Things look bad for Harper, the Liberals are coming and the Conservatives are going and not coming back soon.
Don't bet your first born on it.
Liberals Preparing For A Summer Election
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
Don't bet your first born on it.
Quite so, Machjo. I didn’t know that there was an MP called Scott Reid, but I knew that there was a Liberal strategist called Scott Reid, I had seen him many times on CTV and CBC during the election campaign.
So I thought you were confusing him for a conservative, when in fact he is a Liberal.
Wilson did nothing of the sort, go back and check the figures. When Mulroney left office, the deficit was 40 billion $, debt around 600 billion $. Mulroney inherited debt and deficit, and made the problem worse, much worse.
As to was the debt due to interest charges? Maybe, I don’t know. However, the numbers don’t lie, no matter how you try to massage them. When Mulroney came to office, deficit was 20 billion, debt around 200 billion. When Mulroney left office, the deficit was 40 billion, debt around 600 billion. End of story.
You may put any kind of spin to try to convince us that the deficit was really not as bad as during Trudeau era. Using Alice in Wonderland logic, you may even try to convince us that Mulroney ran a surplus, doesn’t matter. Facts, figures don’t lie.
Mulroney, due to his incompetent, bunging fiscal management, made the deficit and debt problem much worse.
I wasn't aware of that, hope it's earning a good rate of interest. Maybe he's just forgotten about it and we're not really $50 Billion in the glue..........:lol::lol::lol:
I mainly agree with you but to be fair to Lyin Brian you should also take a comparison between the amount of things like infrastructure before he took office to after he left (but don't forget to deduct the hinges and lightbulbs he took from Sussex Drive)
Indeed Juan. I will never forget the memorable moment in the debates. Lucian Bouchard asked Kim Campbell, what is the deficit? Instead of giving him a number, she tried to do what conservative sympathizers here are trying to do. She started dancing around the figure, tried to claim how the deficit is not really as bad as it seems, previous administration (Trudeau, of course, not Mulroney) was at fault and so on.
Through her tirade, Bouchard kept repeating the same question again and again, what is the deficit? He may have repeated the question five or six times, every time Campbell went off on a tangent, instead of mentioning the figure of 40 billion $.
Whatever credibility Campbell had left to her, totally vanished at that point. I think that moment may well have been responsible for PC party getting two seats.
So yes, the deficit was 40 billon $, much as Mulroney supporters here don’t like to admit it.
I decide which party is closest to my position, which parties stands for the principles that are dear to me. Liberal party is closest to that, though NDP is not far behind (except for their loony economic policies). However, I could never vote for NDP, that is a wasted vote.
The only way I would consider voting NDP is if the Liberal candidate is way behind in my riding and it is between NDP and conservatives. But that is not the case where I live; it is always the fight between Liberals and Conservatives.
I could never even conceive of voting for Harper. I think he is a closet right winger, who will govern from the far right if he ever gets a majority. I could consider voting for a red Tory, like Mulroney, Clark, Campbell or Charest. But Harper? Forget it.
Captain, you are trying to massage the deficit figures during Mulroney era. But facts, numbers have a way of getting in the way of partisan argument. When Mulroney left office, debt was 600 billion $, deficit 40 billion $, end of story.
We could argue what caused the deficit. But Mulroney was the PM for eight years, he owns the deficit. To you, no doubt it was all Trudeau’s fault. Even in his eighth year when Mulroney ran 40 billion $ deficit, Trudeau somehow influenced him even though he had been out of power for eight years.
You are free to argue that way. However, during Mulroney era the deficit and debt both were sky high, and no amount of sophistry, no amount of spin is going to change that.
Well when look at the deficits in terms of % GDP, the highest deficit in our history was the year power transitioned from the Trudeau/Turner Liberals to Mulroney, and the deficits were reduced as % of GDP when Mulroney was in office (as opposed to the growth under Trudeau). At the same time, Mulroney introduced the trade deals that allowed our economy to "grow out of the deficit" and the GST, that unpopular as it was in my neck of the wood, was used to eliminate the deficits further after Chretien and Martin took over.
Now in my opinion, Mulroney should have tackled the debt & deficit more head on, but when Joe Clark tried to do something about Trudeau's creation, he was given a non-confidence vote by the Great Spendthrift, and Eastern/Central Canada put Trudeau back in power for 5 more years of fiscal insanity. With that example, I'm not surprised Mulroney didn't act more quickly. But we really needed that new constitution more than we needed to look after our finances...:roll:
No 'massaging' of the numbers here SJP.... The underlying math is simple and that 200 billion would take just over 6 years to morph into 600 billion. Clearly, with Trudeau's establishment of a 20-25 Billion dollar operating deficit each year, it was not in the cards that the interest would be tackled immediately - all during boom times to boot! That fact alone will account for the lion's share of the debt under Mulroney, and to use your own words "no amount of spin will ever change that". (BTW - Don't interpret this response as support for Mulroney, personally I think he's a snake, but one must give credit where credit is due) I find that speaking about this specific issue with you particularly interesting... Ultimately, you have expended a tremendous effort to portray yourself as a wise old sage in terms of your investments and investing practices.... What I have described above is one of the most basic analytical forms that employed in assessing a situation.... It appears that this is quite foreign to you which makes me wonder why you are going to such trouble to convince people of your fiscal position/practices?
It's not hogwash. he ran defecits because 2 months before he took office our credit rating was downgraded, which caused our interest payments to skyrocket. don't let your partisanship get in the way of the truth. Mulroney cut a lot of fat off our budgets. to say that Mulroney tripled the debt is silly.
I'm not surprised Mulroney didn't act more quickly. But we really needed that new constitution more than we needed to look after our finances
That is just it Wulfie, I don’t think Mulroney was ever comfortable with tackling the economy. He was more at home with other issues. Thus he held a vote on death penalty, he tried to bring a law restricting abortion (after Supreme Court struck down the existing law), he made two attempts to amend the constitution (Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord).
It seems to me he was too busy doing other things to tackle the economy. When Chrétien came to office, he concentrated on economy like a laser beam. He did not try to do big things (like changing the constitution, by restricting abortion etc.). He concentrated on smaller things, like eliminating the deficit.
If Mulroney had succeeded in passing Meech Lake or Charlottetown accord, he would have gained a place in history (like Trudeau has, with the constitution and the Charter of Rights). Chrétien will soon be forgotten by history, he did not accomplish anything long lasting. However, his contribution was still valuable; he fixed the economy, converted huge deficit into a healthy surplus.
That is just it Wulfie, I don’t think Mulroney was ever comfortable with tackling the economy. He was more at home with other issues. Thus he held a vote on death penalty, he tried to bring a law restricting abortion (after Supreme Court struck down the existing law), he made two attempts to amend the constitution (Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord).
It seems to me he was too busy doing other things to tackle the economy. When Chrétien came to office, he concentrated on economy like a laser beam. He did not try to do big things (like changing the constitution, by restricting abortion etc.). He concentrated on smaller things, like eliminating the deficit.
If Mulroney had succeeded in passing Meech Lake or Charlottetown accord, he would have gained a place in history (like Trudeau has, with the constitution and the Charter of Rights). Chrétien will soon be forgotten by history, he did not accomplish anything long lasting. However, his contribution was still valuable; he fixed the economy, converted huge deficit into a healthy surplus.
Again, figures don't lie, Captain. 600 billion is three times 200 billion. It was up to Mulroney to get rid of (or at least reduce) the deficit and he failed miserably.
you're right, numbers don't lie. however you interpret them with blinders on. All you have proven in the above statement is that the debt and defecit grew under Mulroney, which says very little as to his competence in fiscal management. If you went to an economist and argued your point they would laugh at you because you haven't accounted for what caused the defecits, and therefore the debt, to rise. As I have stated previously, I am not a conservative, nor am I a fan of Mulroney. But make no mistake, historians and economists alike credit him and Michael Wilson for getting the ball rolling on fiscal responsibility. None of your partisan nonsense can change that.
But make no mistake, historians and economists alike credit him and Michael Wilson for getting the ball rolling on fiscal responsibility.
Johnny, conservative economists, perhaps. Partisanship is a strange beast, it wouldn’t surprise me if there are economists who think that Mulroney was the greatest fiscal manager of them all, that economy prospered like never before under Mulroney, and it tanked big time under Chrétien.
However, economists in general give Chrétien the credit for fixing the economy, for turning 40 billion plus deficit into a ten billion $ surplus. Incidentally, so do Canadians, that is why they gave Liberals three majorities in a row (while Conservatives are struggling to get even one).
Johnny, conservative economists, perhaps. Partisanship is a strange beast, it wouldn’t surprise me if there are economists who think that Mulroney was the greatest fiscal manager of them all, that economy prospered like never before under Mulroney, and it tanked big time under Chrétien.
However, economists in general give Chrétien the credit for fixing the economy, for turning 40 billion plus deficit into a ten billion $ surplus. Incidentally, so do Canadians, that is why they gave Liberals three majorities in a row (while Conservatives are struggling to get even one).
The above statement is absolutely true, I agree with it, and I would never argue against it. Yet that is clearly not what we are debating here.
You believe that Mulroney, through poor management, tripled the national debt. That is not only simplistic, but completely inaccurate.
Clearly, you have no foundation in finance or how the markets operate despite your belief otherwise.... That is a very dangerous combination destined to result in you being parted from your money.
Good luck. You most certainly need it.
i just checked out Dept. of Finance and they have the Nat'l debt at 170 billion when trudeau left, and 450 billion in 1993. A difference of 280 billion.
According to the Bank of Canada, between 1984 and 1993 the average annual interest rate on the debt was 7.2%. Compounded annually, the 170 billion dollar debt would have increased to over 317 billion on its own. Factor in high unemployment = lower tax revenue and structural deficits and your partisan analysis starts to lose water.
Why was it that the GST was introduced again?
Why were crown corporations sold?
Why free trade?
just for fun, i guess. Certainly not to increase the botton line, and pay down debt.
According to the Bank of Canada, between 1984 and 1993 the average annual interest rate on the debt was 7.2%. Compounded annually, the 170 billion dollar debt would have increased to over 317 billion on its own. Factor in high unemployment = lower tax revenue and structural deficits and your partisan analysis starts to lose water.
Why was it that the GST was introduced again?
Why were crown corporations sold?
Why free trade?
just for fun, i guess. Certainly not to increase the botton line, and pay down debt.
Last edited: