Conservative voters have amnesia!!!

[#juan]

I have demonstrated that "Mulboney" inherited that debt and those deficits and a senate full of Liberals stopped spending cuts, but who cares eh?

You have demonstrated nothing. Your hero, " lyin Brian" had a huge majority. He could have ended the deficits anytime he wanted. On a recent television special he said he was sorry he didn't act to elliminate the deficit. We are all sorry. Every Canadian would have preferred to pay higher taxes than to run up that moronic debt. Chretien eventually got rid of the deficit and paid down some of the debt. Mulroney could have as well.

 

[Jay]

One of Mulroney's main priorities, at least publicly, was to rein in the deficit, which was running into the billions of dollars. However, not only was he unable to eliminate it, the country's debt increased substantially through his term. His attempts to cut spending limited his ability to deliver on many promises. Also impeding his progress was the Liberal controlled Senate, led by Allan MacEachen, which took on a very assertive role in legislation, forcing the government to compromise some points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney

From 1984 to 1991 he served as leader of the opposition in the Senate, where he was regarded as the primary opposition to Brian Mulroney's first term due to Mulroney's substantial majority in the Commons, with an opposition that was spread nearly equally between Turner's Liberals and Ed Broadbent's New Democratic Party. In 1988, after a request by Turner, MacEachen blocked the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in the Senate to force an election before the issue was settled. The agreement would be the main issue of the 1988 election. After Mulroney's victory, MacEachen and the Senate passed the agreement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_MacEachen

 

[Jay]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/050_2005-02-04/han050_1250-E.htm

Please excuse the long paste.

Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I had totally not intended to speak in this debate. I know that some people are eager to get out of here, but I could not let this debate stop where it is.

The parliamentary secretary made a statement and the Liberals are trying to pin our country's debt on Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives at that time. I tried to do that in 1993 when I was running for Parliament against the local Conservative candidate as well as the Liberal. The fact of the matter is that Brian O'Kurley, who was a member of Parliament during that time, got up during the all candidates debates and he kept on saying that in 1984 the Conservatives had inherited this debt from the Liberals. He said that the Conservatives had a balanced budget on program spending and that they did not spend more on programs than the money they took in.

I believe in dealing honestly with people. As I said before, being a mathematician I checked the figures out. Since this issue has come up this afternoon, I got out my little scientific calculator which I never leave home without, and I calculated the numbers.

I do not know whether the numbers given from the other side are accurate. Unfortunately, I do not remember the exact debt way back in those years, but I am going to use the numbers that the member used. I will accept that in 1984 the debt was $198 billion on the premise that he is correct and that it grew to $498 billion. Those are the numbers that he used. We will use those for this illustration.

The ratio of that debt is about two and a half times. In other words it grew in nine years to two and a half times its original size. All we have to do is take the ninth root of two to find out the interest rate. That is exactly what I did in just a few seconds. It comes to 10.7916749 to be precise, but it is basically 10.8%. That was the going interest rate during those years.

We could say that the Liberals over a number of years spent way more money on programs and waste than they took in. They borrowed money year after year. The debt grew to $198 billion by 1984 when the Liberals were properly turfed out.

Then the Conservatives had a short time of nine years during which they balanced the budget. They did not spend more on programs. As I said before, they could be held accountable for not attacking the debt and the deficit sooner. We could say that, but the amount of the deficit every year was equal to the interest payable on that debt that they had inherited. That is the fact.

The sum of $198 billion compounded annually at 10.8% over nine years is worth $498 billion. It is a shameful Liberal legacy that we have in our national debt.

The Liberals like to crow that they have brought this under control. I remind members that in 1993 when we first stood on this side and started hammering them on the deficit and the debt, we were called every unsavoury name in the English language, and probably the French language too. I guess that is one time I was glad I did not understand French, when they were calling us all sorts of names.

The Liberals were really ripping into us because we were so un-Canadian. We wanted to stop the spending and the borrowing which was putting our future generations into more debt. The Liberals finally came around.

Herb Grubel was our finance critic at that time. He wrote a very fascinating book when he retired from politics after one term. One of the things that he confessed in his book was that from time to time the finance minister, now the Prime Minister, would say to him privately, “Keep up the pressure. I have so much pressure from within my party to keep spending a bunch of money. I know that for the good of this country we need to bring down the debt”.

So the Prime Minister, then the finance minister, did bring down the debt, but it was at the pressure of the then Reform Party, and he was asking for that pressure because he needed the legitimization of his point of view.

I want to point out another thing. The Liberals keep crowing about how well they have done in managing the finances. When we look at the $1 billion or $2 billion they spend just at the flip of a finger on a gun registry or at the money wasted in an ad scam and all of the other mismanagement of the government, let us just think about how much we could have done if they had managed the money properly.

There is another point. In 1993 the Liberals were campaigning against free trade. The effect of free trade in this country right now is a huge financial gain. I think it is $1.5 billion every day. They spoke against it. If it were not for the implementation of free trade by the then Conservative government, would we be, even now, in the position that we are in? The Liberals themselves admit that our debt is down as a percentage of GDP. The debt has gone down by only a very small amount relative to its size when they took over, but they take the ratio of the GDP, and because the GDP has grown substantially, mostly due to free trade, obviously the debt is down as a percentage of the GDP.

I do not want to take a whole lot of time here, but I just could not allow these misconceptions to go unchallenged. I want to just simply say that in the end to the taxpayers I guess that looking backward is not going to help them a lot. We cannot drive a semi, as I did for many years, by looking in the rear-view mirror.

Let us stop trying to place the blame, maybe, but let us place it correctly if we are. Rather, let us rather look ahead. I am saying this simply. We need to implement in our policies plans that will reduce the debt and the deficit so that we have smaller interest payments and more money available--instead of less--to spend on the programs that Canadians value.

We need to make sure that we manage government properly and honestly and that there is not all of this waste, mismanagement and corruption. I hate to use that word, but it is very evident in the present milieu of the inquiry by Mr. Justice Gomery. There is so much evidence now that there is actual corruption in there. It has to stop. I call on Canadians very frankly to turf this government, because the Liberals will not wake up to the moral challenge before them until they have what we call for our grandchildren “a time out”. I think it is time that the Liberals got a time out.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Toro]

Its more than a little disingenuous to blame Mulroney for the deficits during his time in office. Anyone around in the 1980s must realize this. There was absolutely no political will in the country to do anything about the deficit. The Liberals would scream blue murder anytime the Tories tried to cut anything, and the Left - including the NDP - went on and on about how deficit reduction was part of some "right-wing corporate agenda." The Left and the Liberals screamed about Free Trade. They screamed about deficit reduction too.

You can criticize Mulroney for not having the gumption to have a "torpedoes-be-damned" attitude and risk his political career while being a one-term PM. He certainly wouldn't have plunged the country into deficit had he been given a balanced budget - in fact, he did balance the operational budget, ie. excluding interest payments. But the deficit was a structural problem, created by the Liberals in the 1970s and 1980s. The blame squarely falls on them.

 

[#juan]

But the deficit was a structural problem, created by the Liberals in the 1970s and 1980s. The blame squarely falls on them.

Dream on. Be sure and put your tooth under the pillow'

I was around when Bulroney was in power and the guy was an absolute embarassment. The things he and his cronies signed away in that so-called free trade deal were tantamount to treason. We have to sell our gas to the states whether or not we are short ourselves.....wonderful deal.

 

[Jay]

But it doesn't negate the fact the Liberals are responsible for the over 400 billion in debt....

 

[damngrumpy]

The Tories prefer to call such things selective memory.
Lyin' Brian was the worst in Canadian History, and he may move up one notch once we rid ourselves of Harper.
The worst Provincial Government ever elected would have to be that of Grant Devine of Saskatchewan a few years back.
The Conservatives are always a short term solution to our everyday problems, like the locust they come around once every generation to reminds us that things are never as bad as we think, that is until we give the political right the chance to govern.
Sooner or later we sober up nationally and kick the Tories to the curb and get on with life, in a few years Harper will be little more than the bad taste of a footnote in history.

 

[bluealberta]

Speaking of selective memory:

1. The Liberals ran this country, with the on and off support of the socialist NDP, for 29 of the last 38 years.

2. The Liberals under Trudeau and finance minister Turner started deficit financing, thus incurring debt and interest on an annual basis.

3. Trudeau lied in two election campaigns, campaigning against wage and price controls then implementing them upon election, and against a 9 cent gas tax increase then implementing a 27 cent gas tax upon election.

4. Mulroney had balanced program budgets, excluding interest payments.

5. Deficits mean spending over income, while debt is the accumulation of deficits. A lot of people fail to get this distinction.

6. Virtually all reputable economists agree that NAFTA has been very good for Canada. The same cannot be said for the US, so for those who despise the US, this should indicate to you that this was a good deal for Canada.

7. A visible GST replaced a hidden and easily manipulated MST, with the rate staying unchanged for 13 years until a Conservative government made the first change in the GST rate...........downward. Something the Libs did not do in 13 years, despite campaigning on a promise to get rid of the GST. There is that darn lie thing again.

8. Mulroney had a minister resign for going to a German strip club. For Adscam the Liberals had ....................wait a minute, no Liberal minister ever resigned for breaking the law in so many ways it is hard to keep track. Kind of puts things into perspective. If the Lib ministers had resigned for their sins, the list would be very very very long. However, we all know that Lib ministers had no conscience, and claimed they had nothing to do with Adscam. There is that lie thing again.

All in all, when one looks at the big picture, it becomes obvious that those trying to blame a conservative government that had power for all of about nine years out of the last 38 for the problems in Canada today has been brainwashed totally by the liberal mantra: If it feels good, do it, and if you get caught, blame the conservatives. This mantra supported and sponsored by the liberal left wing media in Canada.

Sorry, lefties, Canada is on the way to many years of moderate conservatism as espoused by Harper et al. Get used to it.

 

[Finder]

bluealberta, some nice points there, but if you ask me for the last 150 years, the only two parties to run the Federal government in Canada, the Conservatives and the Liberals have done a bad enough job to turn most average people off of politics. Sadly enough as voter turnout goes down the publics perception of politicians has gone down with it making it the least trusted profession in Canada.

The worst thing is these two parties which have ruled Canada have turned the remaining people who actually still vote to not in trust anything close to a magority vote for there parties. The only reason we have had magorities in the last 20 years has been because of our FPTP electoral system. I think it is about time to push both these old burocratic parties aside and try something new.

 

[bluealberta]

bluealberta, some nice points there, but if you ask me for the last 150 years, the only two parties to run the Federal government in Canada, the Conservatives and the Liberals have done a bad enough job to turn most average people off of politics. Sadly enough as voter turnout goes down the publics perception of politicians has gone down with it making it the least trusted profession in Canada.

The worst thing is these two parties which have ruled Canada have turned the remaining people who actually still vote to not in trust anything close to a magority vote for there parties. The only reason we have had magorities in the last 20 years has been because of our FPTP electoral system. I think it is about time to push both these old burocratic parties aside and try something new.

I assume you mean the NDP. Sorry, I simply cannot go there, we cannot afford them. If you think either of the mainstream parties were bad at getting us into debt, well, the NDP would put both of them to shame. For proof, you simply have to look at when the ND supported Trudeau in his minority status, and last year when the ND's got Martin to commit to another $4.6billion we supposedly did not have. Sorry, IMO, we need a fiscally conservative government, with a a centrist social policy, something I think Harper is providing us.

 

[Finder]

You know what they say about people who "assume" things?

Anyhow no I mean that I would like to see the Canadian public/voter go. "hmmm we've voted in the same two damned parties over and over again.... We hate them so much and don't trust them... hmmmm instead of voting for the party who hasn't been in power for awhile and thus our memory can't really remember how bad they were, lets vote for a completely different party!" I would truly love to see people vote for something different. The only problem is people who dare vote for another party know they are wasting there vote because in (pure) FPTP unless you a big esstablished party... good luck! Thats one out of many reasons new and small parties just don't have a chance in hell even if they do have grass roots support.

So many good parties are either destoryed by this or in the process of dieing.

The National Party
The Green Party
The Canadian Action Party
The Republican party
The Christian heritage party
The Libertarian party

All of these third parties had a good and large grass roots orginization, had a an election where they would have won a few seats at least once and were pretty moderate in there own ways. If we had a Proportional element added onto our FPTP such as a MMP system it would give these parties at a least a seat at any given change and give them legitimacy for people to vote for them and know there vote will count.

I did not add the Democrats to that list since they have always had representation in parliment.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: Conservative Voters Have Amnesia

:arrow: On the Matter of Democratic Reform

I know that we have discussed this matter at length, Finder (at length), but I just thought it would be appropriate to sum up my opinion on your suggestion. I think that a mixed system could be appropriate, so long as it does not compromise the effectiveness of the Parliament of Canada in a majority of cases. Furthermore, I would be concerned as to who the members appointed from any sort of list would be held to account to — the people of Canada, or the leaders of their parties? I would think the latter, because they would not have to worry about being re-elected in any particular district.

:arrow: The Debt and the Two Parties

There are some members here who would suggest through their posts that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had nothing to do, whatsoever, with the present debt. This is in my opinion untrue; yes, of course, it is known that our budgets entered into the red during the administration of the late The Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau, P.C.; however, it was The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., who seemed to think that just because his predecessor had screwed up, that he had no reason or need to stop the increasing debt.

It is one of the highest priority needs for a Prime Minister of Canada to ensure that funds are appropriated in a sound manner, and this includes taking into consideration the debt. Yes, Mr. Trudeau started the practice of incurring a debt; however, it was Mr. Mulroney who decided to ignore the compounding interest on the debt, and for this he should be every bit as much condemned as his predecessor.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: Conservative Voters Have Amnesia

:arrow: On the Matter of Democratic Reform

I know that we have discussed this matter at length, Finder (at length), but I just thought it would be appropriate to sum up my opinion on your suggestion. I think that a mixed system could be appropriate, so long as it does not compromise the effectiveness of the Parliament of Canada in a majority of cases. Furthermore, I would be concerned as to who the members appointed from any sort of list would be held to account to — the people of Canada, or the leaders of their parties? I would think the latter, because they would not have to worry about being re-elected in any particular district.

:arrow: The Debt and the Two Parties

There are some members here who would suggest through their posts that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had nothing to do, whatsoever, with the present debt. This is in my opinion untrue; yes, of course, it is known that our budgets entered into the red during the administration of the late The Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau, P.C.; however, it was The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., who seemed to think that just because his predecessor had screwed up, that he had no reason or need to stop the increasing debt.

It is one of the highest priority needs for a Prime Minister of Canada to ensure that funds are appropriated in a sound manner, and this includes taking into consideration the debt. Yes, Mr. Trudeau started the practice of incurring a debt; however, it was Mr. Mulroney who decided to ignore the compounding interest on the debt, and for this he should be every bit as much condemned as his predecessor.

Five, I appreciate you position, but you have forgotten a couple of things. Mulroney did balance program spending, something the Liberals did not, which resulted in deficits.

It was not as if they did not take into consideration the interest payments, but every time they attempted to cut spending, they howls from the Libs and NDP were incredible, supported by their lapdog media.

And lastly, it was the Liberal NEP which had a great influence in putting not only Alberta, but the entire country in a recession when all the oil producers left the country. The effects in Alberta were the worst, but the ripple effect across the country was also quite evident, and the loss of the revenue from the resource sector limited income for the government.

Again, to blame Mulroney for not taking into consideration (your words, not mine) the interest on the debt is a bit hypocritical since the debt was caused by the Liberals who, as evidenced by running continual deficits, not only did not take the interest into consideration, but caused the interest payments to increase. The Libs caused the debt, the Libs ran continual deficits, the Libs ignored the accruing interest, yet you wish to blame Mulroney? I don't think that passes the smell test, my friend.

 

[FiveParadox]

every bit as much condemned as his predecessor.

Mr. Trudeau should be condemned, too, bluealberta, don't get me wrong.

Mr. Trudeau should be condemned for bringing our budgets into the red; despite his other "legacies" (which are not being debated here, so let's not get into that), he was a terror for the budget, and that should be condemned. However, as a I mentioned above, Mr. Mulroney could have resolved this issue if he had wanted to. The Senate could not have defeated the Government of Canada, and everyone knew this. Mr. Mulroney commanded the power.

 

[bluealberta]

every bit as much condemned as his predecessor.

Mr. Trudeau should be condemned, too, bluealberta, don't get me wrong.

Mr. Trudeau should be condemned for bringing our budgets into the red; despite his other "legacies" (which are not being debated here, so let's not get into that), he was a terror for the budget, and that should be condemned. However, as a I mentioned above, Mr. Mulroney could have resolved this issue if he had wanted to. The Senate could not have defeated the Government of Canada, and everyone knew this. Mr. Mulroney commanded the power.

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.

 

[FiveParadox]

bluealberta[/i]]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.

Granted, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had no wish to address the debt with any expedience at that time. However, it was Mr. Mulroney's duty to ensure that the books were balanced — this included accounting for the interesting on the debt (whether or not Mr. Trudeau succeeded in doing this [which he did not] is not a valid excuse; both Prime Ministers failed in this regard).

Mr. Mulroney cannot be held blameless in this.

 

[bluealberta]

bluealberta[/i]]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.

Granted, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had no wish to address the debt with any expedience at that time. However, it was Mr. Mulroney's duty to ensure that the books were balanced — this included accounting for the interesting on the debt (whether or not Mr. Trudeau succeeded in doing this [which he did not] is not a valid excuse; both Prime Ministers failed in this regard).

Mr. Mulroney cannot be held blameless in this.

Five, you are being a bit bull headed on this. You know as well as I do that had Mulroney gone ahead and cut services to pay for the interest on the debt, many people would have lost their jobs, the recession would have been worse (although 21% mortgage interest rates were certainly as bad as it could have gotten), and lets be honest here, Mulroney, like every PM before him, always has to think of reelection. Hard to get reelected when, even when doing the right thing, people lose their jobs.

Lets assume, though, that Mulroney had cut as noted above. At the 1988 election, he surely would have lost, and the Liberals would have had no choice but to campaign on increased spending, likely further deficits. So, perhaps in a perverted way, Mulroney did the best thing for Canada, keeping those bad deficit financing Liberals out of power until 1993. 8)

 

[MagnoliaApples]

Honestly, I didn't vote this time because I couldn't agree with any of the parties so maybe i don't have a right to agree or disagree but at the same time, I like to think that the fact that I couldn't vote is a statement in itself. Hopefully one day there will be a party worth voting for!

 

[FiveParadox]

RE: Bull-Headed?!

I'm being "bull-headed" on this issue, bluealberta?

Your posts amount to, more or less, "the Conservatives never have, don't, and never will do anything wrong, ever, because everything that's wrong with Canada is entirely the Liberals' fault, has been, is, and ever shall be."

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Bull-Headed?!

I'm being "bull-headed" on this issue, bluealberta?

Your posts amount to, more or less, "the Conservatives never have, don't, and never will do anything wrong, ever, because everything that's wrong with Canada is entirely the Liberals' fault, has been, is, and ever shall be."

When they have been in power for 29 of the last 38 years, to not blame the Liberals for most of the problems in the country is to ignore the obvious, is it not? No, the conservatives were not perfect, but when a party has been in power for as long as the Libs have been, lets face it, their policies are what govern the country, and even when a new government takes over, it takes some time to "turn the boat around" to their way of governing.

So yes, I will continue to blame the Libs for most of the problems I have seen in this country, simply because I believe that most of the problems were caused by 29 years out of 38 years of Liberal rule. I listened to and watched Trudeau thumb his nose at Western Farmers, then Western Oil Producers, I saw and heard him lie during two election campaigns (wage and price controls and gas tax) and I saw him thumb his nose at our biggest trading partner while cozying up to Cuba and the USSR at the time. I saw him diminish the role of the provinces in Canada, trying to make them serfs to his vision of a monolithic central government. I saw him switch from the NDP to the Libs because he knew he could not win with the NDP, not because he was a Liberal. I saw Chretien carry on every thing bad from the Trudeau era, then I saw him sit on his hands as Canada damn near broke up, then I saw him operate a criminal ring who laundered money, then I saw Martin who claimed everything was a priority and did nothing, and who continued in the best US bashing impersonation of Trudeau we had seen for years, along with the remnants of the Chretien era.

Mulroney brought in NAFTA, which has been the reason for our current prosperity, and replace a hidden and easily manipulated MST with a highly visible, but hard to change, GST. I saw Mulrony at least attempt to resolve the Quebec situation with meetings and negotiations, not trying to buy them off like Chretien and Martin,and most important to Alberta, I saw Mulroney axe the NEP.

So again, yes, Five, I have no use for the Liberals, and having voted in all the elections since 1974, I think I have seen the reasons why.