Thursday, December 3, 2009

"Gov't overspending, just like Devine did"


"One of the province's foremost economists says the Brad Wall government is suffering from the same mindset that plagued the Grant Devine government and added $10 billion in debt in 10 years."

Howe must be just another one of those "maroon" NDP swooners who knows nothing at all about deficits.

Someone really oughtta give the guy a dose of "but, but, but Alan Blakeney!" brilliance.


9 comments:

Patrick Ross said...

Hey, Audrey. Does it not seem to you to be unwise to draw your readers' attention to arguments that you decisively lost?

Considering that you can't admit that Alan Blakeney -- who lied to the people of Saskatchewan about the deficits his government accrued -- mismanaged the provincial economy, it's clear that you have no credibility on this topic.

Which you pretty much admitted when you capitulated before.

Audrey II said...

I'm drawing attention to that thread because it provides an illustration of what I think is a useful contrast: The positions and arguments of myself and one of the province's leading economists, and the positions and rhetoric that you and some on the right have increasingly adopted.

Any credibility you might have thought you had after this, you did a good job of shredding in the above linked thread when you insisted that the Grant Devine approach would be preferred by the people of Saskatchewan over the NDP alternatives, when both leading economists and poll after poll of Saskatchewanians have said the exact opposite. Don't take my word for it. Come to Saskatchewan and raise the words "Grant Devine" with the phrase "fiscally responsible" and see for yourself what kind of reaction you get. I know you'd rather talk about Alan Blakeney or any other shiny object that will divert discussion away from a topic that you'd rather not address, and I'm quite happy to draw attention to that rather pathetic bit or rhetorical baiting each time you continue to employ it.

The "I win, I win, I win" routine is a particularly nice touch of self-unawareness. I think the merits of the arguments speak for themselves loud enough that I'm comfortable linking to them and letting readers draw their own conclusions. That you're now resorting to bluster says almost as much as you again completely avoiding the topic at hand.

Any time you'd like to address what Howe raised about the Sask. Party's fiscal irresponsibility, please let us know. In the mean time, you seem quite capable of putting the rope you're given in thread after thread to good use. Your continued illustrations of the very type of rhetoric that's being criticized are, as always, appreciated.

Patrick Ross said...

Audrey, Audrey, Audrey.

You evidently just aren't getting it.

I'm not suggesting that Grant Devine shouldn't be held accountable for the deficit that he ran, or that the Wall government shouldn't be held accountable for the deficit that it's running.

My argument is that all governments that run deficits should be held accountable. Governments that conceal their deficits in order to avoid being held accountable should be held accountable not only for the deficit, but also for their deceit.

As I mentioned before, you don't deny that the Blakeney government used deceitful means to avoid responsibility for its deficit. You just seem to think that you can refuse to talk about it.

So once again, Audrey. You can say I have no credibility if you want. But, once again, unlike you, I've addressed the deficit and its underlying economic issues in a constructive manner.

As compared to you, who has tacitly refused to move beyond the stage of rhetoric in your discussion of economic and fiscal matters.

I'm not too bothered by you saying I have no credibility on this issue, considering that you have less.

Audrey II said...

"I'm not suggesting that Grant Devine shouldn't be held accountable for the deficit that he ran, or that the Wall government shouldn't be held accountable for the deficit that it's running."

I didn't say you were. In fact, I distinctly have pointed out on several occasions that you've been avoiding the topic at hand completely. Reading comprehension, FTW!

"My argument is that all governments that run deficits should be held accountable."

And as others have pointed out to you, not all deficits are created equal. My position (which I've stated clearly before) is that I'm not opposed to all deficit spending, but rather have problems with the circumstances in which the deficit occurs. Most Saskatchewanians agree with me, which is why neither Blakeney nor Calvert draws the same degree of ire that Grant Devine does, especially when it comes to fiscal competency. That's not to say that any of the above were perfect, but you continue to ignore the obvious differences that others and myself raise and simply repeat the same pathetically transparent attempt at distraction. Look! Over there! Alan Blakeney! That you consider this song-and-dance of yours to be compelling and credible again speaks to the underlying issue of self-awareness.

"...you don't deny..."

Ah, channeling Glenn Beck now. I do hope that your "you don't deny" routine works out better for you than it did for him, as it would be a shame if your name to became synonymous with the very rhetorical nonsense that's made Beck the laughing stock of the net. I've made it quite clear why I'm not interested in taking the rhetorical bait you keep ham-fistedly setting out, and why I'm preferring instead to draw attention to it. The irony of you criticizing my lack-of-commenting on your distraction while all this time you've spent umpteen replies in multiple threads never once addressing the issue of the Wall government's fiscal irresponsibility (the actual topics at hand) seems to be lost on you, but I'm betting it won't be on others.

"I've addressed the deficit and its underlying economic issues in a constructive manner."

There's nothing "constructive" about your relativist "turnabout is fair play"/"but mom, so-and-so did Y" bit, as it inherently adopts a increasingly sinking bar as its own next justification. It's a race to the bottom of the barrel by design. There's no constructive objectivity to it whatsoever, which is why most people outgrow that kind of reasoning by the time they leave grade school. Unfortunately, some never will.

"considering that you have less"

And octagons are really triangles. Keep clicking those heels together, Dorothy. Maybe a few more replies with adolescent chest-thumping "I win"s might help.

Patrick Ross said...

"And as others have pointed out to you, not all deficits are created equal."

You're precisely right about that. For example, a deficit during a time of economic recession is not equal to a deficit during a time of economic prosperity.

If I were you, Audrey, I wouldn't claim that you speak for the majority of the people of Saskatchewan. Didn't they just turn around and vote your party out of office not so long ago?

Just sayin'.

"And octagons are really triangles. Keep clicking those heels together, Dorothy. Maybe a few more replies with adolescent chest-thumping "I win"s might help."

Cute genetic fallacy argument. On that note, maybe you can go back to mocking Jonah Goldberg for being ignorant about his Horoscope.

Once again, far, far less credibility than I have.

Audrey II said...

"For example, a deficit during a time of economic recession is not equal to a deficit during a time of economic prosperity."

But that's not the only variable to be considered, nor is it even the most relevant one. Deficit spending can (and has) been accomplished with varying degrees of successes and failures, illustrating what most economists grasp and what you fail to: There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with deficit spending in either of those two situations, it's other conditions that make or break the success of it.

As others have pointed out (and which you continue to avoid responding to), there are reasons that make some deficit spending in times of economic booms preferable to what Devine did and what Wall increasingly appears to be doing. But instead of addressing that (a sentiment which is overwhelmingly reflected in the differing attitude Saskatchewanians have towards the fiscal responsibility the associate with Grant Devine and other NDP governments), all you do is bluster past it by repeating the same old distraction. "Look! Over there! Blakeney and Calvert also ran deficits".

"Didn't they just turn around and vote your party out of office not so long ago?"

Unlike you, I don't have a party. I've never belonged to one and have a long record of voting strategically across multiple party lines (yet another deductive reasoning failure!). I do think that my claim regarding the relative perceptions of fiscal competence between Devine and the NDP will find agreement amongst most Saskatchewanians.

"Once again, far, far less credibility than I have."

Are you really that unaware of the easily searchable record you've created on the internet, or do you think you can simply bluster it away? Regardless, it isn't just Lingenfelter, myself, John, Brian, and large percentages of Saskatchewanians that grasp the problem with what you're arguing, but also economic experts like Howe. His decision to make the comparison to the Devine government and not (as per your desperate effort at distraction") others says a lot. But hey... maybe he too is a "maroon" that "just doesn't get" the brilliance of your "But mom, Alan Blakeney..." routine. Again, best of luck with it. I think it suits your declared M.O. and self-asserted "credibility" well.

Dillon said...

In the same way that Tom Friedman possesses the Moustache of Understanding, Patrick has been gifted with the Mullet of Credibility.

He who wears it, is credible.

Sparky said...

Patrick's arguing on the grounds of credibility on Sask. Politics??
Let us remember that Patrick, with all his 'credibility', couldn't even spell Dwain's name right...

Sparky said...

and on that note, let's have a look at Patrick's correction on that particular issue--
Patrick said...
. . .
Here's the hilarous thing: almost no one in the blogosphere has heard of Dwain Lingenfelter, either -- nor did they give a shit when he opened his campaign office.

September 21, 2009 11:30 PM

Hmmm... Dwain Lingenfelter... Dwain Lingenfelter... Oh right, that Dwain Lingenfelter...
Around 1,000 hits in teh Google Blog search (Google blog hits--an oracle of non-refutedness according to one Patrick Ross)
Considering the 'uniqueness' of Dwain's name, I would surmise that, for the most part, those hits as a whole relate the the gentleman in question. Not bad for a Prairie Province politician that's not named 'Douglas'

Post a Comment