Trudeau deficit plan will sink Canadians
martin14 @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:19 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
They didn't start calling for increased spending until AFTER the American financial melt-down. And actually I didn't agree with Liberal MPs about that; spending was high enough during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. In fact it was too high. The problem was Harper spent money in wrong ways. One RCMP station replaced a single door knob,
Now wait.
Do you actually understand what you are writing ?
You are trying to criticize Harper for spending more, after being forced to by the Liberals,
which you didn't agree with anyway ?
Do you see the hypocrisy in your own twisted way of thinking ?
It's your own damn party that forced the extra money, and yet you whine about Harper anyway.
And yes I'm sure Harper personally drove all the way to Charlottetown to sign off on the doorknob direct and in person.
PARTY HACKS EVERYONE !
PluggyRug @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:37 am
Thanos Thanos:
It's been a distressing day. We probably permanently lost one of the best members CKA ever had but we'll probably be stuck with this Lothian twit for the rest of forever. 
This off T but who have we lost?
romanP @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:19 am
why is this thread so long? isn't it a no-brainer that this announcement was a bad idea? is Justin Trudeau going to "grow the economy from the heart outward" by doing something that already isn't working? i'm confused.
OnTheIce @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:52 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
There you go again. Sorry, but Harper and his Conservatives have been the government. There's no one else to blame. They did focus the economy on oil. They did provide government subsidies for oil exploration and construction of pipelines. But they didn't provide any government subsidies for manufacturing. In fact, they created new free trade agreements that allowed existing companies to move manufacturing facilities out of the country. And they just gave up on the softwood lumber dispute. They focussed our economy on oil at the expense of manufacturing and lumber. They let Americans buy raw logs, but let Americans penalize Canadian lumber mills that process logs into finished lumber. And Peter Loughheed said he wanted to build upgraders to convert bitumen into synthetic crude oil. Sell synthetic crude. But Harper is allowing oil companies to sell diluted bitumen. Yes, it's government regulation that allows diluted bitumen through pipelines designed for crude oil.
You clearly have no idea how the economy works.
If you think for a second that Stephen Harper himself created the situation in Alberta and Canada, especially as it pertains to manufacturing, you're really not one to be speaking on the subject.
CountLothian @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:30 am
martin14 martin14:
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
They didn't start calling for increased spending until AFTER the American financial melt-down. And actually I didn't agree with Liberal MPs about that; spending was high enough during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. In fact it was too high. The problem was Harper spent money in wrong ways. One RCMP station replaced a single door knob,
Now wait.
Do you actually understand what you are writing ?
You are trying to criticize Harper for spending more, after being forced to by the Liberals,
which you didn't agree with anyway ?
Do you see the hypocrisy in your own twisted way of thinking ?
It's your own damn party that forced the extra money, and yet you whine about Harper anyway.
PARTY HACKS EVERYONE !
Sooooo..... you are rewriting history with this winnipegger guy as the authority, for you to base your argument on.
Winnipegger @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:35 pm
Martin: Chrétien-Martin Liberals are the ones who reduced spending, balanced the budget, reduced the debt, and reduced taxes. Conservatives always try to paint Liberals as tax-and-spend, but that is bullshit. Conservatives under Mulroney promised to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and reduce taxes; that would be accomplished by reducing spending and reducing the number of individuals in the federal civil service. What Mulroney Conservatives did was the opposite. Harper Conservatives are now promising the same thing, and trying to paint Liberals as tax-and-spend. But Harper Conservatives drastically increased spending the FIRST TWO MONTHS AFTER THEY WERE ELECTED. And Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, released a report on March 17, 2011, that stated the number of civil servants had increased by 14% vs what it was on election day 2006. That report was released that day because the debt equalled its previous all-time high.
That's the facts.
OnTheIce: Are you claiming that it's someone else's fault because Harper Conservatives have no control? Really? The Prime Minister has no control. If we believe that then why would anyone re-elect Harper and his crew?
OnTheIce @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:40 pm
The Chretien Liberals never reduced the debt. That's a myth that Liberals try to pass off.
Our National debt was higher when they left office than before they came into office. That's factual.
Harper doesn't have control over a Global economy. Justin won't and neither will Mulcair. You keep forgetting that Canada is a very small player in the global economy.
Winnipegger @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:57 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
The Chretien Liberals never reduced the debt. That's a myth that Liberals try to pass off.
Our National debt was higher when they left office than before they came into office. That's factual.
Our National debt was higher when they left office than before they came into office. That's factual.
Now you are using spin to try to rewrite history. Look at the chart I posted on the last page. That chart is hard numbers. Finance Minister Paul Martin, and Prime Minister Paul Martin, was the only politician to reduce debt since before World War 2.
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Harper doesn't have control over a Global economy. Justin won't and neither will Mulcair. You keep forgetting that Canada is a very small player in the global economy.
The Prime Minister is responsible for the Canadian federal government. The world will always have problems. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and his ministers to steer the Canadian economy to prosperity no matter what happens in the rest of the world. We are not here to steer the world economy, but it is the PMs job to ensure Canada prospers regardless of what happens in the rest of the world. Your statement is a confession that Stephen Harper is incompetent.
Thanos @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:58 pm
We were doing OK until the Saudis decided to deliberately tank us.
OnTheIce @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:07 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Now you are using spin to try to rewrite history. Look at the chart I posted on the last page. That chart is hard numbers. Finance Minister Paul Martin, and Prime Minister Paul Martin, was the only politician to reduce debt since before World War 2.
Your chart is incorrect. There's no spin, I'm talking directly about facts.
Our national debt was higher when Chretien left office than when he took over.
Here are some actual budget number:
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and his ministers to steer the Canadian economy to prosperity no matter what happens in the rest of the world.
Impossible! You're quite naive.
Governments cannot steer any economy into prosperity! It doesn't work that way when we're working on a Global scale. If this was 100 years ago and our economy was largely local and National, sure....but now? Not even close.
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
We are not here to steer the world economy, but it is the PMs job to ensure Canada prospers regardless of what happens in the rest of the world. Your statement is a confession that Stephen Harper is incompetent.
Your statement is a confession that you truly are naive and don't understand this whole 'economy' thing.
Winnipegger @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:27 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Your chart is incorrect. There's no spin, I'm talking directly about facts.
Our national debt was higher when Chretien left office than when he took over.
Our national debt was higher when Chretien left office than when he took over.
There's your spin again. You just won't admit it. And my figures come directly from federal budgets. I saw a similar chart published by the National Post, but it showed "National Debt" not "Federal Debt". The chart didn't make sense, because it didn't match what I remember from budgets. So I checked further, and discovered they had added federal and provincial debts, including all ten provinces. That's not fair and not accurate, because each provincial government is elected separately. The federal government does not have control over what provincial governments do. So I created this chart by taking debt numbers directly from federal budgets. I entered the numbers in a spreadsheet and produced the chart. Formatted very similar to the National Post chart, but with actual federal debt taken from federal budgets. Arguing with this means you're arguing with Jim Flaherty, Joe Oliver, Michael Wilson, etc.
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Here are some actual budget number:
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/
That chart shows deficits and surpluses, not debt. Do you really not understand the difference between deficit and debt?
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Impossible! You're quite naive.
Stephen Harper himself said many times the he would steer Canada into prosperity. You are arguing with your own party leader.
OnTheIce @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:34 pm
Link me to actual government documents that show debt, year over year during the Chretien era. Do a Google search on the subject. You're wrong. Paul Martin is the only PM in recent memory to leave with less debt.
My "party leader" isn't Harper. I'm not a member of ANY party.
Winnipegger @ Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:59 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Link me to actual government documents that show debt
Budget 2015. The whole thing, not "budget in brief" or "budget speech": http://www.budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/plan/budget2015-eng.pdf
Budget 2014: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2014/docs/plan/pdf/budget2014-eng.pdf
Past budgets, 1968-2013: http://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
year over year during the Chretien era. Do a Google search on the subject. You're wrong. Paul Martin is the only PM in recent memory to leave with less debt.
You're trying to put spin on it. I know what you're doing, and I'm not going to repeat it because I won't let you take control. Bottom line is Finance Minister Paul Martin, and Prime Minister Paul Martin, was the only one able to reduce the debt. Since before World War 2. He did, and the amount is shown in the chart I posted.
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
My "party leader" isn't Harper. I'm not a member of ANY party.
Ok. And I believe Chrétien-Martin should have reduced the debt more than they did. When Paul Martin announced the surplus would be $17.1 billion in the October year 2000 fiscal update, I believe they should have stuck with surpluses that large. But Brian Mulroney promised the individual surtax and corporate surtax were temporary, to "pay off the deficit". Well you can't "pay off" a deficit; the word "deficit" means you're spending more money each year than you got. You go further in debt every year by that amount. But the promise was surtaxes would be abolished once deficits were gone. So even though Paul Martin was Liberal Finance Minister, voters demanded the surtaxes be abolished. That was fair, and I agree. He did abolish federal individual surtax, and went further to reduce income tax. Corporate income tax was 28% on election day 1993, it was 21% election day 2006. And Liberals had passed a law to completely abolish corporate capital tax. Effective date was after the election; they weren't expecting the election that soon. Conservatives have tried to take credit for getting rid of corporate capital tax, but Liberals had passed the law before the 2006 election. Furthermore, federal funding to healthcare had to be restored. Paul Martin did restore it. But certain individuals in the Liberal party weren't satisfied with that. They wanted to spend. So surpluses were small.
I sent an email to Paul Martin in the spring of 2005. I asked him to restore the $17.1 billion surplus. I said voters expected Paul Martin the Prime Minister to be as fiscally strong as Paul Martin the Finance Minister. I never did get an answer to that email. But I notice that Jim Flaherty's 2006 budget said the "status quo" surplus for fiscal year 2005-2006 was $17.4 billion. Jim Flaherty went on to say he intended to reduce that surplus by spending. Uh huh. I'm convinced that if the NDP had not voted down the November 2005 fiscal update, that the Liberal government would have survived long enough to present it's 2006 budget. And voters would have seen the $17.4 billion surplus for 2005-2006. That would have been enough for another Liberal minority. It would have been another minority, but they would have been re-elected. Did my little email contribute? I don't know.
smorgdonkey @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:05 am
Funny how Conservative deficits are ok while things are booming but Liberal deficits are terrible regardless.
The ol' two faced shuffle.
smorgdonkey @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:11 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
The Chretien Liberals never reduced the debt. That's a myth that Liberals try to pass off.
Our National debt was higher when they left office than before they came into office. That's factual.
Our National debt was higher when they left office than before they came into office. That's factual.
Not factual at all.
Cretien was done in 2003.