• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

New Canadian Politics Thread

Most people who say they are "socially liberal and financially conservative" aren't actually either.
 
What does fiscally conservative even mean?

Is it that you think the national debt is the most important fiscal issue?
 
Neurospasm said:
I have a question for those more invested in Canadian politics than me. I would describe myself as socially liberal but financially conservative. Which party would be mostly in line with that do you think?
Click to expand...
Liberals?

honestly there aren't really any good options. Conservatives are neither socially liberal or financially conservative so I would discount them from the outset.

Liberals (and NDP, and Greens) are all socially liberal. None are financially conservative though. The closest are the Greens.

Honestly, in my opinion there are sadly not any financially responsible (or conservative) parties around right now :(
 
Honest question - what it exactly the policy goals you want from a "fiscally conservative" government.
 
zeke said:
Honest question - what it exactly the policy goals you want from a "fiscally conservative" government.
Click to expand...

A large part of the problem is that so few people even have a grasp of macro. They try to wedge their understanding of a national economy into the framework of their household budget. To them if you make 100K a year and spend 105K, you either have to cut spending or you're bankrupt in a few years. On the national scale though, if you run a 10 billion dollar deficit on physical and human infrastructure spending that generates 20+ billion in additional GDP (through a combination of wealth creation, economic efficiency....transit projects are so fucking good at creating a far more efficient economy, increased tourism, increased property values...which is absolutely an international metric now, and can create massive capital inflows into your economy), then you're winning at economics, point blank period. The only question that remains after that is how equitably that additional capital flows through your economy.

But all muppets see is "muh deficit/debt" that our grand children have to "pay for", for reasons that none of them can explain without shitting their pants.
 
MindzEye said:
A large part of the problem is that so few people even have a grasp of macro. They try to wedge their understanding of a national economy into the framework of their household budget. To them if you make 100K a year and spend 105K, you either have to cut spending or you're bankrupt in a few years. On the national scale though, if you run a 10 billion dollar deficit on physical and human infrastructure spending that generates 20+ billion in additional GDP (through a combination of wealth creation, economic efficiency....transit projects are so fucking good at creating a far more efficient economy, increased tourism, increased property values...which is absolutely an international metric now, and can create massive capital inflows into your economy), then you're winning at economics, point blank period. The only question that remains after that is how equitably that additional capital flows through your economy.

But all muppets see is "muh deficit/debt" that our grand children have to "pay for", for reasons that none of them can explain without shitting their pants.
Click to expand...
I think much of this can be linked back to the right wing's disinformation arm
 
zeke said:
Funny how debt is an equally valid reason to raise taxes as it is to cut spending but only ever used one way.
Click to expand...
it's hilarious how governments deliberately limit the tools available to them to fix the problems they identify. fucking politicians. (also fucking people for voting for them)
 
MindzEye said:
Because raising taxes hurts rich people. Cutting spending hurts poor people and some people have been brain fucked into blind protection of our wealthy at all costs.
Click to expand...

And all that is fine. Be for less taxes and less spending. Fair argument with good reasons.

Just don't BS me by saying it's because you're worried about the debt or being "fiscally conservative". Because then I just don't believe anything you say.
 
zeke said:
And all that is fine. Be for less taxes and less spending. Fair argument with good reasons.

Just don't BS me by saying it's because you're worried about the debt or being "fiscally conservative". Because then I just don't believe anything you say.
Click to expand...
oh modern conservative fiscal policy is total BS though.

I mean what you propose is logical and sensible, so it has no place in any political discourse sadly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top