Liberals DOUBLE DOWN on DEFICITS


MHz
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

will love their 70 % tax rates .

The way it works is the banks would just take all the grain the Prairies produce. Who doesn't starve over the winter would be who the workers are.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Trudeau's spending was literally nothing in comparison to Mulroney.

If you want to look at spending as % of GDP (which is out current measure more and more) federal spending under Trudeau actually decreased.

Spending is no longer even considered in absolute terms but is expressed in relation to productivity. Because the Canadian economy grew so much under Trudaeu his spending became reasonable. Not So Mulroney. Not at all.

BTW this debt to spending formula is one I disagree with. Productivity is transitive while debt is permanent. It is something we need to get away from.

Who cares who did what yesterday , it is about today and tomorrow . And tomorrow's children are going to pay for your gravy train today .
 
White_Unifier
#33
Harper's deficits irritated me. Imagine Trudeau's!
 
MHz
#34
It wouldn't matter who is in power, the banks do not want the debt reduced, they want it higher each and every year. This is the US and 19132 was the FED and both World Wars were a bonus for the banks.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+2
#35
What a f*cking joke. We're being taxed to death to "save the planet for future generations" who will be so far in motherf*cking debt they won't be able to appreciate the fact the "planet was saved" for them.

Flosstard's fallacious argument from earlier, that debt doesn't matter anymore, is laughable, although to a degree he is partly correct. But what happens if/when the bottom falls out of the economy? Or what happens when the creditors decide it's time to call in their chips because they themselves have become over extended?

A heavy debt-load is NEVER a good thing to carry over the long term, period! And considering Trudeua's Liberals are not getting the kid gloves treatment from the CBC, McLean's or the Economist, and given Trudeau's penchant for outright bold-faces lies to the electorate, I have grave doubts that anything they claim is for the best is good for anyone but themselves and their pet UN projects.

The Trudeau govt has also made it abundantly clear that if you're a victim of a natural disaster in Canada, you're on your own!!
Trump flew to flood ravaged Texas. He even flew to Louisiana after their last big flood before he was even President to help hand out supplies that he had delivered at his own personal expense.
Trudeau heads to some Gay Pride parade, or visits some Syrian chocolatiers a year after their arrival because virtue signalling and identity politics games are more important to him than the average Canadian suffering from natural disasters, or the average Canadian in general for that matter.
Yep, we'll pile on the debt for Syrians or anyone else on the planet in need but for Canadians in need? F*ck 'em. They should just consider themselves lucky they were born here.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

What a f*cking joke. We're being taxed to death to "save the planet for future generations" ...

No. We're being taxed to death to pay for social programs. Quit whining and tell us which of the ones you use that you are willing to give up.
 
MHz
#37
If we don't fix it now it will be more expensive to fix in the future. If we aren't fixing it where is all the money going??

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

No. We're being taxed to death to pay for social programs. Quit whining and tell us which of the ones you use that you are willing to give up.

Are you suggesting we start defining some groups as 'useless eaters'??
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post


Just goes to show that you don't have the industry knowledge, let alone intuitive capacity to comprehend the machinations of something as complex and dynamic as an economy



You are being a little verbose there, Capt. I just attribute it to being STUPID!

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

No. We're being taxed to death to pay for social programs. Quit whining and tell us which of the ones you use that you are willing to give up.


More to the point........................which ones are YOU willing to give up?
 
petros
+1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Good because they are moving us back towards fiscal sanity after so many years of Harper and the oil cartel.

Cartels like CO-OP?
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Good because they are moving us back towards fiscal sanity after so many years of Harper and the oil cartel.

You do know the biggest driver of our economic growth in the second quarter is from the Oil industry don't you
 
mentalfloss
#41
I noticed Colpy is jealous of this thread.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Let's see - Chretien/MArtin paid the federal debt down for nine straight years to the tune of $90 billion.

Harper inherited a $14 billion surplus and over the course of 6 budgets increased the federal debt by $150 billion

Is HArper the single worst fiscal manager in Canadian history? Obviously Mulroney has the numbers in that department but the early 80s recession and the crash of 89 are mitigating.

We'll also mention the crash of 08 as mitigating in the Harper record. So it isn;t cut and dried. Both Mulroney and HArper were financial catastrophes.


Not to mention Trudeau Sr. of course!
 
DaSleeper
+1
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I noticed Colpy is jealous of this thread.

You begging to be made to look like a fool? .......again?
 
MHz
#44
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...federation.pdf


Table 2: Prime Ministers Assessed and Their Allotted Tenures
Prime Minister Allotted Tenure
Sir John A. Macdonald Tenure 1: 1867-1872
Tenure 2: 1878-1890
Alexander Mackenzie 1873-1877
Sir John Abbott 1891
Sir John Thompson 1892-1894
Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1895
Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1896-1911
Sir Robert Borden 1912-1919
Arthur Meighen 1920-1921
William Lyon Mackenzie King Tenure 1: 1922-1930
Tenure 2: 1936-1948
R.B. Bennett 1931-1935
Louis St. Laurent 1949-1956
John Diefenbaker 1957-1963
Lester B. Pearson 1963-1967
Pierre E. Trudeau Tenure 1: 1968-1978
Tenure 2: 1980-1984
Joe Clark 1979
Brian Mulroney 1985-1993
Jean Chretien 1994-2003
Paul Martin 2004-2005
Stephen Harper 2006-2015
Justin Trudeau 2015-2019



Figure 1: Federal Gross Debt, 1870-2019 (in 2017 $)
page 6

This is from another site
End
of
Fiscal
Year Net Debt
$Billions[2] (Adjusted for
inflation, 2017[3])
as % of
GDP GDP
$Billions[4] 1962 14.8 (121.4) 33.0% 44.9 1971 20.3 (126.1) 20.6% 98.4 1981 91.9 (240.2) 25.5% 360.5 1991 377.7 (592.0) 55.1% 685.4 1997 562.9 (811.1) 63.8% 882.7 2002 511.9 (664.2) 44.4% 1,152.9 2008 457.6 (515.3) 31.4% 1,453.6 2009 463.7 (495.1) 32.8% 1,413.3 2010 519.1 (579.5) 35.5% 1,458.8 2011 551.4 (599.19) 36.9% 1,495.7 2012 583.6 (626.4) 38.3% 1,576.8 2013 609.4 (645.5) [5] 37.4% 1,608.5 2014 611.9 (634.7 [6] 32.5% 1,649.2 2015 612.3 (627.21) [6] 31.0%
2016 616.0 (623.17) [7] 31.1%



 
petros
#45
He stopped?
 
mentalfloss
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

You begging to be made to look like a fool? .......again?

You gonna post another 'look at me' meme in someone else's thread?

Again?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#47
Will you ? fool?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

More to the point........................which ones are YOU willing to give up?

CPP, OAS, free trips to the doctor...pretty much take your pick. Unlike your generation, I expect to pay my share and not stick my kids with the bill. We pay enough.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

CPP, OAS, free trips to the doctor...pretty much take your pick. Unlike your generation, I expect to pay my share and not stick my kids with the bill. We pay enough.


Put all this in a letter to the appropriate branches of the Gov't requesting this and then post the letter on the forum with their response confirming this or else KEEP YOUR F*****G TRAP SHUT!
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

CPP, OAS, free trips to the doctor...pretty much take your pick. Unlike your generation, I expect to pay my share and not stick my kids with the bill. We pay enough.

You shouldn't include CPP it isn't taxpayer money, it's Employer/Employee money the only mistake is that the Gov. is in control of it and you will never, ever get all your money back, I do agree with a user fee for health care that would free up a lot of baby sitting weekends
 
petros
#51
Govt has no control of or access to the CPP fund.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

You shouldn't include CPP it isn't taxpayer money, it's Employer/Employee money the only mistake is that the Gov. is in control of it and you will never, ever get all your money back, I do agree with a user fee for health care that would free up a lot of baby sitting weekends

Semantics.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Maybe Trump had a few more bills...................Harvey, Irma, Jose and Maria for starters!




Depends who you ask.

Also has Obummer's legacy to pay for.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#54
Well, at least the American public got their consolation prize in advance in the form of an Obama phone.

That deal worked out super extra gooder for the USA
 
Vbeacher
+1
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Let's see - Chretien/MArtin paid the federal debt down for nine straight years to the tune of $90 billion.

Uhm, not quite. In the first four years of the Chretien government Canada was in recession. Chretien ran big deficits for those first four years. Then, as the world economy improved and money started flooding into federal coffers - in no small measure from the GST he had campaigned against, and because he slashed health care, education and social safety funding FAR worse than Harper, he was able to start building surpluses.

Quote:

Harper inherited a $14 billion surplus and over the course of 6 budgets increased the federal debt by $150 billion

This is misleading. The Harper budget deficits were as follows:

2007-8 +9.6b
2008-9 -5.8b start of recession
2009-10 -33.4b start of incentive funding
2010-11 -55.6b height of incentive funding
2011-12 -26.3b deficit cut in half as incentive funding is slowed
2012-13 -18.4b
2013-14 --5.2b
2014-15 balance

So we can see Harper dealing with a terrible recession through incentive spending, but let's not forget the three opposition parties were not exactly opposed to this. In fact, they absolutely insisted on it, to the point of forming an agreement to end his minority government so they could take over and deliver the incentive spending they said we desperately needed. And their only complaint was that there wasn't enough of it.

Quote:

Is HArper the single worst fiscal manager in Canadian history? Obviously Mulroney has the numbers in that department but the early 80s recession and the crash of 89 are mitigating.

Here's what's more mitigating. Trudeau the elder took over with virtually no debt. He doubled spending in his first term in office, and then doubled it again in his second. Clearly it would have been ah, politically difficult, to also double taxes, so he just borrowed the money. Then came a recession. Did he stop borrowing? Of course not! You can't suddenly slash your budget deeply as a recession hits! So he kept borrowing, only now he was borrowing at double digit rates. The debt exploded, and the payments took more of the budget, which required more borrowing.

Then Mulroney took over. His choices were sub-optimal. He could either slash the spending in a terrible stagflation recession, or continue to borrow money. He cut somewhat, as he could, but also had to borrow money. Again, under double digit interest rates. The important thing to remember is that he managed to get the operating budget down to the point where, if it weren't for all that debt, he would have had a balanced budget.

Why did he have all that debt? Because of Trudeau the elder.

Now we have Trudeau the younger, who learned from papa that if you give people lots of stuff but don't make them pay for it, they'll vote for you. What he failed to learn from papa is that this is okay until you hit a bad recession and interest rates rise. Then it bites you on the ass.

And btw, I loathed Trudeau the elder, Mulroney, and Chretien (I tolerated Harper), so I believe I'm being somewhat unbiased.
 
petros
+1
#56
Quote:

So we can see Harper dealing with a terrible recession through incentive spending, but let's not forget the three opposition parties were not exactly opposed to this. In fact, they absolutely insisted on it, to the point of forming an agreement to end his minority government so they could take over and deliver the incentive spending they said we desperately needed. And their only complaint was that there wasn't enough of it.

The Liberal in charge of the infrastructure plan crossed the floor to keep his job under Harper.

Quote:

Now we have Trudeau the younger, who learned from papa that if you give people lots of stuff but don't make them pay for it, they'll vote for you. What he failed to learn from papa is that this is okay until you hit a bad recession and interest rates rise. Then it bites you on the ass.

Oil has levelled out. If it drops again the debt to GDP cushion goes out the window.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...federation.pdf


Table 2: Prime Ministers Assessed and Their Allotted Tenures
Prime Minister Allotted Tenure
Sir John A. Macdonald Tenure 1: 1867-1872
Tenure 2: 1878-1890
Alexander Mackenzie 1873-1877
Sir John Abbott 1891
Sir John Thompson 1892-1894
Sir Mackenzie Bowell 1895
Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1896-1911
Sir Robert Borden 1912-1919
Arthur Meighen 1920-1921
William Lyon Mackenzie King Tenure 1: 1922-1930
Tenure 2: 1936-1948
R.B. Bennett 1931-1935
Louis St. Laurent 1949-1956
John Diefenbaker 1957-1963
Lester B. Pearson 1963-1967
Pierre E. Trudeau Tenure 1: 1968-1978
Tenure 2: 1980-1984
Joe Clark 1979
Brian Mulroney 1985-1993
Jean Chretien 1994-2003
Paul Martin 2004-2005
Stephen Harper 2006-2015
Justin Trudeau 2015-2019


Figure 1: Federal Gross Debt, 1870-2019 (in 2017 $)
page 6

This is from another site
End
of
Fiscal
Year Net Debt
$Billions[2] (Adjusted for
inflation, 2017[3])
as % of
GDP GDP
$Billions[4] 1962 14.8 (121.4) 33.0% 44.9 1971 20.3 (126.1) 20.6% 98.4 1981 91.9 (240.2) 25.5% 360.5 1991 377.7 (592.0) 55.1% 685.4 1997 562.9 (811.1) 63.8% 882.7 2002 511.9 (664.2) 44.4% 1,152.9 2008 457.6 (515.3) 31.4% 1,453.6 2009 463.7 (495.1) 32.8% 1,413.3 2010 519.1 (579.5) 35.5% 1,458.8 2011 551.4 (599.19) 36.9% 1,495.7 2012 583.6 (626.4) 38.3% 1,576.8 2013 609.4 (645.5) [5] 37.4% 1,608.5 2014 611.9 (634.7 [6] 32.5% 1,649.2 2015 612.3 (627.21) [6] 31.0%
2016 616.0 (623.17) [7] 31.1%





Missing John Turner and Kim Campbell to the list.
 
MHz
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by Vbeacher View Post



This is misleading. The Harper budget deficits were as follows:

2007-8 +9.6b
2008-9 -5.8b start of recession
2009-10 -33.4b start of incentive funding
2010-11 -55.6b height of incentive funding
2011-12 -26.3b deficit cut in half as incentive funding is slowed
2012-13 -18.4b
2013-14 --5.2b
2014-15 balance

So we can see Harper dealing with a terrible recession through incentive spending, but let's not forget the three opposition parties were not exactly opposed to this. In fact, they absolutely insisted on it, to the point of forming an agreement to end his minority government so they could take over and deliver the incentive spending they said we desperately needed. And their only complaint was that there wasn't enough of it.

This chart shows he didn't do anything but increase out debt by $30B

Why worry about the debt when we give away billion as interest we shouldn't be paying to anybody.
Just the interest on government debt now equals $7,000 a year for a Canadian family of four: Fraser Institute | Financial Post
In 2016/17, interest payments on the federal debt will total $25 billion, which is more than Ottawa plans to spend on transfers to Canadian families in the form of child benefits ($22 billion). It’s also equivalent to the federal government’s planned budgetary deficit ($25 billion). Put differently, in the absence of federal interest payments, Ottawa could wipe out its deficit this year, despite its marked increase in program spending.
But Canadians, of course, are not only responsible for servicing federal debt; they have to service provincial and local government debt, too. When we add up all the interest payments of the various governments across the country (federal, provincial and local), the total in 2015/16 is $63 billion — approximately equal to the $64 billion Canada spent on public primary and secondary education in 2013/14, the latest year of available data.
Perhaps most telling of all, if we were to distribute the total annual cost of servicing Canada’s government debt equally, each Canadian’s share would be $1,752. That’s more than $7,000 for a family of four. Clearly, there’s a cost to government debt.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing View Post

Missing John Turner and Kim Campbell to the list.

From the parts that is there could you tell who ran up the debt?? We quit printing our own money in 1974 and that is right about where the dept skyrockets. Must be just a coincident eh??

Canada’s federal debt | qualicuminstitute.ca



Canada's $614,307,000,000.00 Debt Solution - Federal Politics - Political Forums
This was essentially a criminal act, there was never any referendum of Canadian taxpayers that agreed to let the government start borrowing money from banks and investors. Approximately 70% of the 600+ Billion dollar federal debt is from compounding interest. If they had just printed the money from the Bank of Canada we would only have a 200 billion dollar excess currency in circulation instead of this monsterous 600 billion debt that is compounding and threatening to destroy our civilization.

Seems like our Government, and their closest friends, is our most dangerous enemy.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Put all this in a letter to the appropriate branches of the Gov't requesting this and then post the letter on the forum with their response confirming this or else KEEP YOUR F*****G TRAP SHUT!

No...
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+2
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

No...


Typical response from a blow hard!

Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

You shouldn't include CPP it isn't taxpayer money, it's Employer/Employee money the only mistake is that the Gov. is in control of it and you will never, ever get all your money back, I do agree with a user fee for health care that would free up a lot of baby sitting weekends


I guess I missed that, but it's all a moot point anyway, as he's still years from being eligible from collecting any pensions by which time he'll have no intention of turning any of them down. Like Sleepy says best not to respond to his bull shit!