AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Wanting change doesn't equate to wanting change as envisioned by Hudak - and his standing thus far reinforces that.
AoD
|
|
|
- Thread starter Solid Snake
- Start date
- Status
Wanting change doesn't equate to wanting change as envisioned by Hudak - and his standing thus far reinforces that.
AoD
JKDM
Banned
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
MrsNesbitt
Active Member
Parked, for sure. Because with a vote for Hudak you're not getting anywhere quickly any time soon in this province.
And I don't think you know what corruption means.
JKDM
Banned
Nope ...
I get around quite freely/well, thanks.
... and, I do know what it is.
Turning a blind eye and wasting our hard-earned tax dollars should be *illegal* ... I don't care who does it, and what party's in power.
Last edited:
1overcosc
Active Member
Hey, people, you know something interesting: Wynne's approach is better for Ontario's finances than Hudak's.
Hudak's dramatic spending cuts will weaken the economy and his tax cuts will shrink the revenue base. Both will only increase the deficit. You can't cut your way out of a deficit without significantly harming the economy. Look at Harris, he cut spending drastically but ultimately did nothing to improve Ontario's fiscal position.
Wynne is following a multi-year approach: increase spending in the first year to stimulate the economy, then spend the next few years keeping spending a the same level, and allow revenue growth to gradually eat into the deficit. That's what her budget proposed, and the 2015, 2016, and 2017 spending freezes aren't just idle promises, if you read her stillborn budget you'll see the entire multi-year plan is based on that assumption, with ministries directed to fund their most critically-in-need programs in 2014 in anticipation of freezes in the years coming. While the revenue growth projections of $4B/year are a bit generous, it will nonetheless still reduce the deficit substantially. Suppose the revenue increase is only about $3B/year (what we had in the past couple years), Wynne will still have reduced the deficit down to $3.5B or so, which is low enough that our debt-to-GDP ratio won't increase, and its not that hard to plan your way out of a $3.5B deficit.
The exact same approach was just used by the federal government to balance their budget, and it's working well, they're essentially balanced this year and will be in surplus next year.
Hudak's dramatic spending cuts will weaken the economy and his tax cuts will shrink the revenue base. Both will only increase the deficit. You can't cut your way out of a deficit without significantly harming the economy. Look at Harris, he cut spending drastically but ultimately did nothing to improve Ontario's fiscal position.
Wynne is following a multi-year approach: increase spending in the first year to stimulate the economy, then spend the next few years keeping spending a the same level, and allow revenue growth to gradually eat into the deficit. That's what her budget proposed, and the 2015, 2016, and 2017 spending freezes aren't just idle promises, if you read her stillborn budget you'll see the entire multi-year plan is based on that assumption, with ministries directed to fund their most critically-in-need programs in 2014 in anticipation of freezes in the years coming. While the revenue growth projections of $4B/year are a bit generous, it will nonetheless still reduce the deficit substantially. Suppose the revenue increase is only about $3B/year (what we had in the past couple years), Wynne will still have reduced the deficit down to $3.5B or so, which is low enough that our debt-to-GDP ratio won't increase, and its not that hard to plan your way out of a $3.5B deficit.
The exact same approach was just used by the federal government to balance their budget, and it's working well, they're essentially balanced this year and will be in surplus next year.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Indeed, so should selling public infrastructure and assets acquired through our hard earned tax dollars for accounting purposes.
AoD
JKDM
Banned
What a minute ... does this mean Harper's admin. is doing something right?
Somewhere, Jim Flaherty's looking down on us and smiling.
MrsNesbitt
Active Member
Then you obviously have forgotten the PC Party wasting billions more of tax dollars by leasing away the 407...you don't care who does it, eh?
That aside, you've confirmed that you don't understand the definition. It's not about what should be illegal, it's about what is. Spending money like the Liberals did on cancelling gas plants is not illegal, and not corruption. Dumb yes, corrupt no.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
JKDM
Banned
Look, I am not some hyper-partisan that won't admit that the party I voted for hasn't made some awful mistakes.
The privatization of the 407 is an example of that.
Does that mean I (or others) shouldn't vote for Hudak's Tories? No.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I guess some mistakes are "criminal" and others are, oh well.
AoD
AoD
MrsNesbitt
Active Member
Similarly, the gas plants aren't then a reason that I shouldn't vote for Wynne. Especially considering the 407 will have cost Ontario many times the amount that the gas plants did by the time its lease expires.
JKDM
Banned
It should be illegal.
Regardless who's in power.
It's truly disgusting how little oversight we have when it comes to how our hard-earned tax dollars are spent.
JKDM
Banned
It's not just the gas plants the Ontario Liberals f*cked up.
Their fumbling of several files has cost this province a great deal of money.
- Status