Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 9  Next

Why not cut those social programmes altogether?

   

Meaning if it was acceptable for Trudeau to run deficits because every other government was doing it at the time, then it was equally ok for Mulroney to. That's just basic logic Derby.




You should learn the history of your own political party Derby. Trudeau didn't introduce the national health care plan, that happened under Pearson. And Trudeau didn't expand it either. In fact, it's virtually unchanged since the 60's. And education has never been a federal responsiblity in Canada, it's a provincial one.

Trudeau's massive spending came in the form of overly expanding the UI program, making it insanely generous. He nationalized numerous corporations, putting the government into the business of refining oil (Petrocan) and running airlines (Air Canada). These were all expensive propositions that proved to be abject, expensive failures.

He was also a big fan of massive, unnecessary, white elephants like the Mirabelle Airport debacle.

That's what the deficits of the 70's funded Derby, not heathcare. Healthcare was around in the 60's when Pearson was running balanced budgets and paying off the national debt.




According to your own chart, Mulroney's 1985 deficit was 21 Billion, about 30% less than that of his predecessor the year prior. After that it creeped up again. But in dollars adjusted for inflation, by the time Mulroney left office, the deficit was actually lower. And that was in the middle of a recession.

I'm not saying Mulroney was a fiscal champion. He wasn't. But at least he got the government out of industries it had no reason being in, and didn't go building stupid fucking airports in the middle of nowhere.




Well then argue with them about it. Once again, why do you argue with me about things others have said?

   

Granted, paying down the debt is good but why don't you just budget debt payments like everything else? Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that is what Harper did, so you don't see a big surplus going to the debt at the end of the year but it is still happeneing anyways. He misses out on the PR boost of large surplus but still gets the job done.

As far as the military equipment is concerned Harper has done a good job so far in ordering equipment. If i remeber correctly right now, the only things that havent been ordered now are the SAR planes and the ice breakers. And the ice breakers are definitely a long term aquisition and not one that is going to be accomplished in two years.

As for rescinding the GST cuts, that is not a good idea in a recession because the GST taxes consumption. And this downturn will only lift once people start buying again so making goods more expensive is probably not a good idea.

And the idea of eliminating corporate tax cuts is a bad idea because you are just making business more expensive for companies that are already hurting. And the end result will just be them cutting more jobs, resulting in them asking for more bailout or "stimulus" as some like to call it.

   

I agree. I don't mind seeing them spend on roads, bridges, etc. Those are traditional government areas of responsibility, and they provide a tangible benefit for citizens and business.

I'm not comfortable with bail outs for bad company's that make bad business decisions. That said, I don't think they have a choice.

The Americans are going to do it with Detroit. If Canada doesn't follow suit, then our manufacturers will be put at a disadvantage.

Hwacker makes good points too though. You can't spend yourself rich. But, in bad times, it makes sense for government to temporarily step in and keep money circulating. The danger is that it becomes permanent.

   

Except that unlike the Liberals, the conservatives are touted as being fiscally smart. Unlike the Liberals the conservative continually run on platforms touting that as their core philosophy and continually attack the Liberals for deficits and "tax and spend: polices. They lose being given a pass on deficits if they specifically run platforms dedicated against them.



You missed the point. My entire point was that any government can run surpluses or deficits based entirely on simply slashing services or boosting them generously.

What matters is the balance between the 2 and so far the Libs are head and shoulders above anything the cons have.



Prove that. Prove that Trudeaus deficits were based on spending and Mulroneys based on the economic condition. Trudeau gets the same credit for boom and bust years as Mulroney remember. In addition lets not forget why Mulroney dug himself deeper into debt. His method to fight unemployment showed his heart was in the right place but not his head. Billions wasted on low-paying grass cutting jobs of little lasting impact. It was exactly what they say not to do even if it was an honest attempt to help the average joe struggling with unemployment.




Ummm, no. According to the charts the net federal debt took a sharper curve upwards after 84.

Trudeau ran net federal debts from 1 to around 18 billion increasing per year. Mulroney ran them 22 billion to 45 billion. You can argue reasons but not results.



Hah. You should have been here when a couple of people simply labelled Mulroney as a defacto Liberal and argued that therefore the deficits and debt were not of a conservative origin.

I wish they were here right now to see if they would be labelling Harper as a damned socialist Liberal in conservative clothing.



My original argumenet which you responded to was based strongly on Lib-CPC comparison, especially when you consider that just over a month ago Harper was saying "no deficits ever" and attacking the opposition parties on their platforms saying they were going to cause the very deficts he is now delivering.

That needs to be repeated ad naseum to remind folks just how bad Harper is, especially since several other people are making the argument that the Libs would do the same thing when they have no ability to prove that.

Now since you aren't one of the people attacking the Libs for their surpluses you can understand the wisdom in paying down debt in good times and understand that even facing the prospect of losing an election Martin didn't slash taxes and boost spending in such a reckless manner as to blow the surplus.

Harper apparently has. Deficit spending before the stimulus package seems to prove that even without the economic trouble he would be doing it.

He's a trained economist afterall yet he has put his quest for power far above the welfare of Canada's bottom line. Thats why he doesn't get the pass on deficits despite economic crisis.

   

They did. It was all outlined in the red book. They budgetted for "worst case" scenarios with the provisio that any surplus would be applied to the debt. in fact coparing the surplus and debt reduction shows this exactly.

Harper is doing all right? He's not doing any better then Martin yet take a look at what Martins reputation on military purchases is in comparison.

Oh, you are forgetting the cancelled JSS program.

Now rescinding the GST is very debatable. I don't believe it will have a large impact if any on the economy vis a vis downturn, certainly far less then other factors. Actually the stores seem to be reporting very good sales in a surprising report.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/30/news/ec ... pping_sun/

US stats but so far ours are doing even better. I don't believe raising the GST would be all that awful except that it would be a PR nightmare.

Who said anything about eliminating the corporate tax rate? Not me.

All taxes follow the law of diminishing returns. Lowering only works to a point until the lost revenue isn't compensated for by economic stimulus just as raising it eventually reaches a point where you lose revenues as it becomes punitive.

A compromise between corp, income, and consumtion is what is needed. I feel the Liberals had the right idea. Harper has shown his ideology isn't working.

   

At any rate Derby were about to be thrust into a recession/depression like some of us experienced in the 70's.

Now when the interest rate hit's 21% I will think were in bad shape,it did once and we survived though.

Untill then our economy is doing pretty good all thing's considered.

   

I do not support deficit spending as a way out of a recession and even more so when the recession is world wide and not made in Canada. So I have to agree with you that Harper has back tracked and not for the good, but to follow the current popular belief that more government spending will save us. I must disagree that there is no proof the Liberals would do the same thing. Through the recent election and post election coalition rhetoric, Dion repeatedly stated that we needed to increased govenment spending to stimiulate the economy during the current economic crisis. Layton had his own version of a stimulus package and in a coalition Dion would have been forced to accept a number of Layton's proposals no matter how bad they would be.

I supported Martin in his surplusses, but felt the Liberal platform prevented him from paying down the debt faster. At the time I would have liked to have seen less government spending and more debt reduction. That was not the opinion of the Liberal party or the people who supported them to repeated victories so that puts me in a minority position.

Harper is an economist, but he is also a politician. One thing you have to give Chretien credit for is that he could read public opinion and change his stance to stay with the voters that would keep him in power. While I disagree with the move to deficit spending I have to admit that is what the majority of Canadians want to hear. Harper may have learned something from Chretien.

   

So the 70s one was worse then the 90s one?

So if our economy is doing well then there is even less reason to run deficits isn't there?

   

All thing's considerd,it's doing better then most countries my friend.
You dont see 21% interest rates do you?

   

Our economy and how its doing isn't the debate though is it?

Harpers Deficit is. If the economy is doing just fine then Harper has no excuse to run a 20-30 billion dollar deficit does he?

   

except the fact the collision is demanding it.

   

And Liberals consistently run on a platform of being "progressive", even when their policies are from the right wing of the spectrum, as was the case in the 90's.

All parties push a brand Derby, and all of them engage in spin. It's the nature of the beast.



O.K.

Here's one from CBC's Greatest Canadian;

http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/top_ten/nomi ... ierre.html

"Trudeau worked with the NDP to create popular social programs which succeeded in winning him a majority government in 1974. But social security and welfare were expensive, and by the mid-1970's, the Liberal government had built up huge deficits. To cut debts, Trudeau introduced "strong medicine", implementing wage and price controls in 1975. Canadians were not impressed."

As for Petrocan, if it was such a good deal for the government to be involved in, why did Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale sell the government's remaining share in the company in 2004, despite the world-wide rise in oil prices?

Here's an essay;

http://people.uleth.ca/~geoffrey.hale/T ... %2002.html

Total government spending, fuelled by rising federal transfers to the provinces, grew from 32.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1968 to 38.9 percent during most of his last term in office. Federal budgetary spending grew from 16.6 percent to 23.6 percent during his time in office – although growing deficits meant that the share of national income spent on programs and services actually peaked in 1974-75. But while the federal debt actually declined as a share of Canada’s national income until 1974, after that it increased from 18 percent to 46.3 percent of GDP over the next decade. The raw numbers are less important than the fact that the chronic deficits of the Trudeau years – and the Mulroney years that followed – meant that while Canadians paid steadily higher taxes after 1979, these failed to cover the costs of existing services – let alone interest charges on the growing debt.

And I'll let you explain why Mirabelle was a good deal for taxpayers.




I would prove that. If I believed it. But I don't. That's why I didn't say it.

Go set up another straw man.



I haven't heard of the "grass cutting program" you're talking about. And I was around in the eighties. Perhaps you could explain what that was all about.




Ummm, no. When the Libs left office, the deficit was 36 Billion. Initially, Mulroney's people reduced it to the low 20's (you say 22, I say 21, who cares?)

After that though, they did allow it to rise. Some of that was due to high interest rates throughout that decade, but much of it was due to a lack of fiscal discipline.



And, once again, Derby chooses to argue against the opinions of others through me.

O.K. One last time.

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY ABOUT CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS. IF YOU ARE GOING TO REFUTE MY POINTS, THEN STICK TO MY POINTS.

Really Derby, you're kind of like the autistic kid in the playground who grows retardo strength and lashes out at some kid walking home from school because he's been driven mad by a bunch of bullies who've been throwing clods of dirt at him nearby.

   

They were progressive, socially progressive. Thats not spin chummer.

Next failed argument.



Doesn't alter the fact that these programs were instituted after the fact of small deficits keeping in line with all the other western powers, "socialist" or not nor does it contradict the fact that it wasn't until 75 and the energy crisis/economic upheaval were the cause of the skyrocketing debts.

Canadian tax-payers deserved services for their money. Under Trudeau they got it and they rewarded him with mandate after mandate.

The rest of the point concerning debt ratio vs GDP and the less value per tax dollar are points I already make in why paying down the debt is important.



Then don't blame Trudeaus deficits on spending factors unless you want to apply blame equally nor blame social programs for the debt. Its just as fair to say that without the economic upheaval then (which ziggy says was worse then the 90s) the taxes would have covered the programs.

Technically speaking a deficit is simply the govt spending more money then it takes in. What they spend it on doesn't matter to the bottome line does it? You can peg the blame on airports, welfare programs, or blowing the wad on ice cream for everybody. I can just as easily counter that we spent to much on defence (I don't believe that btw).

The fact is we hit trouble during economic downturn. Trudeau just decided that he wasn't going to cut social programs to slash the deficit.



Well that's too bad because we can't debate it if you don't know about it. rest assurred the Macleans article I referenced almost 2 years ago no brought that issue to light to highlight "what not to do" in bad economic times. 10 years from now they'll probably do the same to the auto bailout.



No thats not true, not unless you show data. Mulroney had higher debt levels then Trudeau. You can try and adjust the dollars all you want but when you get right down to it Mulroney did not do better then Trudeau despite years in office of good times before the bad times. He didn't make the tough choices. The Liberals did.



You idiot. That comment about hard core cons calling Mulroney a defacto Liberal was intended as a humourous window into some of the people I've dealt with.

Did I say you said it? No. Imearly commented that others had.

Now if you want to get all pissy just because you are losing then go ahead but don't expect me to play nice anymore especially since you started this crap.

No matter how you spin it, no matter what you say you simply cannot refute these facts.

While Trudeau brought us into deficit spending Mulroney was worse in terms of numbers. The debt rose to record amounts under him, the dollar was .65 US under his legacy. Chretien came in and changed that. He ran on a platform designed specifically to eliminate the deficit and slash the debt. All side arguments off to the wayside they did that where Mulroney failed and he could have done the same.

Now Harper has brought the 30 billion dollar deficit spectre back and you give him a pass? lotsa luck pal. I don't. I expect better from a trained economist and "fiscally conservative" conservative.

At least with Trudeau we got an airport and socials programs.

   

If someone had lowered income tax instead of the GST, I'd have more money in my pocket to spend and when I did, they'd recoup a hell of a lot more, wouldn't they?

Like 40% more when they convinced people to spend their way out of recession...

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 9  Next