Mulroney's Economic Legacy
- Thread starter Toro
- Start date
But the Liberal Voting Fleeced Sheep beleive the lies they are told.
Many think there was no Tax on goods until the GST. We had "manufacturers" Tax for many decades. If the GST were ever recinded they would replace it with something else. The spin doctors try to influence voters with hype that in most cases ignores the other side of the coin.
Many think there was no Tax on goods until the GST. We had "manufacturers" Tax for many decades. If the GST were ever recinded they would replace it with something else. The spin doctors try to influence voters with hype that in most cases ignores the other side of the coin.
Come on Walter. The GST was a new name for an expanded federal sales tax that had been around for years. Anybody in business knows all about this.
Mulroney's real legacy was his nine years of heavy deficit spending that added almost half a trillion dollars to the national debt that our grandchildren, and their children, will still be paying off.
Nice revisionism, but structural spending and a lack of a political will belies the reality of what occurred from 1984 to 1993.
As in the OP
Simply put, if the Liberals hadn't left a fiscal mess for Mulroney, i.e. if there had been no deficit, there would have been no deficit when Mulroney left either. The account would have been well in surplus.
Absolute nonsense. Kim Cambell handed Chretien a 46 billion dollar deficit. In each of the nine years Mulroney was in office he ran a forty to fifty billion dollar deficit. For all his faults, Chretien balanced the budget in a couple years and actually paid off some of the debt Admittedly Trudeau left a debt of a hundred and twenty odd billion dollars. Mulroney didn't help. Mulroney just kept running up the debt and ran like the thief he was when he found a scapegoat....Cambell....to take the heat.
Again, more revisionism.
As the OP states, Mulroney increased the fiscal balance such that the operational budget was in surplus, at least until the recession. In fact, until the recession, Mulroney had increased the balance by 5% of GDP, as much as the Liberals had.
This argument is so disingenuous. It was the Left, from Lloyd Axworthy to Bob White to Maude Barlow to Ed Broadbent, who screamed at the top of their lungs that cutting the deficit was a "right-wing corporate agenda" that would be borne on the backs of working people. Bob White, Maude Barlow, John Ralston Saul et al were openly advocating default on Canadian federal debt. The shrill Liberal Rat Pack, and their NDP allies stood up every day in Parliament and chastized the Tories for cutting programs, or for what little they did. And polls at the time generally were against the Tories for doing so.
Then, of course, the argument is that "What, you're blaming everyone but the Tories?!" which essentially a backdoor argument that Canada should have had a PM who would have given a great big F-U to the political winds and do what they pleased, a la Margaret Thatcher. Back then, the Left amusingly and simplistically tried to link Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney together, which was as wrong as it was right. Today, the revisionist Left is saying that Mulroney should have been more like Thatcher. :lol: :lol:
As for this idea that Mulroney will be linked to deficits, it might be to those on the Left who are so blinded by animosity that they'll grasp at any stick, no matter how great a stretch, to beat on the Tories. But to those in the financial world - those who actually do the funding - the perception is that Mulroney and Wilson, as the OP stated, started Canada down the road, but the political winds at the time were blowing against them.
Two words: "Solange Denis." If you don't understand this event, you don't understand that time period.
Anybody in business knows that before the GST, the old FederalST was 13.5% on the wholesale cost of goods. Unless your customer was exempt, in which case it didn't apply. Plus, there were some items at a different rate. It also was not a value added tax. It was also not visible, it was hidden in the price of goods.
The GST is a far superior tax scheme, as any business simply adds up the GST they have charged to customers, subtracts the GST paid on purchases, and remits the difference. It is FAR, FAR easier to administer, and far more efficient.
One thing that anyone with a brain can say - Mulroney's economic iniatives paved the way for Martin's success. Unfortunately, Mulroney pizzed away a lot of money as well. But overall, he set the stage for our economic state now.
Actually, by superior, I meant that it was easier to administer for businesses, easier to understand for consumers, more fair to consumers....