Sunday, November 29, 2009

Lingenfelter draws attention to Sask. Party fiscal mismanagement.

"NDP Leader Dwain Lingenfelter said today the Wall governments unprecedented financial mismanagement has left the provinces finances in disarry, and has resulted in harmful budget cuts to a variety of rural Saskatchewan programs and services."
Although I'd love to see the Sask. Party chain itself to "But, but, but... Alan Blakeney!" relativism, I don't think even they are going to be that dumb.

Only time will tell if they'll hurdle that extremely low bar.


26 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmm. It would seem there's no time like the present to remind you that Lorne Calvert ran a deficit, too. Except that he covered it up, just like Allan Blakeney covered his.

Also, he ran that deficit during a time of economic boom. Which strikes me as the big difference: the Saskatchewan Party is running a deficit during a recession. The NDP runs (and conceals) deficits during prosperous times.

Audrey II said...

Ladies and Gentlemen, Exhibit A.

Patrick Ross said...

Hmmmm. Okay.

So, then nothing to say about the way the NDP handles its deficits?

Seeing as how you can't seem to find it in yourself to deny them, after all.

John said...

Patrick, Calvert did indeed run a deficit which he covered by the use of the rainy day fund which the Saskatchewan party attacked him. Calvert also left office with between 1.5-2 billion dollars in the rainy day fund.

Now during what the Saskatchewan refers to as booming times they are running a deficit and used the rainy day fund to cover their deficit. At not any old deficit but one that was not supposed to happen. Brad Wall said Saskatchewan would have a 100 million dollar surplus but instead we have a 1.3 billion dollar deficit. The SECOND BIGGEST DEFICIT in the provinces history.

Patrick Ross said...

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny.

You're precisely right the deficit wasn't supposed to happen. That's where the recession comes in.

On that note, Lorne Calvert's deficit was supposed to happen?

That's probably not the defense you want to offer. Even beyond that, your "it's OK when we do it" argument doesn't exactly bail you out here.

John said...

You mean a deficit the government said the provinces avoided and the province was still doing great? Hard to blame it on a recession when the Premier and Finance Minister said Saskatchewan never was in one.

The government budgeted for a 100 million dollar surplus and ended up with the second biggest deficit in the provinces history. It had nothing to do with a recession which the government said never existed but simple incompetence from the finance minister and the premier.

The problem is that the government you are attempting to defend is using the "they did it so its ok" arguement. They were against using the rainy day fund to cover deficits but now its ok for them to cover the second biggest deficit in the provinces history.

Calvert certainly did run one deficit but he left the province with a rainy day fund between 1.5 and 2 billion dollars which has now been depleted by this government.

If you have an issue with Calverts deficit you may want to have an issue with Walls deficit. You can try to blame it on a recession but you also may want to talk to the Premier and see if he even thinks Saskatchewan ever was in a deficit.
Though I understand the difficulity in defending a government which goes from being proud of its 100 million dollar surplus to having to defend the second biggest deficit in the provinces history during a period the views as being a "boom"

Brian said...

Hey Patrick...the NDP never ran a deficit. What would happen is, at budget time, the government would admit that if the numbers played out, there would have to be draw down from the fiscal stabilization fund. Remember that? It's the fund that the SP called an election slush fund, which should not exist. Seems they have grown to like it now.

Then, at the end of the budget year, because the NDP always were very conservative in their revenue estimates, the draw down was not necessary...so there was actually a surplus.

Two differences here...the NDP forecast on the bottom end of income projections, the SP go entirely the other way, as did Grant Devine in the 80s...and the NDP announced and went through with spending plans AFTER THE MONEY WAS IN THE BANK.

These guys can't count to four and we are one our way down the tubes again. At least with the Grey Cup out of the way, we may pin the failed entrepreneur from Swift Current down and get some answers. Time to fess up, Braddie!

Patrick Ross said...

LOL

It would seem that Brian doesn't know what a deficit is.

A deficit occurs when you spend more money than you earn. In a government's case, that's when the government spends more money than the revenue it brings in.

So what you're saying is (and we know that Audrey will impotently protest, but it's precisely what you're saying) is that the NDP can budget a deficit, then call it something else.

Fortunately, Saskatchewan figured that trick out for precisely what it was, and voted accordingly.

John said...

Patrick, do you know what a deficit is? It seems you have no issue with the Saskatchewan party running the second biggest deficit in the provinces history during a period they describe the economy as booming.

Patrick Ross said...

LOL

Sure, John, I don't know what a deficit is. I was my alter ego explaining what a deficit is to Brian.

What a maroon.

Audrey II said...

There are some who won't talk about the subject at hand, John, or even the differences that Brian pointed out. As I predicted in my topic post, "Look, over there!" rhetoric is the only thing that some are capable of. After all, it's a brilliant argument to grade-school children!

The Wall government spent money it never had based on wildly optimistic (and terribly inaccurate) forecasts. To some, that's apparently as fiscally irresponsible as spending money you have managed to put aside based on fiscally cautious forecasts. I guess when you're this wrong about deficits, the above conflation is not unexpected.

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn.

Audrey simply doesn't want to own up to how her party has approached the issue of deficits.

Given the choice between how the NDP handled their deficits -- by hiding them, and lying about it -- and how the Saskatchewan Party is handling this deficit, there's little question which the people of Saskatchewan will prefer.

The most hilarious thing about it is that Audrey's hero Dwain Lingenfelter was a minister in Blakeney's deficit-hiding government.

But, it seems like it's true: to Audrey, the only bad deficit is a conservative one -- regardless of whether it's caused by an economic recession or not.

Audrey II said...

If you're bored, Pat,there's no one forcing you to continue to reply.

You may be beholden to a particular political party affiliation, but you'd be wrong to project that onto others. I'm not a member of any particular political party, and have voted strategically across multiple parties for quite some time now.

As has been pointed out to you by both myself and others, there's more than a simplistic Conservative/NDP difference between the topic at hand and the desperate distraction that you're attempting to throw out. You're not addressing those differences, you're simply talking over them through repetition. Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same thing over and over ad nauseam when it doesn't address what others are saying isn't debate or discussion. It's rhetoric, and it's become a pretty predictable follow up when others point out the problems with your "Look, over there!" schtick. The fact that you're resorting to both once again speaks volumes.

If you decide that you want to address the Sask. Party's fiscal mismanagement or the differences that others and myself have brought up regarding the differences between the NDP's economic competence and the Devine and Wall governments' lack of it, please let us know. In the mean time, may the "Rhetoric of Assholery" continue to serve you and your position as well as it always has.

Patrick Ross said...

Right. Because non-partisan thinkers swoon mindlessly over any particular party's new leader.

It's become pretty evident at this point that you know absolutely nothing about what economic competence is and what it isn't.

If hiding a government deficit in the books of a "family of crown corporations" is economic competence, a great many people would want nothing to do with that kind of competence. If running deficits during a time of economic prosperity is economic competence, a great many of people would want nothing to do with that kind of competence.

You call it a distraction. I call it fun to watch you do the dance of the demagogue who doesn't want to own up to her party's history, or her leader's direct involvement in that history.

Audrey II said...

I'm not sure you want to turn this into a contest of personal economic credibility, given the notoriety your "no deficit" swooning (all irony intended) has gained on the internet.

I think Saskatchewanians are perfectly capable of discerning the difference between the Wall/Devine fiscal approach and that which various NDP governments have, which is why I posted originally my hope for the Sask Party to adopt the very rhetoric that you've once again (ironically) provided an illustration of.

By all means continue to talk about Calvert, Blakeney, and me, as it won't hide the 7 replies and counting where you didn't once address the topic of the thread, but John's a maroon, Brian doesn't know what a deficit is, and I'm a demagogue.

Brilliant argumentation, as per par!

Patrick Ross said...

Right, Audrey. I feel real distraught that a handful of people for whom I have no respect, whatsoever, continue to live in the past.

As for this particular sack of stupidiy:

"I think Saskatchewanians are perfectly capable of discerning the difference between the Wall/Devine fiscal approach and that which various NDP governments have, which is why I posted originally my hope for the Sask Party to adopt the very rhetoric that you've once again (ironically) provided an illustration of."

Apparently, you can't seem to figure out the hilarity of an individual who was a member of a government that continually lied to the people of Saskatchewan about not only the deficits it accrued, but also about how they financed the construction of their "family of crown corporations" lecturing anyone about fiscal mismanagement.

Seeing as how you're so stupid that you can't figure this out on your own, Audrey, it's kind of hard to lie about a deficit if there's no deficit to lie about.

Yet, in the case of the Allan Blakeney government, a deficit there was. The hilarious thing is that you don't even deny this.

Lies there were. You don't deny this, either.

Apparently, what you think is a decisive rebuttal to this is "well, I'm going to refuse to talk about that". But refusing to talk about these things doesn't make them any less true. Nor does it make it any less relevant to a case where an individual who was a Cabinet Minister in that government wants to rail against the government of the day for its deficit, which it isn't lying to the people of Saskatchewan about.

Your response is apparently to pretend that I don't have any credibility on the topic. But your hero Dwain Lingenfelter has no credibility about that, either. And your refusal to address the deceitful fashion in which the NDP has managed its deficits, which were entirely of their own making -- compared to the honest fashion in which the Saskatchewan Party is managing a deficit that is actually the result of an economic recession -- has erased any credibility that you would attempt to claim for yourself.

So go ahead and say I have no credibility. I'm more than comfortable with the constructive manner in which I've addressed the current state of the economy, and its subsequent deficits, as opposed to the manner in which you've addressed these issues, which never makes it past rhetoric.

Probably because you're barely capable of a couple of sentences of rhetoric at a time -- let alone are you capable of ever moving past it.

The fact is that not only do you not have any credibility either, but you have far, far less credibility than I do.

Maybe it plays well to your fellow ideologically-blinded sycophants. Doesn't play well in the real world.

Dillon said...

mullet

Patrick Ross said...

Thank you, Dillon, for that admission of defeat.

Sparky said...

Patrick thinks he wants to venture into the 'real world'...
Let us look at past historical events of this 'real world' that Patrick speaks...
"There is no deficit nor will there be..."
Hmmm... those words were spoken by somoene in this here 'real world'.
And what happened in that 'real world' place?
Oh right...
Patrick speaking under the guise of authority where deficits are concerned just maxes out the Irony meter.
And if we take Patrick's words 'in context' with the discussion going on at the time, we realize that, again (as per patricks usual status quo) that this 'real world' is consistantly beyond his understanding for, in this one instance, we see Patrick--
-ignoring what people stated in favour of 'what you are really saying is...' and inserting whatever strawman Patrick wants to vanquish
-ignoring factual evidence that others used to make coherent suppositions so Patrick can facilitate an 'ass kicking of epic proporitons' and write his infamous 'ROTFL!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA's
-using the Patrick-standard "those other guys in the past did it, too!" rhetoric in order to absove any responsibility of the current shenanigans
-not owning up to his blatant wrongness when, indeed, the deficit actually showed up.
So, as with every other 'discussion' with Patrick, we have consistency--
"Look over there!"
"What you're really saying..."
"ROTFL!"
"Yawn!"
And, eventually, when Patricks words come back to bite him in the ass--
-nothing-
I'm okay with that

Patrick Ross said...

Yawn.

Sparkles, Sparkles, Sparkles.

You're tiresome. And predictable. And pathetic.

Bloviate baby, bloviate!

Sparky said...

Patrick demonstrates my 4th point--"yawn"
He's got nothing so he deflects.
Good on ya, Patrick. Way to hide in your own little reality.

Patrick Ross said...

If you say so, Sparky.

The truth is that you're the one who has nothing, and you're the one who's deflecting.

Sheesh. Why don't you just do everyone a favour, haul yourself back to the Canadian Cynic Retirement Home for Tired Old Ideologues, and get Robbie to update you with some fresh half-truths?

Seeing as how you don't have any of your own.

Audrey II said...

Since Pat is intent upon turning this into a credibility measurement contest instead of responding to the merits of the arguments actually being raised here, may I just humbly point out that one of Saskatchewan's more respected economists agrees with Lingenfelter's, my, and a goodly lot of other Saskatchewanians' assessment.

Howe may not be right about everything, but he's never dropped a whopper like mindlessly parroting Harper's "Canada will not run a deficit" line. Best wishes on your comparative "credibility" bluster, Pat.

Patrick Ross said...

Well, Audrey, I imagine that Howe would have a lot to say about the comparative merits of governments taht lie about their deficits, and governments that don't.

And seeing as how you evidently consider lying about deficits to be a mark of economic competence, once again -- I have far, far more credibility than you do.

Audrey II said...

"And seeing as how you evidently consider lying about deficits to be a mark of economic competence..."

Ah, yes... the inevitable "So what you're saying is..." strawman. Cheers to yet another adoption of Glenn Beck's argumentative brilliance. If you're going to keep posting that particular bait, I'll just keep on pointing out that the reason I'm content to simply point and laugh at it is its desperate irrelevance to the topic at hand.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that finds the increasing number of replies in which don't speak at all to the issue of the fiscal incompetence of the Sask. Party government quite amusing. Your Beck-ish inventing of absurd positions to put in others' mouths out of thin air soley based on what they "haven't denied"" is just icing on that cake.

Sparky said...

Let us take the following as yet another example of Patrick's 'wonder'--
Dillon said...
mullet

December 2, 2009 10:45 PM
Patrick Ross said...
Thank you, Dillon, for that admission of defeat.

December 3, 2009 12:51 AM

I would be the first to point out that Dillon's comment is an ad hominem. Funny? Yes, but, eh, whatever...
And note how Patrick responds--he 'wins'! See, if anyone uses an ad hominem against Patrick, it's an auto-win! Yippee!!!!
Patrick, on the other hand, can throw out all the ad hominems he wants 'cause that just proves his point! He 'wins' again!! He can belittle, slander, call otehrs racist--all with no supporting evidence, mind you--and that all contributes to his 'win'.
'Mullet', on the other hand--well then you lose.
See, as per standard convention, IOKIYPR
Someone should write a book on that.

Post a Comment