And who is going to pay for the deficits?
Carney's Canada: Regressives Betraying Generations
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
Old people in Canada had a chance to do right this election after youth have been crushed the last ten years including the pandemic when they were very low risk.
They failed miserably by being selfish and voting Orange Man Bad.
So how shall we reduce these deficits while doing both below:
- continuing to pay for social services.
- investing in Canada to make it more self reliant.
Typical.
You never give answers.
My argument is that the deficit most likely cannot be reduced.
And that we should spend more.
I get it, you have no idea how to reduce the deficit while meeting both criteria, but you just want to complain as long as it is politically advantageous to do so.
If you think you have a solution, post it and if it meets both criteria I will take back what I said.
He asked you a question. You went right into a strawman to avoid answering him.
This are the people telling you to vote Liberal.
That's not a strawman.
Example of a strawman:
"I think we should have stricter gun control"
"So you want to take away everyone's guns and leave them defenceless! That's crazy".
I did not answer his question directly.
I just asked how do we reduce deficits meeting the 2 criteria I laid out, in a way to drive home the message that in my opinion deficits most likely cannot be reduced in our current situation.
I literally gave you an example, that proves my response was not a strawman and explained why I asked the question.
Now you are just deflecting.
First thing is you need to reduce the size of the government, which has bloated over the last 10 years and needs to be resized. Second we need to leverage our natural resources to increase revenue. Third likely need to increase other taxes. And fourth we are going to need to decide what we can afford in terms of social services and some will need to be scaled back. And we should encourage investment from the private sector, rather than thinking it is a government obligation, and this includes reducing regulation that discourages it.
And if you think we don't need to address the deficits, when do you think we run out of money to continue paying for the things you want. It is a pipedream of yours and all others like you.
Reducing the size of the government is fine.
I am taking that to mean that you want to make the government operationally efficient which Carney has proposed to do so as well.
Austerity measures in times of inflation, job uncertainty and market volatility is an absolute no go.
It will wreck people who are already not able to afford housing and food.
How would you increase taxes and encourage investment from the private sector? Not sure what you mean there.
Public spending is how you improve and ensure quality of life.
Sure it needs to be responsible, but as of now we face minimally the following challenges:
- a need for social services
- housing
- reducing dependency on the US
- tariffs.
This is not the time to cut capital spending.
Carney has promised to cut operational expenses to reduce deficits.
I think the Liberals therefore have a good plan.
Mind you the conservative platform also proposes spending, so not sure why you are outraged only with one platform.
I'm surprised they are not attacking and blaming Doug Ford for Pee Pee's loss.
At least Dougie is happy he will still have a friendly ear in Freeland to call up anytime.
Carney has not promised to cut operational expenses, only that he will balance them against revenues. It wouldn't surprise me if today you removed the capital and investment spending from the current budget, the operational side would balance. If you bought Carney's rehtoric, you were naive, it was smoke and mirrors.
I am sorry, the Liberals have wasted so much money over the last 10 years, sacrifices are going to be needed. You can increase the top end of the income tax bracket, and by allowing the natural resoures to be leveraged and reduced regulation, you will encourage private sector investment.
If we add another $330 billion debt over the next 4 years, which could get worse with a recession, the problems of being able to afford what we have today, just gets worse. I just don't understand why the left thinks it is a bottomless pit.
First thing you need to do is restore higher taxes on the rich and corporations.
Crack down on tax havens.
Carney has emphasized fiscal responsibility and aligning spending with revenues - a pragmatic approach that inherently requires controlling operational expenses.
Capital and investment spending are not waste, they're strategic expenditures that grow long-term capacity and productivity (e.g., infrastructure, housing).
Removing them from the equation to claim operational balance is like saying a household is financially sound if you ignore the mortgage.
It’s misleading and ignores the value of investments that pay off over time.
Increasing the top tax bracket can provide incremental revenue, but resource development and deregulation aren’t silver bullets.
Canada must balance economic growth with environmental responsibility and Indigenous rights.
It is also easy to say sacrifices are needed while not needing assistance.
Austerity isn't always the best way forward.
I am not saying strategic capital and investment spending are a waste, although in the hands of the government, they often are and why we need to get private sector involved.
And agreed, removing them from the equation and claiming this is good, is totally misleading, because you aren't financially sound.
And how can you trust the Liberals with the purse, they haven't shown any responsibility for 10 years (including during covid, which was necessary, but needed to be better managed) and really haven't changed many of the players, and certainly wasn't just Trudeaud's fault, Carney was providing advice.
Their biggest mistake was allowing too much immigration, which squeezed housing and was costly in terms of providing all these social services you claim are necessary. But no, we had to be global heros, and take one for the team, without a plan on how to manage it.
But go ahead and think Carney is going to be the saviour for Canada, I thought he stood a good chance against Trump, but based on his unwillingness to address tough issues during the campaign (I will leave it at this was his favourite quote), I don't think he will fair well.
You mean like the tax havens that Carney's companies used? Right, he will get right on that.
I don't recall any reduction in the corporate rate, and in 2016 a new higher rate category was added. So, where is your "restore" comment come from. You must be confused thinking Canada is the 51st state.
Pensions were paid for from deductions, so why
Haha as if PP was gonna do that. That can only be done if nations work together
