Trudeau GUILTY of Conflict of Interest.
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
Remember the shitty times under Harper when our dollar was $1.14US and gold was $1850oz US?
Canada doesn't set the price of gold. Harper should have paid out debt off rather than sending it as high as it went.
https://ipolitics.ca/2015/04/19/no-matter-how-you-add-it-up-harpers-fiscal-record-is-a-catastrophe/
Since Harper was elected, the federal debt has increased by over $150 billion, wiping out the reduction in federal debt achieved under Chretien and Martin. Not much to boast about there.
On April 8, Finance Minister Joe Oliver stood up before the Economic Club in Toronto and delivered what can only be described as one of the greatest “fantasy economics” speeches in decades.
It was a message from a parallel universe — one in which the Harper government delivered ‘sound economic management’ through the recession (it didn’t), the economy recovered its pre-recession growth pattern (it hasn’t) and Ottawa is delivering tax relief for the average Canadian household (it isn’t). Stranger still, it’s a parallel universe where Pierre Trudeau is still around, haunting us.
In his speech, Oliver somehow contrived to blame Justin Trudeau for the alleged fiscal sins committed by his father during Trudeau Senior’s decade in power. (Justin Trudeau is 43. He was in his early teens when his father left office. Somehow we doubt Pierre was taking Justin’s fiscal advice at the time … but that’s the magic of rhetoric for you.)
According to Oliver, federal spending tripled between 1969 and 1979, driven by “the ideology of the man at the wheel and on the reckless assumption that commodity prices would remain high”. Change the timeline and Oliver could have been talking about Stephen Harper — but this is not a crowd that’s open to irony.
How bad a fiscal manager was Pierre Trudeau? Program spending did indeed triple between 1969 and 1979 in absolute terms. But measured as a share of GDP, program spending only rose from 15.4 per cent in 1969-70 to 16.7 per cent in 1979-80. As a share of GDP, revenues actually fell from 17.6 per cent in 1969-70 to 15.5 per cent in 1979-80.
According to Oliver, “Trudeau-era debt clung to Canada like a bad flu”. Actually, the federal debt burden only rose from 23.0 per cent to 27.7 per cent over the ten-year period. It rose further to 37.5 per cent in 1983-84, but this was due to the effects of the 1980-1981 recession.
In fact, the fiscal record of Trudeau Senior actually looks pretty good when compared to that of Brian Mulroney. Under Trudeau, the average annual deficit was 2.9 per cent of GDP between 1969-70 and 1979-80; under Mulroney the average annual deficit was 6.7 per cent of GDP between 1983-84 and 1994-95.
Between 1983-84 and 1994-95, program spending under Mulroney fell from 18.4 per cent of GDP to 15.7 per cent, while the revenue share actually rose from 15.6 per cent to 16.6 per cent. This weak performance, along with rising interest rates, resulted in the debt burden dramatically increasing from 37.5 per cent in 1983-84 to 66.6 per cent in 1994-95.
Mulroney did balance the operating budget — but that wasn’t nearly enough to solve the fiscal problem facing the government. In retrospect, the Mulroney government was simply reluctant to take the fiscal actions needed to stop the country from sliding into crisis in the early 1990s.
In 1984, the Conservative government actually published a document — ‘Agenda for Economic Renewal’ — which stated that, without major action to cut program spending and/or raise taxes, the federal debt burden would double by the end of the decade. Which is exactly what happened. (Disclosure: Both of us were heavily involved in the preparation of all of the Mulroney budgets.)
Mulroney’s Finance minister, Michael Wilson, did his best to warn Canadians about the dangers of failing to aggressively contain the fiscal problem. His May 1985 budget did raise revenues and reduce spending. However, after the confrontation between the “senior from Vanier and Mr. Mulroney” over changes to old age security benefits, Mr. Wilson lost not only the PM’s support for further measures to reduce the deficit, but also the backing of the business community. Wilson was on his own.
So what about the Liberals? Oliver is hardly going to give any credit to Jean Chretien and Paul Martin for getting the federal government out of the worst fiscal crisis it had ever faced.
According to Oliver, the Liberals balanced the budget “by hiking taxes, cutting vital programs and slashing billions in transfer payments.” (Disclosure: Both of us were very involved in the preparation of the Liberal budgets in 1994-1995 and subsequent years.)
Now, as far as we can recall, the Liberals imposed a temporary capital tax on large deposit taking institutions; a higher tax on large corporations; a temporary corporate surtax; and higher excise taxes on gasoline and tobacco products. That was it. There were no higher taxes on the elderly, as Oliver has claimed. Indeed the Liberal government benefitted from the Mulroney government’s decision to introduce the GST in 1991, reform the personal and corporate income tax systems, partially de-index the personal income tax system in 1984, implement the North America Free Trade Agreement and sell several Crown corporations – all major structural changes which fostered economic growth and resulted in a more stable fiscal situation. Finally, the Liberal government eventually implemented the largest income tax (personal and corporate) reduction in Canadian history in the 2000 budget.
Anybody want to examine how 2 fake World Wars the put the globe into debt of is that just one of those things that happens??? Things your kind does as you cheer such shit on.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-did-World-War-II-cost
These are estimates (all in USD):
U.S. $341 billion in 1945
Germany $272 billion in 1945
Soviet Union $192 billion in 1945
Britain $120 billion in 1945
Italy $94 billion in 1945
Japan $56 billion in 1945
Total $1.075 trillion in 1945 or about $14.63 trillion in today’s dollars.
So, i take it that your vote is more heavily based on a dislike for Harper rather than the best candidate available today.
In which country?
Why stop at Harper and Scheer?
There's Wilfred Laurier, McKenzie, Mulroney, Trudeau Sr, etc, etc.
Scheer has been my MP for almost 20 yrs. Prior to that I had a hippie that never showed up to work. Nothing but growth and youngest population in Canada in my riding. Why are the youth flocking to Regina?
I'm floored that someone would consider voting for someone as damaged, immoral and unethical (let alone totally ineffective in the role and a buffoon) because they don't like the former leader of an opposing Party.
No wonder that Canada is the laughing stock of the globe
Canada isn't the laughing stock of the globe.
You're just a miserable asshole, that's all.
They hold nothing if they don’t use it and they haven’t . Were the greenweavers able to stop site C ? What about Trudeau’s pipeline can they stop that ? Show me where and when the greenweavers have done anything other than knuckle under to Horgan .
Big scandal paying money back . Who knew and what did they know . Total b.s. that was forgotten the day after Trudeau’s election win , and notice Mike Duffey still proudly collecting your tax dollar as a sitting senator . Or how about when Harper put the host in his pocket , that had the Vatican ready to start WW3 . You might want to elaborate on some of the more serious scandals that I am missing .
Scheer is nothing like Harper and has no business being the leader of the Conservatives. But that could turn out positive for Canada if enough of us sh-t on both the liberal and conservative houses .
Really , where ? Certainly not in Alberta . Trudeau did hire three nannies with your tax dollar , that is creating employment I guess .
Harper studied the issues and tried to slowly cut fat and streamline the bureaucracy, but the unions really did not care for that .I mean really who expects a government employee to actually do their job .