perfect be the enemy of the good.
Meaning, you’ll never find the perfect program, or the perfect execution, or your perfect desires. So you should celebrate good, as good, and you shouldn’t overly rip something because it doesn’t live up to a persons expectations of perfect.
When this whole deficit thing started I vented about Minister Flaherty and PM Harper. I was not impressed, from a fiscal conservatives point of view what they did was tantamount to supporting the NDP budgets for half a decade. Five years or whatever of deficit spending that blew up any debt repayment done previous. All because Harper couldn’t lose gov’t, Dion was a power-hungry fool, Layton wanted a legacy, Gilles Duceppe laughed, and Ignatieff was too weak to say, ‘no’. Such leadership….
Congratulations on playing the politics well enough to stay on. I suppose I can live with my disappointment that the politics necessitated this foolishness. Canada is lucky that some semblance of restraint was signing the cheques. This is especially evident when you examine other countries with the extreme-left in power. (Waves at USA.)
December had a surplus, and we’ll probably continue that trend with some ups and downs. Good work. Good on Harper for pushing it, Flaherty for holding firm, Clement and a multitude of others for hacking away. Please keep on it. Your goal should be to erase the debt pushed on the nation. I’d also request fewer taxes too so that those who follow you have less to be wasteful with.
Wait…there are people who consider this ‘good’? And think the budget will ever be balanced?
One born a minute.
Obama borrowed 400% more per capita than Harper in 2013.
Obama borrowed US$2152.00 per citizen.
Harper borrowed CDN $545.00 per citizen.
Not perfect, but only Merkel in Germany did better, in the entire G20.
They are approached a surplus next year, before an election….smart, good, but not perfect.
Many Conservative can’t wrap their head around the necessity of pragmatism by Harper, when you’re dealing with a vast amount of citizens that will vote for Justin’s hair.
If we could remove all the hair from Justin and simply vote for/against the hair itself, I’d be down with that.
Harper got it a about right. Maybe a little slow on balancing the budget, but not much. In fact, the net federal debt as a percent of nominal GDP, perhaps the single best measure of the government’s fiscal position, has been flat for a while now.
The last recession was a severe one, and its effects prolonged. The federal government simply has to run a sizeable deficit during such times. Revenues drop and social benefit claims rise — that’s the way it is, and to try to prevent those things, either by raising tax rates or cutting social benefits — would be catastrophic for the government and country.
Now lets put up some hay for when the next economic blizzard hits.
The opening quote is surprisingly close to “best is the enemy of good enough” – V.I. Lenin.
I used to scrawl such quotes on the blackboard in the U.S. office when I worked on an international unit. It drove the Americans mad to think it might have been one of there own 😉
But to the subject at hand, Harper had no other choice to stay in power and prevent the ruination of the nation.
You’re missing half the picture here. Ontario and Quebec are borrowing hand over fist. They’re spending huge sums of money and running up mindboggling debt. They can do this because there’s a presumption in the debt market that the Feds will bail them out when they hit the wall.
That means that the real federal debt — just the debt accumulated from program spending, mind you, not debt from crown corporations or the accumulated deficits from entitlement programs that will need to be funded in the future — is closer to $1.16 trillion than $620 billion. (And that’s not counting the other 8 provinces!)
That’s right. That’s almost double. And every Canadian is on the hook for it.
Yeah, when you get to choose between death by firing squad or death by fire I guess we should be grateful for the firing squad. I’m one of those libertarian type CPC supporters but the more I get of Harper’s version of conservatism I wonder what difference it makes if Trudeau wins. We have a government that refuses to stand up for property rights in the continuing slow motion disarmament of Canada by the RCMP, a government that wants to track, trace, and record my Internet usage because paedophilia, and a government that has forgotten its responsibility towards those who have served in their armies. But yay! Money was saved and Trudeau would be worse, right? Right? I’m honestly not that sure anymore,
So lance is this an apology to my self and others who made this argument to you (and others) that PMSH and the cpc were taking the right course?
And let’s not forget that PMSH and the cpc incurred that stimulus/Deficit spending as part of a g20 agreement – that the cpc wanted to cut taxes to stimulate and most of the G20 – the US and EU In particular wanted to spend not cut taxes. And the opposition parties in the minority wanted no cuts and even more deficit.
Had the cpc had a majority back then and the g20 not pushed we would have seen tax cuts.
Had the cpc had a majority back then and the g20 not pushed we would have seen tax cuts.
Can I borrow your crystal ball that allows you to gaze into alternative histories?
You can’t see any difference between the Liberal/NDP agenda and Harper’s?
Your unhappiness extends to supporting the left?
Cognitive dissonance is a leftist’s hallmark.
You are mostly correct antelope; where I differ is the premise all Canadians are on the hook for the profligate and brokerage political Ontario Liberal Government and the incredibly corrupt and ineffective Governing of Quebec.
I must take some blame for the mess Ontario is in because I live in this Province where I and my family was born. Although I recognized when the corrupt and ineffective politico’s from Ottawa moved to Toronto after losing control of the federal purse strings, I stayed in Ontario.
I did not vote for the Liberal Party to destroy Ontario and I did actively support the Progressive Conservative party of Ontario. But my support was insufficient to overcome the Toronto media expectation of a gain with the now close at hand “natural governing party of Canada”. So by remaining in Ontario we accepted what we recognized would be difficult days ahead.
It is up to Ontario residents to pay for the mess we allowed to happen.
It is even more important for the Quebec residents to pay for the incredibly corrupt and incompetent situation they have allowed to develop in their home province for the last many decades. They recognized what was happening, but, they also knew the Liberals or the “I will run with the dogs whether they are Separtists or run of the mill Liberals”‘ N.D.P. will find a way to buy them off.
The Federal government of Canada is not required to bail out these two large population federation entities. The taxpayers in the remaining federated entities should not suffer for what will be a politicalized situation.
Sinking federal funds into the two money pits will not educate an indifferent or parasitic electorate it will just be another example of brokerage politics. Cheers
The provincial debts that are rarely spoken of..
http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/5428-federal-and-provincial-debt-clock.html
I’d like to link to something like the above that totaled provincial pension debt by province, awhile ago this was in the news because of Canada Post:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/16/canada-posts-6-5-billion-shortfall-just-a-fraction-of-more-than-150-billion-in-unfunded-federal-pension-liabilities/
If taking the difference between Canada and the USA into account, merely using the time honored 10x approach, we’re not much better off.
Re Harper vs Obama: which one of these inherited a large surplus and which one inherited a large deficit?
Why will the ‘eating the Harper CPC’s sh*t and being grateful’ strategy turn out any better than the ‘eating the Bush GOP’s sh*t and being grateful’ strategy?
Yes, Gord. This is an apology, of sorts. In the same medium that I criticized, I admit rashness.
I also (still) call it foolishness, but recognize the political necessity.
@doowleb – If the only difference is how quickly we lose our rights and our decency then I guess I’m considering the fast route as preferable.
I shudder to think what would have happened if Dion/Layton/Duceppe had formed a coalition government. It would be like Horvath/Wynne Ontario today multiplied by ten.
The core problem isn’t that big-spending politicians exist – it’s that unthinking voters elect them. Unfortunately too large a percentage of the population still believes the magical thinking of Keynesianism and insist that government spend money it does not have in order to ‘stimulate’ the economy.
My advice to every non-Ontarian out there is that when the Ontario government goes to the federal government for a bail-out, scream NO! to your MP. It’s Ontario’s mess and if you bail us out, Ontario’s low-information-voters will screw it up again. Stupidity has to be punished to prevent it being repeated.
The solution to Quebec’s financial problems is simple. Drill for oil in the gulf of St Lawrence. There’s lots of it there, and it’s already in tidewater, no pipeline needed. A supertanker filling station and you’re in (very profitable) business.
If we believe balancing the budget is possible we may be wrong.
If we join you in believing the budget will never be balanced we won’t be wrong.
Is there anything more important to you than having the fun of telling us all we will be wrong?
Is there anything you people won’t forgive Harper for? That’s a serious question. I don’t think you are capable of objective standards.
Is there anything more important to you than having the fun of telling us all we will be wrong?
You guys have to good for something.
“Is there anything you people won’t forgive Harper for?”
Mr. Harper has given $66 million to the Palestinian Authority terrorist organization. He also travelled to S. Africa to pay tribute to communist terrorist Nelson Mandela. Also allowed Omar Khadr (unlawful enemy combatant) entry into Canada. All forgiven, if not forgotten.
The US can do with a 435 member lower house of parliament. Adjusted for population, 48 MPs should be adequate for Canada. But it has a whopping 308 member look-busy-do-nothing House of Common(parasite)s. Mr. Harper should have been shrinking it. He is actually enlarging it by another 30 perpetual parasites.
Over the years I have been visiting SDA I don’t recall any criticism of this wastage by thebestprimeministerincanadianhistory (TM).
Don’t stop beotchin about things Lance. It keeps everyone’s eye on the prize. For some strange reason I am feeling much more confident about our re-election chances now…
Rizwan, you’re forgetting that in the constitution Quebec is guaranteed a minimum of 75 MPs and Ontario 95. Right now the people in Ontario, Alberta and BC are being shortchanged, each of those provinces should have more seats and thus more power in Parliament. Since there is no way that Quebec would ever agree to reducing that number, and any attempt to do so would inflame the Parti Quebecois, in order to ensure proportional representation, more seats have to added as the population in other provinces grows.
Stephen Harper the best Prime Minister? My vote goes for Louis St-Laurent. PMSH has ducked the abortion issue, hasn’t said a word about the High River gun grab and hasn’t had the “We’re an Al Qaeda family” stripped of their citizenship for treason and deported to their native Pakistan.
On balance though he is a much better PM than anyone the left has to offer.
“But yay! Money was saved and Trudeau would be worse, right? Right? I’m honestly not that sure anymore,”
Perhaps you need to start viewing things on a longer time-line? It is a delicate balancing act to gain, then hold government long enough to make a difference in a parliamentary system. The time spent in minority cannot be counted for obvious reasons, but even in light of that there has been very good progress towards reversing decades of Liberal malfeasance. The damage was and is so severe that it will take at least another majority to simply get back to a good starting point really. It is doubly impressive that we will be seeing a surplus so early, considering the turmoil in world finance that continues to get worse, not better as it is here in Canada — all quite contrary to the words of the Pup from Papineau and his American advisers, so ya, there is a huge difference.
As long as there is a need for a debt clock in Canada or America Is nothing to be proud of. When we carry no national debt, and have balanced fiscal budgets then we can be proud of who ever got us to that point.
“My vote goes for Louis St-Laurent.” I think I might have to agree with that in so far as to say that St-Laurent thought that social programs had to be affordable.
I give the Harper government financial credit for a good job where credit is due. However, unless some of the rest of this, such as bill C-68 and the out of control firearms system is dealt with, the Shiny Pony Marxists will reverse all of the small gains and add some.
Well said, lance.
@MikeSr: like you, I don’t want to see all Canadians on the hook for the debts racked up by Ontario and Quebec. But given the continued reckless spending by those two provinces, the day of reckoning must come.
I can’t see how we avoid that except for some pretty radical solutions: deconfederation, or hyperinflation. Both of those, even if not very likely, are more probable than the average person thinks.
Much as I sympathize with the Rats take, that we are going down so sooner is better, I also agree with TrueNorthist.
It takes years to remove useless parasites from the bureaucracy, as long as they commit no crime, you can do nothing to fire them.
So you have to make the entire department redundant.
It takes time and rightly so, only the retards impose wage rates,price freezes and other such gimmicks.
Than brilliantly conceived long gun registry is a clear demonstration of the state of our bureaucrats.
These are the “highly skilled,professional civil service” that Mr Harper has the joy of requiring that they carry out the instructions of parliament.
Yet deliberate misunderstanding of direction is not enough grounds to dismiss.
This is why we see so little success from our conservative majority.
Meanwhile all the bandits and power hungry have joined the conservative party and are actively seeking nomination.
Without conservatives staying vigilant and active, the Conservatives will morph into the Cons, liars lite.
The real reason that when a dictator takes over, they usually shoot a whole bunch of government employees,is it really improves their effort to understand their directions.
The dictator gets quick results..
Oops, hit “send” too soon. I also want to say – to point out – that one massive disadvantage the Conservatives have is Canadian conservatives. It seems to me that supporters of the other two parties are less likely – by orders of magnitude – to complain constantly about either their respective leaders or their party’s policies. In many or most cases, they support their parties because they hate the evil Mr. Harper; based on certain online forums, at least, it seems to me that there are fewer conservatives who are willing to do the equivalent, to put aside their criticism of the PM long enough to think “Do we really want Justin Trudeau leading the country?”
I’m *not* saying it’s a bad thing to criticize, just that we seem to have the lion’s share of po-faced complainers who say they won’t vote for the party because of x, y, or z. People who are willing to (in effect) hand the ship of state to Justin Trudeau — people who say things like “I won’t vote for the Conservatives because they’re not conservative enough” — piss me off. Do they think the Liberals or the NDP would be more conservative if they get into power?
Criticize away — there’s always something to criticize — but also take a hard look at the other choices, and ask yourselves if you’re going to be happier and have a more prosperous life, and more freedom to own firearms, and if the country will have less federal debt, and lower taxes, etc., etc. — all the things people complain about — if the NDP or the Liberals are running the country.
“Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good” is right.
You don’t have to be good for something. You can choose to carry on as you are.
Well said indeed, Lance. It takes some fortitude to admit past errors in judgment. And as EBD has already wisely noted, conservatives are afflicted enough with po-faced complainers, many of whom are on display on this thread.
They forget not only your accurate headline but also this:
“Politics is the art of the possible.”
A win on points is as good as a KO.
This is concrete evidence to the undecided and e lw info voters that a slight upward trend is resulting from Harper’s stewardship.
Rizwan – you raise a good point, but I think you’re looking at it backwards. Some Americans I’ve talked with on other sites make a point of noting how their representatives cover too large of a population, that originally it was thought that no more than 40,000 or so would be represented by a single representative. They were of the opinion that the current system can’t effectively represent them. The problem of how to handle a 10,000 member house (and whether virtual meetings would suffice, or they would need a soviet of the 10,000 member soviet (gee, why are those words familiar?) to act as the working upper house. This was over ten years ago on the Townhall chat forum, so I’m not sure if this went anywhere or quietly died.
When conservatives speak of the CPC removing parasites and fixing damage after they increased the civil service and size of government massively, are they on crack? What is your drug of choice for partisan delusion? Ignorance?
one massive disadvantage the Conservatives have is Canadian conservatives.
Calling a group that has donated more money to their party than any other partisan group in Canada a ‘disadvantage’ to that party raises certain questions like ‘are you retarded?’ and ‘did you think 1984 was a guide?’
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, justhinkin. I obviously wasn’t referring to those who support the party, I was talking about the large number of perpetually po-faced single-issue complainers – generally uber-conservatives – who say they won’t vote for Harper because he’s not conservative enough — as if an NDP or Liberal government would be more conservative, lower-spending, more pro-gun, etc.
Here’s a question for you, Just Questions: Who would you rather have leading the country: Trudeau, Mulcair, or Harper? Because those are the three choices.
If you don’t vote for the Conservatives you’re handing an extra vote to the NDP or the Liberals, i.e. “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
“When conservatives speak of the CPC removing parasites and fixing damage after they increased the civil service and size of government massively, are they on crack?”
What part of “minority government” do you not understand?
If you don’t vote for the Conservatives you’re handing an extra vote to the NDP or the Liberals
Why are you lecturing me when you have understanding of how numbers work?
Who would you rather have leading the country: Trudeau, Mulcair, or Harper?
Why do I have to choose between a false trichotomy between three almost identical choices when ‘none of the above’ is every bit as available?
Why does not being a mindless borg-esque automaton supporter of The Party get one labelled as ‘po-faced’?
Will you be giving Obama the same leniency for the years he has not had total legislative control? Do you seriously expect anyone who isn’t a slavish Harper Youth member to drop all objections at the mention of ‘minority government’?
I guess you’re one of those people who doesn’t understand what a “four-point game” (in the standings) in hockey is, so I’ll explain the comment about handing a vote to the NDP/Liberals by not voting: Suppose you live in riding with ten people (just to make it simple), where the contest is between a Liberal and a Conservative candidate. Suppose there’s five conservatives in the riding, and five Liberal supporters. If everyone votes, it’s a tie; if one conservative doesn’t vote, his non-vote equals +1 votes for the Liberals; you’re effectively handing them that vote by not cancelling it out with yours.
You don’t have to vote, obviously. But if you don’t vote, why should anyone care what you think?
If you think the Conservatives and the Liberals and the NDP are “almost identical”, btw, you’re beyond help.
“total legislative control”? Hmm.
One great part of the American system is that the framers conspired to deny any one group or person total legislative control. Given this was designed at the start of the era of democracy, it’s worked pretty well. Republicans rarely have total control to implement their agenda, and neither do Democrats.
This forces power groups to negotiate their agenda rather than impose it. It lowers the chance of any one group getting trampled. That’s a good outcome in my book. Is it in yours?
you’re effectively handing them that vote by not cancelling it out with yours.
No I’m not. Not voting for someone =/= voting for someone.
if you don’t vote, why should anyone care what you think?
When did I say I didn’t vote? Why wouldn’t I just vote Libertarian, the only real alternative to the NDPConLiberal Party currently in power?
If you think the Conservatives and the Liberals and the NDP are “almost identical”
I’d ask what the differece is, but I know you’ll just spin BS.
Antelope should re-read my post.
@Just The Truth:
> Antelope should re-read my post.
Perhaps I should. But those aren’t my comments you’re quoting; they were made by EBD.