Harper Lied

[Galileo]

The economic predictions put forward at the beginning of the year have already been discarded by Harper and Flaherty as unrealistic. It turns out (suprise!) their new numbers aren't just wrong - they are entirely wrong!

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/661861

The claim that deficits will only last 5 years - "Cannot be believed"!!!!!!! And this is from a guy appointed by Harper!!!!!!

Jobs lost will be some 350% more than what Harper Flaherty predicted (and that was a revised prediction)!!!!!!!

Say what you want about how terrible the Liberals are. (Yawn.) The facts speak for themselves. Harper/Flaherty have performed with stunning incompetence.

Everyone knew back in January that their numbers weren't reality based. I challenged this board just weeks ago to see if anyone even bought their revised numbers. And still, even the Conservative posters here wouldn't admit to believing their own party's financial predictions! And now - the government watchdog appointed by Harper has made it plain that Harper/Flaherty's numbers are completely delusional. And it has been plainly obvious to everyone.

There is only one conclusion - Harper/Flaherty deliberately, maliciously lied. There can be no longer any pretense here.

Isn't it comforting to know that the Conservatives are hoping that the sale of major crown assets might just somehow improve the books a bit? Does anyone actually think that the economic situation will improve one iota by the selling of major crown assets? Does anyone actually have a plan as to what to do after those assets are sold? Buy more assets to sell?

We have before us a most despicable government. A government that deliberately deceives the public on an issue that doesn't involve National Security deserves a place in the history books as one of our lowest points.

We all knew we weren't in for good government. Harper was stuck with a bunch of MP's devoid of serious credentials. We all knew Harper was the kind of leader who was more interested in political gamesmanship than in actually leading a nation. But not even I could have envisaged a politician so willing to manipulate the public (yes, that's you) with outright outrageous lies.

You get what you vote for.

(P.S. Sure Stephen - it's bad to be bright - that'll really go down well in the election.)

 

[rafterman]

Ha ha ha

How can you tell when a politician is lying.....

His lips are moving.

 

[terpene]

Be realistic. There is no legal obligation to have politicians tell the truth, even if they know it. (Except in a court... but there are ways of not telling the truth even there. Ask Mulroney.). More importantly, there's no legal obligation that you believe them.

Their Darwinian obligation is to get elected/re-elected, to get votes, in fact. The ideal, to run the country efficiently, effectively and honestly is secondary to that. You cannot trust a politician not to look after his own self interest. Let the electorate beware.

 

[landscaper]

Let me get this straight , you claim the Prime Minister lied about the amount of the deficiet but was it not the opposition parties that demanded huge payouts to stimulate the economy?

Did the auto bailout not cost more than expected, and were the opposition parties not lined up demanding the money be forked over?

The economy is in decline around the planet adjustments are going to be made and yes the deficiet is going to rise.

Trying to determine who is correct in an argument between economists is like trying to determine who won the knife fight basically you take a look after the blood stops running and the eyeballs have been swept up. There arwe a number of public sector economists who agree with the governments outlook.

 

[dcbogey]

Let me get this straight , you claim the Prime Minister lied about the amount of the deficiet but was it not the opposition parties that demanded huge payouts to stimulate the economy?

Did the auto bailout not cost more than expected, and were the opposition parties not lined up demanding the money be forked over?

The economy is in decline around the planet adjustments are going to be made and yes the deficiet is going to rise.

Trying to determine who is correct in an argument between economists is like trying to determine who won the knife fight basically you take a look after the blood stops running and the eyeballs have been swept up. There arwe a number of public sector economists who agree with the governments outlook.

And yet Harper is saying that taxes won't need to be raised to deal with the deficit. Does he really think this is the case? Does anyone?

 

[Galileo]

landscaper

Your post was too boring to reply to. Come up with something on topic and maybe I'll get past the second sentence.

 

[landscaper]

if the projections for growth in the economy hold up over the next 5 - 7 years the growth in the economy should provide all the growth in tax revenue that is needed, the old a rising tide raises all boats theory in action. The big question the whole planet is watching is how big a hole President Obama is digging. If the USA starts a serious inflation cycle all bets are off.

 

[Galileo]

okay landscaper

I guess the government watchdog appointed by Harper must have his numbers wrong. I mean Harper/Flaherty have proven time and again to be amazing at predicting - I'm sure you can find dozens of economic predictions they've made that have come out to be true......

 

[dcbogey]

if the projections for growth in the economy hold up over the next 5 - 7 years the growth in the economy should provide all the growth in tax revenue that is needed, the old a rising tide raises all boats theory in action. The big question the whole planet is watching is how big a hole President Obama is digging. If the USA starts a serious inflation cycle all bets are off.

Whose projections are you talking about? Did you happen to see the Merrill expectations for the next couple of years? Do you honestly think that whatever government is in power next won't have to raise taxes?

 

[landscaper]

TD bank has for teh most part agreed with the projections at the long end ie 7 years or so. The question of raising taxes or cutting spending will have to be addressed, as well the combat mission in Afghanistan is scheduled to end in 2011 and if it does that will free up a pile of money.

Gallileo just wondering what in the first post was not on topic? The fact that I disagreed with the premise? Last I heard that was the purpose of a discussion board.

The point of the first post was that both the government and the parilentary oversight are using assumptions that will not be proven or disproven for 5 to 10 years. Either view can be supported by simply using different data sets or in most cases useing opposite ends of the same data set.

 

[GOLEAFSGO67]

There goes GALILEO TRUMPETING HIS LIBERALS AGAIN!

GAlileo..its a GLOBAL RECESSION - and I dare say still to become a depression.

NO ONE KNOWS.


Looks like the Liberals in the U.S. got it just as wrong!!!

 

[Galileo]

goleafsgo,

Just tell me - are you saying Harper/Flaherty's predictions are right? If no one knows, why does the appointed watchdog seem to claim to know? I'm gathering you think he's wrong?

Harper/Flaherty already admitted their first set of predictions were way off base. Okay. I'm on record as having predicted that when they first made their predictions. I said they were lying then. When they amended their predictions, just weeks ago, I said I still don't believe them. Just weeks later and the watchdog they appointed said the Harper/Flaherty predictions are totally without value; totally based in delusions.

Please tell me what your point is.

 

[Galileo]

sure landscaper, I'll play

Let me get this straight , you claim the Prime Minister lied about the amount of the deficiet but was it not the opposition parties that demanded huge payouts to stimulate the economy?

That's what you said. I haven't argued for or against spending. I haven't argued for or against a deficit. I've only argued that Harper/Flaherty lied. What the opposition parties did or didn't do is irrelevant. Harper/Flaherty lied.

So - you said you wanted to "get this straight" - is that straight enough for you? Then you ask:

Did the auto bailout not cost more than expected, and were the opposition parties not lined up demanding the money be forked over?

I'm trying to figure out what you are trying to say with this point. Are you saying that the Harper/Flaherty predictions are off because the auto industry got a larger payout?

If so, would you mind explaining to me how much more the payout was and show me why the point is relevant to this discussion? Would you mind explaining how this is relevant to the budget watchdog's claim that the employment predictions were off by roughly 350%?

The economy is in decline around the planet adjustments are going to be made and yes the deficiet is going to rise.

So let's see. Harper/Flaherty make predictions in January. In January, I say their predictions for the year are way off. No one disagrees with me. Either they were lying or they are idiots (your choice here). Then just a few months later, Harper/Flaherty admit their predictions were way off. Just weeks later, with the exact same economic indicators, the watchdog they appointed says their predictions have no basis in reality. Conclusion: they lied.

We aren't talking about adjustments - we are talking about whether these predictions were reality based - predictions made just a few weeks ago.

Again, when they made their new predictions I showed up here and said they were lying. Now the watchdog is saying I'm right. Again, where is the relevance of your point here?

Trying to determine who is correct in an argument between economists is like trying to determine who won the knife fight basically you take a look after the blood stops running and the eyeballs have been swept up. There arwe a number of public sector economists who agree with the governments outlook.

Wrong. You're simply wrong. I was right. I predicted in January (read my posts here) that the initial Harper/Flaherty predictions were entirely bogus. They've admited this already. I then claimed that the second set of predictions were entirely false. The watchdog they appointed now agrees just weeks later. I was right. There is no difficulty in determining who was right. The answer is plain! I don't have to wait. Harper/Flaherty already admited it over their first set of predictions.

They lied. I haven't disputed policy. I haven't disputed direction. This isn't a debate requiring deep economic analysis. It's a debate about telling the truth.

And this watchdog fellow is saying, using the very same economic data Harper/Flaherty used, that their predictions aren't reality based.

They lied.

 

[slowpoke]

I hate it when politicians make unnecessary claims like Harper's promise to not raise taxes. You'd think Canadians couldn't handle the basic reality that we have to spend now to prop up our economy and we'll have to pay it all back later when the crisis is over. Harper is too political and too hard wired to his conservative idealogy to ever admit they need to spend now and cut spending / raise taxes later. Assuming he's still in power when we reach the stage when we should cut spending AND raise taxes to pay off our debts, he'll be locked into that ridiculous promise. That pretty much guarantees that he won't have as much flexibility as he could have had if he'd kept his mouth shut. That kind of reckless behaviour is insulting and irresponsible. He must think we were all born yesterday.

http://www.canada.com/business/fp/Effects+recession+beginning+ease/1685716/story.html

..."Harper vowed not to raise taxes to pay off the deficit and said it would be temporary.


The Toronto-Dominion Bank, for one, disagrees with Harper's assessment. It issued a report that said a deficit of nearly $20 billion will continue to exist in 2014 and for years after that unless the government raises taxes or makes deep spending cuts.


The last time Ottawa actually cut program spending was in 2005-06, the result of Liberal Ralph Goodale's last budget. Since the Conservatives took office in 2006, federal program spending increased 7.5 per cent in their first year, six per cent in their second, and is estimated to have grown by 2.1 per cent in the fiscal year which ended April 30 and will grow by nearly 18 per cent in the current fiscal year."...

 

[CapitalGuy]

...and here I always thought there was a difference between making a mistake or having your calculations thrown off by unforeseen events, and telling a lie. I guess terbites hiding behind new handles know better.

 

[WoodPeckr]

What's the surprise, he's friggin' Harpo!....

 

[binderman]

eh... Are you sure you guys are just focusing on the word deficit instead of underlying reality?

When Japan sells us enough cars to buy a big skyscraper, that is just another even exchange. But accounting rules call it an international trade "deficit" because the cars crossed international borders, while our big skyscraper stayed put. Yet the media, politicians and the intelligentsia spread alarms because they pay more attention to the word than to the reality.

 

[oldjones]

The real story here is that it's the Budget Officer, Mr. Page, whose job was created by Harper, so that MPs and we taxpayers would have an impartial, thoroughgoing source of federal budget info. This was a Very Good Thing.

He's consistantly disgreed with the Cons rosy predictions, and filed reports to back up those assertions. So now the Cons are moving to amend his official powers and rein him in. What they propose is any report he does become the property of the MP he did it for, or of the Parliamentary Library, where it will stay confidential. This is a Very Bad Thing.

So much for Accountability.

 

[train]

Your post was too boring to reply to. Come up with something on topic and maybe I'll get past the second sentence.

Ok there is absolutely no evidence that the Conservatives deliberately lied. The budgets deficits are forecasts based on certain economic assumptions. Conditions will change half a dozen times in that five year period.

The article states that the parliamentary budget officer also disagrees with private sector economists. Who is going to be right? Who knows. Hell economists can't even tell you what the price of oil or the US dollar is going to be 6 months from now much less 5 years from now.

Your overly dramatic use of certain language such as "deliberately and maliciously" with the bolding along with your agressive insults to other posters is indicitive of someone who is treating this emotionally and with bias thereby reducing your credibility to a low level.

 

[Galileo]

train child,

No evidence they lied?

The moment they first put out their predictions, I called them on it in a thread here. At the time, I suggested in stead they were just collosal idiots. The fact is absolutely no one here - not even you, child - agreed with their predictions.

Of course these forecasts are predictions. But when you make predictions that are obviously false to everyone you're lying. Not one person here thought those predictions were accurate.

Then - the case only builds here - a number of weeks ago - not even 6 months after their obviously false predictions were made - they revise their predictions.

Again - I posted here immediately, calling them either collosal idiots or liars. And again, not one of you - not even you - would defend their revised predictions! Why? Because once again, they were obviously false to everyone. They were deliberately false.

And now - their own appointed budget watchdog has said the same thing - that their predictions simply do not follow from the data they were using.

That's the single most damning thing ever said about a Prime Minister/Finance Minister from someone they appointed.

Emotional? - we have a Prime Minister who lies about the economy. Not surprised you find that a matter one shouldn't get emotional about.

So - come on train, show some balls for a change. Stop with your pathetic, snotty attempts at misdirection. Do you believe the revised numbers presented just weeks ago by Harper/Flaherty? Do you believe the budget watchdog they appointed is right? We can go from there. There's not much sense debating whether they lied, if you think the Harper/Flaherty revised numbers are spot on. But I don't think you're that much of an idiot to come out and claim they are spot on, because you know I'll come back to haunt you on it.

Game, Set, just waiting to say "Match."