The Shotgun Blog
« The crisis of socialism, part 1. | Main | Revolutionary Says Revolution Has Gone Too Far »
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Stephen Harper, stimulus spending, and political power
A poll reveals that business leaders generally agree with the Fraser Institute that stimulus spending has not helped the economy. The attitude appears to be that the Conservative government acted for political gain rather than what was best for Canada’s economy. I would agree with this conclusion, except to say that the government has not really gained any political advantage out of the stimulus package.
It is widely claimed that Canada would have gone into an election if the Conservatives had not increased spending to the degree that they did. I doubt that this would have happened considering the anger and outrage that was still around from the coalition attempt. Not to mention the chaos within the Liberal Party that had resulted from Michael Ignatieff’s coup. Even if there was an election it seems likely that the Conservatives would have gained.
The other argument was that the government needed the spending to increase their popularity. You notice any large sustained boosts in the polls? The Conservative’s level of support has remained the same as it has been for the past 4 years. Maybe the Conservatives would have gone down a little in the polls but this would have only been in the short term. Ultimately the Canadian people do not support deficit spending.
Really the political excuse for why Mr. Harper directed the government to massively increase spending is a bad one. Consider that the spending has done no good at all. Even the minority of the planned spending that has actually been spent has not significantly contributed to the recovery. At the same time it has done a lot of harm. Canada is going to have trouble paying off this debt and the population is not getting any younger.
So Stephen Harper did something that is bad for Canada for the sake of political gain. He reversed a life time commitment to free markets and opposition to Keynesian economics for the sake of political power. Isn’t this exactly what conservatives have complained about the Liberals for generations; a willingness to bend principle for power? Is this really what the Conservative Party expected of its leadership?
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on April 29, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
The opposition played their cards extremely well. They howled about how the gov't was doing nothing about the recession. As soon as Harper caved, they began howling about deficits.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-04-29 6:58:40 AM
Everything Harper does is for political gain - which means that he has no vision for the country. There's more than just the Opposition "howling", the rest of us are howling as well; because we're not willing to see the country driven off the rails by a power-hungry used-car salesman from Toronto.
Posted by: Margaret | 2010-04-29 7:02:17 AM
Does this poll measure confidence? An Angus Poll Sept 2009- March 2010 shows the opposite, confidence and trust on the doing the right thing Canadians have picked our Prime Minister. A recent Readers Digest Poll repeats the same narrative. On the economic questions regarding the deficit, handling the economy the PM is a clear winner.
The G8-G20, Premiers agreed to a spending plan in dealing with the Global recession.
Some may like to ignore the facts of the decision to tackle this in a cooperative manner.
Posted by: canadiansense | 2010-04-29 7:21:17 AM
Canadian Sense,
I take it that you are the same person that commented on my personal blog regarding this same post. You have yet to respond to my response so I'll just make the same points that I made before.
The poll that you linked on my blog does not show confidence in Stephen Harper. It merely shows that people are more confident in him than other major leaders. 51% said that they did not trust Harper on the economy versus 41% that said the do. These numbers are worse for the other leaders but you can hardly claim that they are good.
Also Canadians do not have overwhelming confidence in the Conservatives when it comes to specific economic issues. The poll you linked had more people say "I don't know" than said "Conservative" on every issue but one:
Rein in national debt: 38%
End the recession: 42%
Create Jobs: 35% (tied with Tories)
Control inflation: 41%
The rest of the poll does nothing to measure the government's performance. It refers to confidence in the economic recovery that Canadians may not view as being the result of government action. In fact there is evidence that they do not believe that the recovery is due to Harper's policies: http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2010/04/stimulus-spending-and-intelligence-of.html
Your poll does not refute any claim that I have made.
As for G20 cooperation: If the G20 plan was a bad one, which it is, then why would Canada be obligated to cooperate? Cooperation for the sake of cooperation is not a good thing. The results are more important than the process.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-04-29 7:45:52 AM
sorry I just saw that you did reply on Freedom is My Nationality
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-04-29 7:46:29 AM
Everything Harper does is for political gain - which means that he has no vision for the country. There's more than just the Opposition "howling", the rest of us are howling as well; because we're not willing to see the country driven off the rails by a power-hungry used-car salesman from Toronto.
Posted by: Margaret | 2010-04-29 7:02:17 AM
Margaret, what would it look like if Harper had the vision you think he should have? He would have to do something which would mean making some law or spending some money or both. And if he did that what are the chances everyone would agree with him? And what are the chances that such decisions would be made benevolently?
Our political system simple does not allow anything but selfish ambition. One may start an idealist but it doesn't take long I am sure before the rookie politician learns what it takes to get elected and re elected. And the more "vision" they have the more they spend and trample on our freedoms.
So long as our politicians are human, and our system is what it is, our leaders will be the same, regardless where they are from or their political stripes.
Posted by: TM | 2010-04-29 9:06:20 AM
I concur with Charles and also TM's reply to Margaret's accusation. Regardless of the political party in power, or even in the opposition, they all act for political gain thanks to our existing system. Having term limits for politicians at all levels of government just might help, but it is impossible to know for sure. As TM says one cannot exclude human nature when looking at the situation, and I suggest that it also plays a big role among the electorate, who are just as responsible for our situation.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-04-29 11:10:49 AM
Alain,
The only thing that will end corruption at the gov't level is to reduce its size and hence its power. Power-hungry individuals don't tend to flock to institutions which don't give them power to wield.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-04-29 11:41:37 AM
If the CEOs of Toronto ran the country through their minions in the Liebral/NDP/Green Party, there'd be no economic activity outside of southern Ontario. The cause: Kyoto.
Mr. Harper stopped Kyoto. For that alone, he deserves the gratitude of millions who owe their lives to that simple decision. This one cancels out everything else he may have or may not have done.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-04-29 11:59:27 AM
Charles, absolutely! I agree that there are several things which would need to happen. Add to what you stated the need for the complete removal of government from the affairs of business and our personal lives, which also means the total removal of business and personal interest (understand special interests) from government. I still recommend term limits for all politicians in order to end the plague of career politicians. I doubt any of this will happen since over time governments have succeeded in creating a large population of those dependent on government hand-outs in one form or another. That is why I place a large, perhaps a major, responsibility on the electorate.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-04-29 2:46:17 PM
"Ultimately the Canadian people do not support deficit spending."
To connect A (Conservatives spent into deficit) to B (Support did not go up) and come up with the quote above is a stretch. There are lots of reasons why Conservative support languishes besides the deficit spending. The main one is Canadians do not trust Harper.
Posted by: Grant Bowen | 2010-04-29 5:18:26 PM
"The main one (reason) is Canadians do not trust Harper." posted by Grant Bowen.
So can you tell us just who these mysterious Canadians trust. Iggy perhaps? Frankly as much as I have been disappointed by PM Harper, the alternatives only spell disaster for Canada. Anyway the claim that Canadians support or do not support whoever can only be proved in an election; otherwise it is all about guessing games, polls included.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-04-29 7:37:46 PM
Alain,
In all actuality, they all spell disaster for Canada. It's not like Harper is holding the line or anything. I could really give two shits of Iggy won the election.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-04-29 8:29:59 PM
We will not really know how Harper will turn out until he gets a majority and can rule without trying to appease every nut group with a agenda. I am just happy that Dion was turfed out and voters saw the danger in taliban jack, iffy Iggy and shut down all industry Elizabeth. When I look at the monetary problems almost all other countries have, Harper still looks pretty good.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-04-29 11:49:59 PM
Grant,
You are right that it would be a streach if that was my logic. It wasn't. My assertion that Canadians do not support deficit spending is based on polls on the subject that have been taken over the last two decades. I didn't bother to go find one because I thought that it was generally understood. It is why, for example, Ignatieff attacks the government on the deficit even though he supported it.
Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-04-30 2:10:37 AM
To connect A (Conservatives spent into deficit) to B (Support did not go up) and come up with the quote above is a stretch. There are lots of reasons why Conservative support languishes besides the deficit spending. The main one is Canadians do not trust Harper.
Posted by: Grant Bowen | 2010-04-29 5:18:26 PM
It is equally a stretch to say "Canadians do not trust Harper."
Posted by: TM | 2010-04-30 9:17:56 AM
I could really give two shits of Iggy won the election.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-04-29 8:29:59 PM
A grammatically INCORRECT phrase that lamers (i.e. retards) use when what they really meant to say was "I couldn't give two shits".
Posted by: The Stig | 2010-04-30 11:41:04 AM
Harper getting a majority?
Ain't going to happen.
Harper is supported by a minority of Canadians who have bought into his Snake Oil Salesman Charms of Fear.
Thankfully, the majority of Canadians realize that he's just an under performing Bible Thumper, who truly believes that some Old White Guy in the Sky is going to save him and his like minded Bible Thumper/Puritan individuals( Charles Mc Vety) whilst the Earth is Consumed in Hell Fire.
Heck, Rush Limbaugh must be pretty high after imbibing 300mg of Oxycontin, but he sure as tootin' don't believe that one.
And what up with Harper and his Rapturists wanting to spend @10 Billion $$ on imprisoning more Canadians?
Crime is on the decline in Canada.
Rahim Jaffer, can you give me an Amen to that one!
Diaper changing DaddyO Vic Toews said it was going to cost Canadian Taxpayers @100 Million now it's up to 10 Billion $$. Who says For Profit Prisons USA Style don't pay a buck or two.
Harper has been wrong so many times now.
His 2003 USA FOX NEWS Appearance, his hair perfectly coiffed, his eye make up, Holly wood Starlet quality, comes to mind.
Portly, then opposition Leader Harper, bemoaning the fact of Non Canadian Participation, in a direct combat role, of C.F's in the Iraq War.
Poor Harper, grovelling on USA FOX NEWS, to his USA Republican, Christian Fundamentalist Mullah Handlers.
' Those WMD's have got to be here somewhere.'
GWB. Hero and mentor to Mr. Minority Leader Harper.
If only our proroguing P.M.'s Fashionista and Psychic had been able to see through the @ 950 Lies as told by Bush and Cheney and Cabal that led the USA into an un-necessary War, and had Stevie kow towing to his USA Handlers.
So no stinking Majority for you Rapture Boy.
'I get high with a little help from my friends.'
Stephen Bozo Harper .
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2010-04-30 3:20:52 PM
Good one Jeff. Harper is dangerous, and most Canadians realize it. He is a follower, and followers of an imaginary man in the sky do not have 2 feet on the ground. Religion is dangerous, just about any religion worth talking about has a body count. If Jesus was really the son of god, and he came back today, the first thing he would lay waste to is the bastardized version of his words to humanity in the form of modern religion. Jesus would not tolerate the money changers, the rich, the people with power over others that use it to there advantage. I guess what I'm saying is, Christ had many great ideas, so when are the Christians going to start acting Christ like?
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-04-30 4:57:06 PM
Jeff, I used to support the PC party but in the past 8 years or so have come to see that all the parties are fundamentally the same in so many important ways. And those ways are perpetuated by our political system. To come down on Harper the way you do, makes me wonder if you believe any other party would really be any different.
Doing so take takes more faith than believing in Jesus.
Posted by: TM | 2010-04-30 5:29:56 PM
I agree TM, they are all the same, save a few talking points. Really your just voting for the man, regardless of party. Unfortunately, right now, there is no one I would trust to walk my dog, let alone run a country. For the first time in over 20 years, I may actually pass on the vote. Or vote Green just for protest. Well that and the Greens would legalize the weed. But that's the only policy of theirs, that I know of, that I support. So what the hell, if they somehow won, at least they might do at least one thing I agree with. :)
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-04-30 7:22:23 PM
Oh oh, the grammer police are here. Hey Stig, I understood what he meant, and so did you. So why the put down? Oh right, your just an uptight wad. Get a life. And thanks for the input on the subject at hand. Tard.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-04-30 7:26:15 PM
Jeff and Steve, if you want anyone to take you seriously I suggest you back up your allegations with some facts. Virtually ever person is "religious", include both of you, whether they believe in a god, gods, mother earth, the environment, a political movement or UFOs. I fail to see how you are threatened by the PM's religion, when there is no evidence of it in any of his policies or actions. As long as people do not seek to impose their religious beliefs on others, it is ridiculous to trot out this canard.
I may not be a cheer leader for Harper or the "Conservative" Party, but please keep such silliness out of the debate, unless you can produce evidence that Harper or his party is out to convert you.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-04-30 7:50:39 PM
Point taken Alain. But we all know Harper is devoutly religious. You don't think that affects his decisions? I will drop it now.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-01 1:32:44 AM
Point taken Alain. But we all know Harper is devoutly religious. You don't think that affects his decisions? I will drop it now.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-01 1:32:44 AM
I have wondered about this too Steve, but have concluded that all of us make decisions based on our beliefs.
Posted by: TM | 2010-05-01 2:05:57 PM
I admire leaders like PMSH who understand the Tenth Commandment.
Although Harper is getting the rap for this stupid stimulus spending, the blame should fall where it belongs ... the will of Parliament.
Posted by: set you free | 2010-05-01 2:19:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.