Liberals committed to never-ending deficits, debt

[Danbones]

There should have been NO BORROWING
That's why we have the type of central bank we have
http://www.comer.org/

The bankers don't care what party jumps...ideology is for the little guys
so anyone who believes in parties is all the way lost to begin with.

(Though the lieberrals are the worst for vote buying, they are that lazy)

 

[captain morgan]

Infrastructure upgrades like Fake Lakes?

Harper spent money like a drunken teenager trying to buy every vote in the class.

Nice that you decide in cherry picking one example and extrapolating across everything.... PS - you're still wrong

Anywho, back to the base question again, care to forward an answer or does the truth of the matter completely erode your position?

 

[Hoid]

There should have been NO BORROWING
That's why we have the type of central bank we have

The bankers don't care what party jumps...ideology is for the little guys
so anyone who believes in parties is all the way lost to begin with.

The Liberals went beyond NO BORROWING and actually paid down $90 billion in debt - unfortunately Harper waltzed in and reborrowed that $90 billion and then another $60 billion on top of that.

 

[Colpy]

Harper increased the debt by $150 billion dollars.

Not sure how we can be in a thread about Liberals and deficits where that is bad and the best PM ever was one of the worst borrowers ever.



Still less than Harper borrowed.

And apparently he's the best!

You are not real good at this, are you?

Harper did increase the debt......in the worst economic downturn in a couple of generations, and at the insistence of the Liberals (they wear it too)

We are in good times now, time to build on the good work Harper did balancing the budget by now decreasing debt.

You see, Harper stopped borrowing.

Trudeau has no plans to ever stop.

While interest rates are expected to rise.

Another Trudeau disaster in the making.

 

[pgs]

You are not real good at this, are you?

Harper did increase the debt......in the worst economic downturn in a couple of generations, and at the insistence of the Liberals (they wear it too)

We are in good times now, time to build on the good work Harper did balancing the budget by now decreasing debt.

You see, Harper stopped borrowing.

Trudeau has no plans to ever stop.

While interest rates are expected to rise.

Another Trudeau disaster in the making.

Don't worry , he wants to trade with other nations then America , but has nothing to trade . He is still blaming Harper for all Trudeau's faults . Stock in trade .

 

[Hoid]

I am blaming Harper for $150 billion in debt - since he is the one who created it.

 

[Vbeacher]

the idea of never repaying the debt is pretty much a thing now. Especially the Americans. It took the most powerful Liberal government in history to take the measures necessary to reduce the debt and it resulted in their destruction.

Drivel. The Liberals were able to start paying down the debt because they slashed health care, welfare and education, and more importantly, benefited from a hugely resurgent US economy, which pulled ours along and flooded money into the federal coffers through the GST which the Liberals had fought tooth and nail against.

Just as importantly, the Liberals of the day, in particular, Jean Chretien, didn't see any need to spend that flood of money on anyone because they didn't need to, politically. They were quite safe, with a divided opposition and Chretien preferred to neither lower taxes (against the ideology of liberals) or spend it. He wanted to keep his ammunition ready for when the divided opposition got its act together and started to appear like an actual threat. However, once the opposition did unite the floodgates opened wide, and that big surplus diminished rapidly.

What led to their 'destruction' was sordid scandals unrelated to the budget or economy.

Along comes a little lacky like Harper and boom - the debt spiral is back in spades.

Along came a massive world-wide recession you mean, but I understand context, fairness and reality have no place in the thinking of a far left zealot.

 

[pgs]

Drivel. The Liberals were able to start paying down the debt because they slashed health care, welfare and education, and more importantly, benefited from a hugely resurgent US economy, which pulled ours along and flooded money into the federal coffers through the GST which the Liberals had fought tooth and nail against.

Just as importantly, the Liberals of the day, in particular, Jean Chretien, didn't see any need to spend that flood of money on anyone because they didn't need to, politically. They were quite safe, with a divided opposition and Chretien preferred to neither lower taxes (against the ideology of liberals) or spend it. He wanted to keep his ammunition ready for when the divided opposition got its act together and started to appear like an actual threat. However, once the opposition did unite the floodgates opened wide, and that big surplus diminished rapidly.

What led to their 'destruction' was sordid scandals unrelated to the budget or economy.



Along came a massive world-wide recession you mean, but I understand context, fairness and reality have no place in the thinking of a far left zealot.

You forgot the E.I . fund .

 

[MHz]

Do you think those happen by accident?? Perhaps it fits in with the pattern described in this vid.
[youtube]CmGDJ3kJqU0&t=13s[/youtube]
America's Rise and Fall | Rabbi Jonathan Cahn | Sid Roth's It's Supernatural

 

[Hoid]

The Liberals were able to start paying down the debt .

Everything that follows is just needless fill.

Yes. You are right. The Liberals were able to start paying down the debt. $90 billion worth.

 

[MHz]

Why does anybody think the banks want that debt paid off. Every nation on the planet is in debt to the same people. That nets them how much (free money) yearly?? (plus all the normal banking fees)

 

[Vbeacher]

This is why we almost never let conservatives have the keys to the car.

The reason the conservative supporters are fewer in number than left wing supporters is monetary, all right. What we have in this country is about 25% of the population who basically pay almost all the taxes. We also have a sullen horde of mouth-breathers who pay little or no taxes and are always whining about wanting more government services for the taxes they don't pay.

30% of the population pays no income tax. Who are they going to vote for? Conservatives? Not bloody likely! They vote for whoever promises the most slops for their trough. See Atlantic Canada for an example of how that works. Every riding went to the party that promised big deficits and big slops.

50% of the population is responsible for contributing a grand total of 3% of income taxes. Most pay nothing or very little. Again, they're looking for the politician who will give them the most goodies.

So to win the conservatives need a huge majority of taxpaying voters, and a lot of them have soft hearts or soft heads or are government employees who know full-well where THEIR slops come from and fear a conservative government that cuts jobs and salaries in the public service.

So yes that's why the Left has more support. For as long as we can keep putting everything on our credit card bill, and hoping we can leave it all to our kids to take care of.

Everything that follows is just needless fill.

Yes. You are right. The Liberals were able to start paying down the debt. $90 billion worth.

Apparently you're uninterested in and incapable of any sort of intelligent discussion.

No wonder you're a liberal.

 

[Colpy]

I am blaming Harper for $150 billion in debt - since he is the one who created it.

At the insistence of the Liberals, who threatened to take the gov't.......with the support of the Bloc.

In the worst economic downturn in a generation or two.

Read a bit.

BTW, obviously you don't mind debt.

So, besides debt, what is at the root of your Harper Derangement Syndrome?

 

[Hoid]

The reason the conservative supporters are fewer in number than left wing supporters is monetary, all right. What we have in this country is about 25% of the population who basically pay almost all the taxes. We also have a sullen horde of mouth-breathers who pay little or no taxes and are always whining about wanting more government services for the taxes they don't pay.

30% of the population pays no income tax. Who are they going to vote for? Conservatives? Not bloody likely! They vote for whoever promises the most slops for their trough. See Atlantic Canada for an example of how that works. Every riding went to the party that promised big deficits and big slops.

50% of the population is responsible for contributing a grand total of 3% of income taxes. Most pay nothing or very little. Again, they're looking for the politician who will give them the most goodies.

So to win the conservatives need a huge majority of taxpaying voters, and a lot of them have soft hearts or soft heads or are government employees who know full-well where THEIR slops come from and fear a conservative government that cuts jobs and salaries in the public service.

So yes that's why the Left has more support. For as long as we can keep putting everything on our credit card bill, and hoping we can leave it all to our kids to take care of.



Apparently you're uninterested in and incapable of any sort of intelligent discussion.

No wonder you're a liberal.

SO the taxpayers would rather vote for Harper ($150 billion debt) than Chretien / Martin - $90 billion debt repayment?

Your theory is ridiculous - and your take on the Canadian public is offensive and illustrates exactly why the right wing are such a bunch of also-rans in Canadian politics.

How can you lead the people when you hate the people?

At the insistence of the Liberals, who threatened to take the gov't.......with the support of the Bloc.

What a weakling he really was.

 

[Colpy]

What a weakling he really was.

In that one case I actually agree somewhat. He should have let the Liberals throw him out, because there is a chance the G-G would have ordered a new election (in which Harper would have probably won a majority), and even if she had allowed the borderline treasonous Liberals a chance to form gov't, it would have been the last time in a generation.

Otherwise, Harper was quite bold with his policies.

 

[Vbeacher]

SO the taxpayers would rather vote for Harper ($150 billion debt) than Chretien / Martin - $90 billion debt repayment?

The question is moronic. The situations were not in any way identical. Anyone of even moderate intelligence and honesty would acknowledge that.

Your theory is ridiculous - and your take on the Canadian public is offensive

My take on the public is entirely accurate. People will invariably vote for what they believe to be their near-term self-interest. A guy who promises you lots of free stuff is clearly the better choice - when you're not paying for anything. Trudeau was going nowhere in the election until he started offering huge goodies which would require deficits. Suddenly he shot up in popularity.

In that one case I actually agree somewhat. He should have let the Liberals throw him out, because there is a chance the G-G would have ordered a new election (in which Harper would have probably won a majority), and even if she had allowed the borderline treasonous Liberals a chance to form gov't, it would have been the last time in a generation.

Just as importantly, with a huge recession headed our way, he would have left it to the Left to deal with. Thus the Left would have gotten the blame for poor economic circumstances and the huge debt instead of him. But they'd only been in power a short time after a long time in opposition. The temptation to give in was enormous.

Otherwise, Harper was quite bold with his policies.

I disagree. Harper was timid in all he did. He was not so much a conservative as he was a pragmatist. There was no bold vision and no bold program. He tried to improve things a little bit here, and a little bit there, without offending too many of the liberal establishment. Where were the bold initiatives on health care, on natives, on immigration, on imposing free trade internally? Or even on cutting back spending on things government needs not do, like funding the CBC or other arts programs? He had a huge cabinet. Why did Canada need a 40 member cabinet? What do the US get by with? Ten?

 

[pgs]

In that one case I actually agree somewhat. He should have let the Liberals throw him out, because there is a chance the G-G would have ordered a new election (in which Harper would have probably won a majority), and even if she had allowed the borderline treasonous Liberals a chance to form gov't, it would have been the last time in a generation.

Otherwise, Harper was quite bold with his policies.

He should have defunded or outright sold the CBC when he had the chance .

The question is moronic. The situations were not in any way identical. Anyone of even moderate intelligence and honesty would acknowledge that.



My take on the public is entirely accurate. People will invariably vote for what they believe to be their near-term self-interest. A guy who promises you lots of free stuff is clearly the better choice - when you're not paying for anything. Trudeau was going nowhere in the election until he started offering huge goodies which would require deficits. Suddenly he shot up in popularity.



Just as importantly, with a huge recession headed our way, he would have left it to the Left to deal with. Thus the Left would have gotten the blame for poor economic circumstances and the huge debt instead of him. But they'd only been in power a short time after a long time in opposition. The temptation to give in was enormous.



I disagree. Harper was timid in all he did. He was not so much a conservative as he was a pragmatist. There was no bold vision and no bold program. He tried to improve things a little bit here, and a little bit there, without offending too many of the liberal establishment. Where were the bold initiatives on health care, on natives, on immigration, on imposing free trade internally? Or even on cutting back spending on things government needs not do, like funding the CBC or other arts programs? He had a huge cabinet. Why did Canada need a 40 member cabinet? What do the US get by with? Ten?

I agree he was a good manager a cut here a snip there , and the opposition was throwing hissy fits . Can you imagine if he actually took the ax to a few programs .

 

[JLM]

. Harper was timid in all he did. He was not so much a conservative as he was a pragmatist. There was no bold vision and no bold program. He tried to improve things a little bit here, and a little bit there, without offending too many of the liberal establishment.

Actually not a bad idea!

 

[Cannuck]

I disagree. Harper was timid in all he did.

He was a coward. Most social conservatives are

 

[JLM]

He was a coward. Most social conservatives are

Yep, tar them all with the same brush!