Conservative voters have amnesia!!!


BitWhys
#91
Accumulated Debt (% GDP)

Trudeau years (68 to 83*) in at 26.9 out at 38.2 = +11.3% in 15 years in office*
Mulroney (84 to 93) in at 43.2** out at 64.1 = +20.9% over 9 years in office

* with Clark not passing a budget
** with Turner not passing a budget
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#92
Those are strange and revealing numbers BitWhys it looks like the Mulrooney gang were worse than the Liberals, but if you listen to the poorly informed barely literate neo-cons on this forum you'd think differently. They lie to us all the time,
always with thier misinformation and twisted big-brother propaganda, christ there's nothing worse than an infestation of facsists posing as conservatives. There is no federal conservative party in Canada, there is a fascist party that calls itself conservative, a name it bought along with P Mackay.
 
Toro
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Trudeau years (68 to 83*) in at 26.9 out at 38.2 = +11.3% in 15 years in office*
Mulroney (84 to 93) in at 43.2** out at 64.1 = +20.9% over 9 years in office

This is disingenuous. Trudeau began running deficits in 1973 or 1974. The last balanced budget the Liberals ran was with Turner as finance minister.

But why are you resorting to math? I thought all the budget information was on the Department of Finance web page.
 
Toro
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

you mean Mulroney DIDN'T run 4 fiscal years of operating deficits?

No, that's not what's being argued.

Mulroney ran an operating surplus during certain fiscal years, not over his entire term.

But, according to your logic, in terms of responsibility

fireman > arsonist

when the fireman's only tool is a water pistol.
 
JonB2004
#95
What the hell is a operating surplus/deficit?
 
BitWhys
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

I thought all the budget information was on the Department of Finance web page.

It is.

You're supposed to be the expert and don't even have the basic figures?

THAT'S disingenous.
 
BitWhys
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by JonB2004

What the hell is a operating surplus/deficit?

here you go

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

By definition operating deficits are a negative net difference between budgetary revenues and operating expenses BEFORE public debt charges are applied.

kinda tough picking out one line from all the nonsense.
 
JonB2004
#98
OK. Thanks.
 
Toro
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

I thought all the budget information was on the Department of Finance web page.

It is.

You're supposed to be the expert and don't even have the basic figures?

THAT'S disingenous.

So link it.
 
BitWhys
#100
you know what the deal is.
 
Toro
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

you know what the deal is.

Link it.
 
bluealberta
#102
The point is, nobody is saying the debt did not increase under Mulroney, of course it did, for the most part caused by interest on the debt. I am sure most of you understand the concept of compound interest, especially TORO, but when you continue to pay interest on interest and the principal, you get massive increases in the amount owing. Look at a mortgage, and figure out where you would be if you did not make any payments at all on the debt for, oh say, 9 years (84 - 93). For another example, RRSP's are built for compound interest, that is why they increase so fast.

Mulroney had balanced program spending, but I guess technically you could say he ran a deficit because he did not pay any interest payments on the debt. However, as has been pointed out here on many occasions, by those that were there, the appetite for interest payments was nil, and would have put many people out of work had they done this. I think, if I also recall correctly, the World Bank got involved in Canada's finances at some point in time, but just exactly when I do not remember.

Say all you want, but when a party runs a country for 29 of 38 years, most of the problems by default were caused by that party.
 
BitWhys
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

you know what the deal is.

Link it.

what you going to do? call me names?
 
bluealberta
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

you know what the deal is.

Link it.

what you going to do? call me names?

Would you feel better if we did? I mean, anything to make you feel better about yourself, cause when you read these posts a few years down the road, you are SO going to hate yourself..........ah why wait, start now. It's really okay.
 
Toro
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

you know what the deal is.

Link it.

what you going to do? call me names?

C'mon, bitwhys.

C'MON!

You can do it, big guy!
 
JonB2004
#106
Why don't you guys keep to the topic? If your going to argue, take it to Wreck Beach.
 
BitWhys
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

C'mon, bitwhys.

C'MON!

You can do it, big guy!

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

only if you promise to stop talking out your ***.

otherwise do your own research
 
Toro
#108
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

only if you promise to stop talking out your ***.

otherwise do your own research.

But you're the one making the claim.

I went over to the web site and didn't find it.

Here's the site map

http://www.fin.gc.ca/access/sitemape.html

Do your best.
 
bluealberta
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

C'mon, bitwhys.

C'MON!

You can do it, big guy!

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

only if you promise to stop talking out your ***.

otherwise do your own research

My *** don't talk, tell me, I would be interested.
 
BitWhys
#110
BlueAlberta says (and said first) Mulrooney never rans deficits

ask HIM for a link. the numbers must be there.
 
Toro
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

BlueAlberta says (and said first) Mulrooney never rans deficits

ask HIM for a link. the numbers must be there.

Is that what he said?

Well, he'd be wrong then.

Did you say that Blue?
 
BitWhys
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

only if you promise to stop talking out your ***.

otherwise do your own research.

But you're the one making the claim.

I went over to the web site and didn't find it.

Here's the site map

http://www.fin.gc.ca/access/sitemape.html

Do your best.

Really now.

All I'm asking for is a promise out of a Conservative. Lord knows they're cheap enough.
 
BitWhys
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

BlueAlberta says (and said first) Mulrooney never rans deficits

ask HIM for a link. the numbers must be there.

Is that what he said?

Well, he'd be wrong then.

Did you say that Blue?

of course he did.

that's why I chimed in.
 
bluealberta
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

BlueAlberta says (and said first) Mulrooney never rans deficits

ask HIM for a link. the numbers must be there.

Is that what he said?

Well, he'd be wrong then.

Did you say that Blue?

of course he did.

that's why I chimed in.

I said that he had balanced spending on programs, but did not make interest payments on the debt. In that regard, he ran deficits, which I have addressed earlier. The interest on the debt caused the debt to increase, as I understand it, not deficit program spending by Mulroney. I do, however, stand to be corrected, especially by TORO, whose opinion I totally respect.
 
Toro
#115
Mulroney did not balance the operational budget every fiscal year, only a few years.

The biggest criticism of Mulroney was that he wasn't Maggie Thatcher, who was willing to take on the vested interests that kept the UK down.

But Mulroney may not have been re-elected if he had done so since Canada didn't have the stomach at the time. Canada wasn't ready until the 1990s when debt rose to 100% of GDP.
 
bluealberta
#116
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Mulroney did not balance the operational budget every fiscal year, only a few years.

The biggest criticism of Mulroney was that he wasn't Maggie Thatcher, who was willing to take on the vested interests that kept the UK down.

But Mulroney may not have been re-elected if he had done so since Canada didn't have the stomach at the time. Canada wasn't ready until the 1990s when debt rose to 100% of GDP.

Fair enough, and I stand corrected. Having said that, though, it still must be noted that the Liberals introduced deficit financing and created the debt. Agreed?
 
BitWhys
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by bluealberta

Yes, Mulroney had the power, but no one, especially the left, was in the mood to deal with the debt. You have to remember, there was a recession, and every time the words budget cuts were mentioned, the left and the media immediately jumped all over it because they felt that cuts would put more people out of work. If I recall correctly, unemployment was in the 10 - 12 % range during part of this time, so the public perception was not to cut anything. But Mulroney did not run deficits, so we should be thankful for that.

 
Toro
#118
Yes, the problems of the debt were created by the Liberals in the 1970s. However, having said that, the blame lies with the Canadian people since they did not demand fiscal responsibility until the 1990s.
 
bluealberta
#119
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by bluealberta

Yes, Mulroney had the power, but no one, especially the left, was in the mood to deal with the debt. You have to remember, there was a recession, and every time the words budget cuts were mentioned, the left and the media immediately jumped all over it because they felt that cuts would put more people out of work. If I recall correctly, unemployment was in the 10 - 12 % range during part of this time, so the public perception was not to cut anything. But Mulroney did not run deficits, so we should be thankful for that.

Get over yourself already. Your'd still an ..........naw, I will get in trouble if I say it.
 
BitWhys
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

...Canada wasn't ready until the 1990s when debt rose to 100% of GDP.

not Federally it wasn't.
 

Similar Threads

25
non voters
by mapleleafs67 | Oct 13th, 2007
10
Voters should try NDP
by I think not | Jan 16th, 2006
2
Amnesty International's amnesia
by jimmoyer | Oct 30th, 2005
2
Voters Gone Crazy
by remrem | Sep 29th, 2004
no new posts