Winter Election?

[Cloud Cover]

1995-1996. Quite the swing in the figures there. That must be the year the axe struck home.

 

[North]

*bites tongue*


Oh, man, I have not been here long enough to start a rant. I will just say that the lack of interest by Canadians to reject a government that has been PROVEN to lie to it's people for SO long is completely frustrating. As is their complete failure to deal with military issues.

We deserve accountable, credible government. Something better has to be out there.

 

[xFusilier]

What those number show is that Conservative spending, including debt servicing was greater than all the combined spending of the Liberal Party over the years.  So the statement that Mulrooney contributed to the loins share of the national debt is in fact correct.  The national debt almost doubled in size during the Conservatives tenure.  So the allegation that big bad ol'Trudeau created the national debt is a strawman. So vote Conservatives folks, the party of high debt and big government (except that todays Tories aren't yesterday's Tories, but you get the point).

 

[Infanteer]

You didn't look at those figures properly.  Look at that magical number called "Operating Surplus" and think about your credit card.

...and I think the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth, so there.  

 

[Monsoon]

You didn't look at those figures properly.  Look at that magical number called "Operating Surplus" and think about your credit card.

Operating surplus or no, Mulroney took over with a debt of $169B and left with a debt of $466B.  Sure, the debt peaked under Chretien, but only because it took four years of steady cutting (that the Mulroney crowd was unprepared to do) to get things back in order.

...and I think the Liberals and the Conservatives are cut from the same cloth, so there. 

Sure - that cloth called "Canada".  The difference is that the Liberals are organized enough to make the tough calls.  The Conservatives are too fractious to summon the political will to do anything approaching what Martin/Chretien did with the budget in the '90s.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What those number show is that Conservative spending, including debt servicing was greater than all the combined spending of the Liberal Party over the years.  So the statement that Mulrooney contributed to the loins share of the national debt is in fact correct.  The national debt almost doubled in size during the Conservatives tenure.

And there we have the reason I hesitate to post the numbers: innumerate people draw the wrong conclusions.

1) Your first error: those numbers don't show spending at all; they only show the difference between income (revenue) and expenses (spending).

2) Your second error: what the operating balances show (applying the arcane and difficult incantations of "add" and "subtract") is that the Mulroney governments took over $13B more in revenues than they spent in the years during which those governments should reasonably be held responsible for introducing budgets.  Generally when you earn more than you spend, that's a good thing.

3) Your third error: the debt servicing charges were, in view of (2), nearly 100% due to debt accumulated by the previous overspending of Liberal governments and the effect of compounding of interest.  A simple example might help you to grasp this complex concept: if I ring up $10,000 on my credit card and then leave you holding it to pay compounding interest on the debt over the next few months until the inevitable "doubling in size", does that make you responsible for the interest charges or me?

>So the allegation that big bad ol'Trudeau created the national debt is a strawman. So vote Conservatives folks, the party of high debt and big government (except that todays Tories aren't yesterday's Tories, but you get the point).

Wrong and wrong.  But I think I've stated it simply enough for you to get the point.

 

[In the light of things]

http://www.politicalcompass.org

see which leader you're closest too.  (the score chart is kind of stupid but meh)

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Operating surplus or no, Mulroney took over with a debt of $169B and left with a debt of $466B.

See my previous post.

>Sure, the debt peaked under Chretien, but only because it took four years of steady cutting (that the Mulroney crowd was unprepared to do) to get things back in order.

Actually, what the federal figures show is that gross revenues in Canada accelerated in recent years.  How much credit the Liberals deserve is still an unanswered question - factors which must be analyzed include the effects of the GST, NAFTA, federal income tax cuts, low interest rates, and behaviour of the US economy.  This is why the Liberals have recently taken spending to unprecedented heights in Canada.


Fun fact: those of you giddy to malign the Mulroney governments for failing to clean up the Liberals' mess, and to praise the Chretien/Martin team for accomplishments, will note that the net federal debt is still somewhat higher than it was when Chretien's government took the reigns in 1993.

 

[3rd Horseman]

I hope it is a Conservative minority but I think the libs will squeak by with a real slim minority.

  Reason Conservatives wont win.....Conservatives are the worker bees of the economy and are all employed and working too hard to reach the dream to vote. Two working parents too busy to give up the shot time they have to relax or working 90 hour weeks at there own business.

  The libs are in the lower demongraphic working class one employed living off the work of the above  professionals or company owners.

  NDP, parasits of the system usually poor or unemployed or not yet employed students lots of time to run around and protest.

Helmets on!      :warstory:

 

[Big Foot]

Wow, I'm not even gonna touch that, 3rd Horseman.

 

[onecat]

"Reason Conservatives wont win.....Conservatives are the worker bees of the economy and are all employed and working too hard to reach the dream to vote."

so your saying the conservative voter is TOO lazy to take the time to vote.  Sorry horseman: no one is too busy, to take 30 mins out of one day to vote when the polls are open 8-8. Also have to disagree with the logical on voting demo graphics too.

If the liberals to win, it won't be because conservatives didn't it will becuase of the old dated and un democatic first past the post voting system we have.  Where parties with 34-35% of vote get to claim massive majorities.

 

[onecat]

"Actually, what the federal figures show is that gross revenues in Canada accelerated in recent years.  How much credit the Liberals deserve is still an unanswered question - factors which must be analyzed include the effects of the GST, NAFTA, federal income tax cuts, low interest rates, and behaviour of the US economy.  This is why the Liberals have recently taken spending to unprecedented heights in Canada."

On the debt, one also has to remember that Chretien did much the balancing with massive defences cuts and changes to E.I. so that all most no one could use it and then took that surplus and spent it. Wait a minute their doing that.  I would like to see the chart of where the Liberals would of been with EI or the defence budget...
their jobs..

 

[Monsoon]

Actually, what the federal figures show is that gross revenues in Canada accelerated in recent years.  How much credit the Liberals deserve is still an unanswered question - factors which must be analyzed include the effects of the GST, NAFTA, federal income tax cuts, low interest rates, and behaviour of the US economy.  This is why the Liberals have recently taken spending to unprecedented heights in Canada.

The economy went into recession in Canada in the early '90s at least in part because of the high and uncontrolled government deficit.  It's not a coincidence that things began to turn around once the fiscal house was brought into order.  I agree that the cause and effect are more inter-related than that and that the high interest rates of the '80s played a part in exacerbating the debt situation, but you can't blame Trudeau for inventing the debt and ignore the fact that Mulroney did nothing about it while Chretien & Co. went in and cleaned up shop.  As I said before, it all goes back to political will - the Conservatives are populists and are too fractious to make the tough calls.

 

[onecat]

The recession of early 90's had a lot to do with the recession in the US and western world at time.  And as the US recovered so did canada only a slower.  Did  deficit paly into this, I'm sure it did.. but Canada's economy is totally linked with US and when they south so did we. When their economy satarted to work again thiongs improved here, it wouldn't of matter want party of power.  Liberals more populists than any party in canada and blow with wind of the polls.  Had polls said Canadians were okay with the debt, they would just kept on spending, as it was they did most of the cuting with EI and defence and downloading on to the provences.

 

[Monsoon]

Liberals more populists than any party in canada and blow with wind of the polls.  Had polls said Canadians were okay with the debt, they would just kept on spending, as it was they did most of the cuting with EI and defence and downloading on to the provences.

So why didn't the Conservatives do anything about the debt in their 10 years in power? Because they didn't care what the people wanted or because they were incompetent?

 

[onecat]

I wasn't old enough in the 80's to remember their plans.  But from what i do remember their wasn't anyone who was talking about cutting spending or reducing the debt.  i know they put the policies in place that liberals later used unchanged to clain credit for reducing the debt so if they had a won a 3th election it could of been Kim would of gottan the credit.  I'll do soon checking in policies and get back to you.  the liberals sure wouldn't of been doing any cutting in the late 80's... the need was just not there.

 

[Brad Sallows]

1) "you can't blame Trudeau for inventing the debt"

Strictly speaking, I can't, because there was a federal debt (small) before he was chosen to lead the party.  However, it is an incontrovertible fact that a large spending deficit during the Trudeau years led to a large debt.  It is no exaggeration to state that Trudeau governments created a debt of sufficient magnitude as to make the servicing costs unmanageable in a high interest climate.

2) "and ignore the fact that Mulroney did nothing about it

It is also an incontrovertible fact that during the 1980s interest rates rose very high.  Those who had mortgages may remember.  To try to claim Mulroney "did nothing" is to try to ignore the balancing of the operating budget and the NAFTA.

3)  "while Chretien & Co. went in and cleaned up shop."

Or, Chretien & Co happened to be present when the economy turned favourably.  All we know with certainty is that interest rates drew down and economic growth started to take off again.  What the Chretien governments can take credit for is spending cuts (although some of the effect may have been merely to transfer spending to other jurisdictions) and tax cuts, both of which had visibly beneficial effects on accelerating the revenue growth curve.

The real story of taming the deficit and reducing the debt lies in the growth of federal revenues somewhere after 1999-2000 or so.  The point I am making here, though, is that the existence of the debt itself was an achievement of Liberal governments.

 

[xFusilier]

Operating Surplus/Deficit has nothing to do with the price of Tea in China, you made the statement that the Liberals created the debt.  Net public debt to me means that with surplus/deficit and servicing accounted for this is what you owe. So once again the statement that the national debt under Progressive Conservative stewardship of the nations finances the net public debt almost doubled.  And no amount of Fraser Centre spin will change that without liberal (there's that nasty word again) use of a time machine.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm surprised no one is talking about the Federal Fiscal Update brought out yesterday by Goodale.  The policy itself in my mind seem pretty sound.

Raising all Canadian's base minimum deduction so that poor get the same benefit as the wealthy - good.

Creating a working income tax benefit which create an incentive to work a low-paying job as opposed to sitting at home on one's fat rump collecting benefits - excellent.

Corporate tax cuts to make Canada MORE competitive vis a vis with the United States by targeting an effective tax rate of 33.0 versus their 34.5 (approximately) which will lead to foreign investment - anyone who doesn't recognize this as essential needs to look up the success in Ireland.

Another couple of billion to assist new immigrants and help universities and students - good, however I'd more details on the immigration component.  Personally, I think english and/or french fluency training should be manditory as an inability to communicate effectively hold back many very bright people from foreign lands who otherwise would be able to contribute much more.

The only downside to the plan is that if we kept the exact same taxation structure we have now we'd pay off $96 billion of that monster debt we've created, as opposed to only $15 billion with the tax code revisions (End point would be $396 billion versus $475 billion in net debt)

Regardless, I think it's a pretty good plan and would actually be in favour of its implementation.  My problem is that I guess I learned my lesson first from Chretian and then from McGuinty.  The Liberal Party is interested in one thing and only one thing "staying in power" and will promise ANYTHING in order to do so.  They will write it down.  They will print it.  They will circulate it.  They will repeat ad nauseum in interview and during debates....and after elected....it didn't matter.

I'm not be a fan of Harper's personal religion (I think if gays want to marry one another, what business is it of mine) but at the very least I do trust the Conservatives to act in a more ethical way once in power.  The key will be can they get all the bigots out there (many who reside on this board) to actually read their policy as opposed to taking the word of the NDP/Liberal spin machine as to what that policy actually is.

Sadly, I'm not confident the electorate will do its homework, will lap up Liberal lies and misrepresentations and as such we'll end up with yet another minority Liberal Government.

Just thinking about that is enough to make me ill....



Matthew.  ???

 

[a_majoor]

I'm surprised no one is talking about the Federal Fiscal Update brought out yesterday by Goodale.   The policy itself in my mind seem pretty sound.

Raising all Canadian's base minimum deduction so that poor get the same benefit as the wealthy - good.

Check

Creating a working income tax benefit which create an incentive to work a low-paying job as opposed to sitting at home on one's fat rump collecting benefits - excellent.

Check

Corporate tax cuts to make Canada MORE competitive vis a vis with the United States by targeting an effective tax rate of 33.0 versus their 34.5 (approximately) which will lead to foreign investment - anyone who doesn't recognize this as essential needs to look up the success in Ireland.

Check. Also look up Singapore, South Korea, UK (1980s), USA (1920s, 1960s, 1980s, 2002+)

Another couple of billion to assist new immigrants and help universities and students - good, however I'd more details on the immigration component.   Personally, I think english and/or french fluency training should be manditory as an inability to communicate effectively hold back many very bright people from foreign lands who otherwise would be able to contribute much more.

Bad idea. You were and Ralph were doing good by following the Reform/Alliance/Conservative platform, but fell off the rails here

The only downside to the plan is that if we kept the exact same taxation structure we have now we'd pay off $96 billion of that monster debt we've created, as opposed to only $15 billion with the tax code revisions (End point would be $396 billion versus $475 billion in net debt)

The wonders of static analysis. There is lots of economic data demonstrating that tax receips increased substantially with tax CUTS (just check out the US Treasury Department) due to the incentive effect of being able to keep more of your own wealth.

Regardless, I think it's a pretty good plan and would actually be in favour of its implementation.   My problem is that I guess I learned my lesson first from Chretian and then from McGuinty.   The Liberal Party is interested in one thing and only one thing "staying in power" and will promise ANYTHING in order to do so.   They will write it down.   They will print it.   They will circulate it.   They will repeat ad nauseum in interview and during debates....and after elected....it didn't matter.

Too true. Remember Papa Jean and the GST. Denying he said he would axe the GST AFTER the recording was played back to him on national television is certainly brazen lying of the highest order. Mr Dithers has managed to fill these very big shoes after all (what Adscam?)

Sadly, I'm not confident the electorate will do its homework, will lap up Liberal lies and misrepresentations and as such we'll end up with yet another minority Liberal Government.

Just thinking about that is enough to make me ill....

Me too



Matthew.    ???
[/quote]