Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465 
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
January 16th, 2006, 01:20 AM
In this case, I am at a loss as to which document in which to vest my trust. The first is dated for January 15, and with a timestamp for early evening; the second is dated for the same, but with no timestamp. lol, this is perhaps a matter of chronology.
In this case, I am at a loss as to which document in which to vest my trust. The first is dated for January 15, and with a timestamp for early evening; the second is dated for the same, but with no timestamp. lol, this is perhaps a matter of chronology.
Member
Posts: 71
Location: Alberta
Location: Alberta
January 16th, 2006, 01:21 AM
On another note, one thing Mulroney did accomplish that has mostly gone unnoticed is that in the last few years, he actual ran surpluses in the current account. That is, government program spending did not exceed government revenues. What killed the budget was the interest payments on the debt. If you remember back then (and I sure do!) interest rates were around 10% - 12%. If you had a mortgage you'll remember!
As the economy expanded, and as interest rates declined, it became easier for the government to make the interest payments on the debt. Falling interest rates easily saved $15 billion a year or more in interest payments.
On another note, one thing Mulroney did accomplish that has mostly gone unnoticed is that in the last few years, he actual ran surpluses in the current account. That is, government program spending did not exceed government revenues. What killed the budget was the interest payments on the debt. If you remember back then (and I sure do!) interest rates were around 10% - 12%. If you had a mortgage you'll remember!
As the economy expanded, and as interest rates declined, it became easier for the government to make the interest payments on the debt. Falling interest rates easily saved $15 billion a year or more in interest payments.
Member
Posts: 71
Location: Alberta
Location: Alberta
January 16th, 2006, 01:26 AM
Quoting
I would think it is fair to say that the Conservative press release came second. In the Liberal release they point to the health care committment and the 'fiscal imbalance' that he did not cost. These two issues are directly referenced and specifically addressed in the press release. I think both responses seem pretty straightforward and without spin.
In this case, I am at a loss as to which document in which to vest my trust. The first is dated for January 15, and with a timestamp for early evening; the second is dated for the same, but with no timestamp. lol, this is perhaps a matter of chronology.
Member
Posts: 109
January 16th, 2006, 07:39 AM
On top of that, they were put in power during a recession, in which as KanBob mentioned, interest rates, and inflation were increasing at an alarming rate. Most of the work for debt reduction and defict reduction, was put in place by the Mulroney government.
Many will also argue, that the way Canada got rid of the deficit had nothing to do with proper fiscal mangement, and actually had more to do with the interest rate decline of the 90's, and increased investment by the U.S. Revenues then came up as we emerged from the recession. Not to mention the shift of funding away from the provinces, and high taxes.
So to blame the debt on the Tories is one of the most ludicrist statements I have heard, since most of the framework for eliminating the deficit was put in place by the Tories to begin with.
Quoting
You have got to be kidding me! You seriously need to do some research. During Trudeau's term debt increased by somwhere around 1300%. The Mulroney government was left with this, as well as a huge multi-billion dollar deficit.Quote:
On who's back was the debt run up??? I suppose the Liberals could just have continued to pile up debt like Mulroney until the debt was 75 or 80 cents on every tax dollar but it had to stop somewhere. The ultimate blame for the debt rests squarely on the tories. The so-called Liberal scandals make up less than 2% of the budget, and a hell of a lot less than the tory debt.
They will fail to mention that it was paid down on the backs of overtaxed working people, the deprived military and downloading the healthcare costs to the Provinces. Certainly not by curtailing waste and embezzlement.
On top of that, they were put in power during a recession, in which as KanBob mentioned, interest rates, and inflation were increasing at an alarming rate. Most of the work for debt reduction and defict reduction, was put in place by the Mulroney government.
Many will also argue, that the way Canada got rid of the deficit had nothing to do with proper fiscal mangement, and actually had more to do with the interest rate decline of the 90's, and increased investment by the U.S. Revenues then came up as we emerged from the recession. Not to mention the shift of funding away from the provinces, and high taxes.
So to blame the debt on the Tories is one of the most ludicrist statements I have heard, since most of the framework for eliminating the deficit was put in place by the Tories to begin with.
Running out of ranks
Posts: 8,366 
January 16th, 2006, 08:05 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau
"Some people consider Trudeau's economic policies to have been a weak point. Inflation and unemployment marred much of his term. When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion, when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion - an increase of 1200%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau
"Some people consider Trudeau's economic policies to have been a weak point. Inflation and unemployment marred much of his term. When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion, when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion - an increase of 1200%."
Member
Posts: 109
January 16th, 2006, 03:06 PM
Quoting
That seems to be the case with the majority of Liberals I have talked to, and have met. They regularly distort reality and attempt to pass it off as fact. As can be seen in this election campain, and the last.
I just get a little frustrated with Liberals who pretend that everything was squeaky clean, and then Mulroney took over.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
January 16th, 2006, 05:46 PM
nomore, as well as anyone else who would assert that the Liberal Party of Canada had been virtually solely responsible for the debt in its present form:
Please keep in mind that according to the records of Parliament and the Ministry of Finance, the Conservative Government of Canada accrued more debt than the Liberal Government of Canada, under the leaderships of the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Rt. Hon. Pierre Trudeau, respectively.
Edited, Supplemental Note
On another note, I just reached 600 posts! Whee!
nomore, as well as anyone else who would assert that the Liberal Party of Canada had been virtually solely responsible for the debt in its present form:
Please keep in mind that according to the records of Parliament and the Ministry of Finance, the Conservative Government of Canada accrued more debt than the Liberal Government of Canada, under the leaderships of the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Rt. Hon. Pierre Trudeau, respectively.
Edited, Supplemental NoteOn another note, I just reached 600 posts! Whee!
the clan of the claw
Posts: 1,976
January 16th, 2006, 06:18 PM
People need to stop being played by the party game and recognize that both the libs and the cons have while the governing party made correct and incorrect decisions.
Harper and his right-wingnuts are the first truly regressive backwater party to have any level of power federally and this is why NOW is such an important time for the future of Canadiana. Harper may have learned he has to act the centrist, and govern like a centrist to have power, but he cleverly plans to allow his party's roots to come forth once he has secured power. Harper is an opportunist driven by a desire for power and his pro-american right-wing ideology.
People need to stop being played by the party game and recognize that both the libs and the cons have while the governing party made correct and incorrect decisions.
Harper and his right-wingnuts are the first truly regressive backwater party to have any level of power federally and this is why NOW is such an important time for the future of Canadiana. Harper may have learned he has to act the centrist, and govern like a centrist to have power, but he cleverly plans to allow his party's roots to come forth once he has secured power. Harper is an opportunist driven by a desire for power and his pro-american right-wing ideology.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
January 16th, 2006, 06:25 PM
Speaking of the Liberals and Mulroney...
Speaking of the Liberals and Mulroney...
Quote:
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
The Liberal legacy
Before Christmas, I shared the general opinion that the upcoming federal election would produce approximately the same result as the last one: a Liberal minority that might or might not be large enough to govern with the support of the NDP. But events since Christmas suggest that the Liberals – who have been in power since 1993 – will no longer be forming a government after January 23.
When the Liberals under Jean Chrétien won power in 1993, they did so with a platform that worried me a bit: they campaigned against the GST and NAFTA and they didn’t seem to be overly concerned with the federal deficit (which was then around 5% of GDP, and had been fluctuating around that level for over 15 years). And they also seemed to be extremely upset with John Crow, Governor of the Bank of Canada, who had – at the cost of an admittedly severe recession – finally managed to get inflation under control.
I was only a bit worried because they had given themselves enough wiggle room to reverse themselves on the GST and NAFTA. If they couldn’t get the US to negotiate a ‘better deal’, then they’d leave NAFTA alone. And if they couldn’t come up with a better way to generate tax revenues than the GST, then it would stay. Unsurprisingly, both NAFTA and the GST are still with us, and a good thing, too. And even though the Liberals did indulge in a petty exercise of instantaneous gratification by not giving John Crow another term as Governor, Gordon Theissen and David Dodge have maintained his policy of inflation targeting. Also a good thing.
Not all of the Liberals’ macroeconomic policy successes amounted to deciding to not reverse Mulroney-era policy initiatives, however. In the spring of 1995, then-Finance Minister Paul Martin announced a series of spending cuts and tax increases designed to eliminate the federal deficit, and the federal government has run a surplus continually since 1997. If Canadian representatives to international economic conferences (G7, OECD, etc) have been insufferably smug over the past few years, it is perhaps a pardonable sin.
In retrospect, the decision to finally deal with the federal deficit was less courageous than it appeared at the time. Credit ratings agencies had already started to downgrade Canadian federal bonds, and there were rumours of bond issues that had difficulty finding buyers and of IMF rescue packages. But it is to the Liberals’ credit that they decided to do the right thing, and risk the electoral consequences. Again, in retrospect, those risks were in fact quite small: the opposition parties were fragmented, and none were in a position to use the dissatisfaction with budget cuts to dislodge the Liberals in the 1997 election.
So here we are in 2006: the largest industrialised economy with surpluses in its government and current account balances, unemployment rates at 30-year lows, and low and stable inflation. As far as macroeconomic policy goes, the Liberals would have been more than justified in expecting a crushing majority next Monday based on the slogan: ‘More of the same’.
But that just goes to show you how important macroeconomic policy is in determining who wins elections.
Before Christmas, I shared the general opinion that the upcoming federal election would produce approximately the same result as the last one: a Liberal minority that might or might not be large enough to govern with the support of the NDP. But events since Christmas suggest that the Liberals – who have been in power since 1993 – will no longer be forming a government after January 23.
When the Liberals under Jean Chrétien won power in 1993, they did so with a platform that worried me a bit: they campaigned against the GST and NAFTA and they didn’t seem to be overly concerned with the federal deficit (which was then around 5% of GDP, and had been fluctuating around that level for over 15 years). And they also seemed to be extremely upset with John Crow, Governor of the Bank of Canada, who had – at the cost of an admittedly severe recession – finally managed to get inflation under control.
I was only a bit worried because they had given themselves enough wiggle room to reverse themselves on the GST and NAFTA. If they couldn’t get the US to negotiate a ‘better deal’, then they’d leave NAFTA alone. And if they couldn’t come up with a better way to generate tax revenues than the GST, then it would stay. Unsurprisingly, both NAFTA and the GST are still with us, and a good thing, too. And even though the Liberals did indulge in a petty exercise of instantaneous gratification by not giving John Crow another term as Governor, Gordon Theissen and David Dodge have maintained his policy of inflation targeting. Also a good thing.
Not all of the Liberals’ macroeconomic policy successes amounted to deciding to not reverse Mulroney-era policy initiatives, however. In the spring of 1995, then-Finance Minister Paul Martin announced a series of spending cuts and tax increases designed to eliminate the federal deficit, and the federal government has run a surplus continually since 1997. If Canadian representatives to international economic conferences (G7, OECD, etc) have been insufferably smug over the past few years, it is perhaps a pardonable sin.
In retrospect, the decision to finally deal with the federal deficit was less courageous than it appeared at the time. Credit ratings agencies had already started to downgrade Canadian federal bonds, and there were rumours of bond issues that had difficulty finding buyers and of IMF rescue packages. But it is to the Liberals’ credit that they decided to do the right thing, and risk the electoral consequences. Again, in retrospect, those risks were in fact quite small: the opposition parties were fragmented, and none were in a position to use the dissatisfaction with budget cuts to dislodge the Liberals in the 1997 election.
So here we are in 2006: the largest industrialised economy with surpluses in its government and current account balances, unemployment rates at 30-year lows, and low and stable inflation. As far as macroeconomic policy goes, the Liberals would have been more than justified in expecting a crushing majority next Monday based on the slogan: ‘More of the same’.
But that just goes to show you how important macroeconomic policy is in determining who wins elections.
Member
Posts: 109
January 16th, 2006, 07:58 PM
You can say that the debt increased more during the Conservative term, but you have to look at why. In this case it was the Multi-Billion dollar deficit (left by Trudeau). Not to mention the poor ecconomic situation at that time.
There is no way you could have expected the Mulroney government to erase the deficit in a day, and begin to pay off the debt, so they did the best they could at the time, hence why a lot of the framework for eliminating the deficit was put in place by them.
Quoting
I was not putting all the blame on Trudeau, I was simply stating the reasons why the debt was so high in the first place. And it wasn't the Tories. nomore, as well as anyone else who would assert that the Liberal Party of Canada had been virtually solely responsible for the debt in its present form:
Please keep in mind that according to the records of Parliament and the Ministry of Finance, the Conservative Government of Canada accrued more debt than the Liberal Government of Canada, under the leaderships of the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Rt. Hon. Pierre Trudeau, respectively.
Edited, Supplemental Note
On another note, I just reached 600 posts! Whee!
Please keep in mind that according to the records of Parliament and the Ministry of Finance, the Conservative Government of Canada accrued more debt than the Liberal Government of Canada, under the leaderships of the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Rt. Hon. Pierre Trudeau, respectively.
Edited, Supplemental NoteOn another note, I just reached 600 posts! Whee!
You can say that the debt increased more during the Conservative term, but you have to look at why. In this case it was the Multi-Billion dollar deficit (left by Trudeau). Not to mention the poor ecconomic situation at that time.
There is no way you could have expected the Mulroney government to erase the deficit in a day, and begin to pay off the debt, so they did the best they could at the time, hence why a lot of the framework for eliminating the deficit was put in place by them.
