for the forseeable future.
William Joseph you're being a bit sloppy with the facts.
Coalition Liberals may have called for $30 billion but that would have gone higher in negotiations with the NDP and BQ.
Meanwhile Harper spent $40 billion over TWO YEARS.
Which is about 2/3 the size of the smallest possible Liberal stimulus per year.
Also why doesn't deficit = size of stimulus ?
Because revenue tanked.
William Joseph said...
Here is my problem. From the same people I get the argument that the stimulus was good for Canada the way Harper did it, but also that the Conservatives had to do it for political reasons (essentially saying they didn't want to). That is a contradiction. This is my issue.
No contradiction here. The government did what they had to do to stay in power. Failure to jump on the stimulus bandwagon would have resulted in a change of government and even more long-term damage to our economy as the opposition parties shrieked to the public that "the Conservatives don't want you to get your jobs back! They care more about BIG BUSINESS than they do about working families!!".
Problem is, the public would believe that. They're gullible that way, because that's what they want to hear. The opposition parties know this, and would take full advantage of it.
In their defense, the government limited the amount spent as much as they could, and did their best to direct it where it might possibly do some good (or at least no harm).
That said (and I've said the same thing all along), the only intelligent course of action is WAIT FOR A MAJORITY before passing judgment on the Harper government. It's not rocket science, and anyone who thinks we should have "stood by our principles" and let the Liberals/NDP take power and destroy our economy is either completely ignorant of political reality in this country or a Liberal/NDP plant. Sorry, but CS cannot be faulted for assuming you to be really young and naive...'utopia' is exactly the right word in this case...
Whether the stimulus had a positive effect history will tell. I hope not so we don't get more of it. Harper agreed with the OECD counties to spend to keep the economy from tipping too far into recession to keep the masses from panic.
There are different ways to spend: spend wildly creating geometrically expanding social programs a la Trudeau, or spend on hard assets (roads, shipping terminals etc) which are one time spends which ease economic activity. Harper seems to have done the latter.
Time will tell.
Rick G
I have to agree with the position that the government took the actions they did out of political realism rather than any ideological or pragmatic adherence to Keynesian economics.
Once they took the actions they did, it would be illogical and rather stupid not to claim that the actions are effective and necessary. This does not excuse them that much, but if the price of standing your ground is defeat and the total undoing of all your gains over the past 3-4 years, perhaps a tactical retreat is in order.
The main and probably only reason I support the CPC at all is that they come closest to supporting classical liberal and libertarian philosophies. It is better to work towards half a loaf than to be out in the cold with noting at all (or dippers eating your lunch, which is actually worse)
Post a Comment