[DerbyX]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Speaking of "inconvieient facts", why is it that you completely ignore the reason WHY Harper ran up the debt?

I'm not. In fact Kevin Page noted the the CPC were going into deficit BEFORE the recession. That was about the time Harper started slagging off his own appointee as being biased.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Why do Liberals, many who called for immediate stimulus spending (and who supported the measures and budget) suddenly throw it back in the face of Harper?

Both the NDP & Liberals detailed a plan to avoid (or at least minimize) the impact of the stimulus spending. NDP wanted corp tax cuts axed and the Liberals favoured GST back at its originally level (which economists were saying was the wrong choice anyway).

Where is this spirit of blaming the opposition parties when he was handing out cheques emblazoned with the CPC logo rather then the Government of Canada?

Where was this spirit of blaming the opposition parties when he was claiming credit for the results of the stimulus package, the one he was "forced into'?

Lets also not forget that the opposition parties signed off on a plan that predicted a deficit of 20-25 billion not the more then double the estimate.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Why do you ignore the fact that the Liberals were willing to push this to an election because Harper wasn't spending fast enough?

Actually the reason was more like Harper was being a demogogue.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And Derby, don't put words in my mouth. I'll never deny the fact that Harper has run up the deficit but unlike some, I won't forget why.

Like you'll graciously allow the Liberals the same reasons when they were handed a 30 billion deficit rather then a 14 billion surplus?

Again, according to Kevin Page the CPC was driving us into the red BEFORE the recession hit, the one that everybody BUT Harper knew was coming.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

As you'll notice from the graph above, the debt under Harper did steadily decrease until the often-forgotten-by-Liberals recession hit.

It decreased entirely because of the budget crafted by Martin and finally to remind you once more. Kevin Page, independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, showed we were going into deficit spending and has repeatedly rejected the CPC numbers as being simply wrong. Lets remember that this guy was APPOINTED by Harper.

[DerbyX]

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

OnTheIce never claimed the Liberals were "inept", he simply stated that it wasn't true that the national debt on the whole increased under Chrétien/Martin which is true no matter how you look at. While you can reason it any way you want at the of the day it’s a simple fact.

He has said far worse about them, trust me.

In addition, your assessment of the fact are simply wrong. In fact Harper himself has used the same stats can debt number Lemmy and I have quoted because they are the actual figures.

The debt decreased under the Liberals. The debt to GDP ratio decreased under the Liberals. We emerged far stronger economically under their tenure. They could have easily kept running massive deficits with the socialist agenda we often get accused of but they didn't and that restraint benefitted us all.

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

He was also simply contradicting Winnipegger posted a chart that only showed half of what happened under Chrétien/Martin and not the full story and also contradicted Lemmy’s numbers; the ones that only Lemmy has access to, has no sources for and which contradict most published findings. The chart I’ve put up is not bias in any way, it is simply the numbers that out for public consumption. They don’t favour the Conservatives any more than the Liberals.

And he is wrong. I've shown it time and time again. Lemmy has shown it and its his profession and he thoughtfully explained why.

[DerbyX]

In fact here is the report detailing Kevin Page predicting a deficit. Remember this was back when Canada was all candy and nuts in terms of economic forecasts .... according to the CPC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/200 ... udget.html

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'm not. In fact Kevin Page noted the the CPC were going into deficit BEFORE the recession. That was about the time Harper started slagging off his own appointee as being biased.

Kevin Page "predicted" a deficit. People predict stuff all the time. Some people predict the World is going to end next year

DerbyX DerbyX:

Both the NDP & Liberals detailed a plan to avoid (or at least minimize) the impact of the stimulus spending. NDP wanted corp tax cuts axed and the Liberals favoured GST back at its originally level (which economists were saying was the wrong choice anyway).

So while companies are stuggling, take more money from them and raise the GST on people too? Not really the best "plan" to recover from a recession.

This plan has never come to the surface, either.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Like you'll graciously allow the Liberals the same reasons when they were handed a 30 billion deficit rather then a 14 billion surplus?

First, I've never made a peep about the shit the Liberals were left with coming into power in 1993. I don't ignore reality. Eveyone knows they were handed a bag of shit and did whatever they could to dig us out.

Not all people who support the Conservative Party are the same, Derby. You've consistantly had a problem with that, thinking anyone who supports Harper thinks the same and has the same opinions.

Give people the benefit of the doubt and hear them out before you put words in their mouths.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Kevin Page "predicted" a deficit. People predict stuff all the time. Some people predict the World is going to end next year

Read it again. This wasn't some pie in the eye prediction but rather a careful analysis of the data. He called it right and he kept calling it right even as Flaherties budget estimates were shown to be woefully wrong over and over and over again.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

So while companies are stuggling, take more money from them and raise the GST on people too? Not really the best "plan" to recover from a recession.

This plan has never come to the surface, either.

The issue you cited was that they were going to run a deficit just like the CPC not the viability of their plans (which economists supported BTW).

One has nothing to do with the other. They had plans to minimize the impact of the recession and Harper did not and as detailed in Pages report, it was Harper's policies that were driving us into the red.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

First, I've never made a peep about the shit the Liberals were left with coming into power in 1993. I don't ignore reality. Eveyone knows they were handed a bag of shit and did whatever they could to dig us out.

You say that now but I recall you said something different during one of our many debates and in addition laid a lot of the fiscal blame on Trudeau who also had his own recession.

The bolded part? Where have you ever posted such a sentiment. Its not like you posted "excuse me, but I realize the Liberals did a wonderful job but they did actually add to the debt". Had you said that it would be a different story.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Not all people who support the Conservative Party are the same, Derby. You've consistantly had a problem with that, thinking anyone who supports Harper thinks the same and has the same opinions.

And yet you were all cheering on Harper prior to the massive deficit. I have consistently laid out a policy of defending the Liberals fiscal performance based on what they did and only bring Harper into it when somebody tries to use his as an example of sound fiscal policies.

I far from treat every CPC supporter as the same. I don't hold you are to be anti-choice or anti-gay marriage just because that is a majority held CPC position. I deal specifically with those people in the proper topics. Yours just happens to be a consistent misrepresentation (and that is my opinion) of the realities of the economic position the Libs were in and what they did. Plenty of CPC supports are pro-choice, pro-SSM, and raving Atheists like myself.

Doesn't alter my belief that the CPC under Harper will reopen the abortion and SSM debates.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Give people the benefit of the doubt and hear them out before you put words in their mouths.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You seem to get extremely offended that anybody even suggest the Liberals did anything but add to the federal debt and thus don't deserve their economic reputation.

Partisanship aside, you'll recall I said the only good thing about a Harper government was that he would keep paying down the debt. I did however once explain to Tricks that either Harper was going to break many of his promises or else we were headed to deficit spending (and this was back in 2007). I was right on the money.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

You say that now but I recall you said something different during one of our many debates and in addition laid a lot of the fiscal blame on Trudeau who also had his own recession.

I've never spoke of Trudeau's record or financial management on this forum. Not once.

DerbyX DerbyX:

I far from treat every CPC supporter as the same. I don't hold you are to be anti-choice or anti-gay marriage just because that is a majority held CPC position. I deal specifically with those people in the proper topics. Yours just happens to be a consistent misrepresentation (and that is my opinion) of the realities of the economic position the Libs were in and what they did. Plenty of CPC supports are pro-choice, pro-SSM, and raving Atheists like myself.

Doesn't alter my belief that the CPC under Harper will reopen the abortion and SSM debates.

I don't agree whatsoever. Your example above notes that you "recall" me speaking of a topic that I've never engaged in.

I think you often recall things people say when in fact, it wasn't them who said it at all.

DerbyX DerbyX:

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You seem to get extremely offended that anybody even suggest the Liberals did anything but add to the federal debt and thus don't deserve their economic reputation.

I think you often assume that because someone takes a certain stance on an issue, that any comment you may have read in the past, must apply to that particular person.

I'm not offended at all....never get offended on here....lifes too short to let a little debate bother you. I don't agree the Liberals deserve a medal, nor do I think they were the worst managers of our finances.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX DerbyX:

...that either Harper was going to break many of his promises...

Geez Derb, you get no points for that one. That's a friggin "gimmie"

I don't even need to know who the next PM will be but I predict a LOT of broken promises from whoever it will be. And from the one after that, and the one after that, ad nauseum.

[OnTheIce]

I think we should expect broken promises all the time and it shouldn't be a surpise.

I think we as voters ignore that reality happens, even to governments so sometimes you can't do what you wanted to do because things change.

For example, the Ontario Liberals came into power vowing no new taxes yet found the health care system needed funds and brought forth a big premium.

Shit happens, promises in life and politics get broken all the time.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You say that now but I recall you said something different during one of our many debates and in addition laid a lot of the fiscal blame on Trudeau who also had his own recession.

I've never spoke of Trudeau's record or financial management on this forum. Not once.

DerbyX DerbyX:

I far from treat every CPC supporter as the same. I don't hold you are to be anti-choice or anti-gay marriage just because that is a majority held CPC position. I deal specifically with those people in the proper topics. Yours just happens to be a consistent misrepresentation (and that is my opinion) of the realities of the economic position the Libs were in and what they did. Plenty of CPC supports are pro-choice, pro-SSM, and raving Atheists like myself.

Doesn't alter my belief that the CPC under Harper will reopen the abortion and SSM debates.

I don't agree whatsoever. Your example above notes that you "recall" me speaking of a topic that I've never engaged in.

I think you often recall things people say when in fact, it wasn't them who said it at all.

If you say so.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I think you often assume that because someone takes a certain stance on an issue, that any comment you may have read in the past, must apply to that particular person.

No. Your opinion applies only to you. I'm not ascribing anybodies elses opinion
to you.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I'm not offended at all....never get offended on here....lifes too short to let a little debate bother you. I don't agree the Liberals deserve a medal, nor do I think they were the worst managers of our finances.

Ok, if your not offended I'm not. I must have gotten that opinion by the angry posts you made to me followed by "I'm ignoring you now".

On a side note, who would deserve a medal? How about what would have deserved a medal? What would you have done differently in 1993 and what result do you think you would have gotten?

[DerbyX]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DerbyX DerbyX:

...that either Harper was going to break many of his promises...

Geez Derb, you get no points for that one. That's a friggin "gimmie"

I don't even need to know who the next PM will be but I predict a LOT of broken promises from whoever it will be. And from the one after that, and the one after that, ad nauseum.

True but then nobody can roll their eyes whenever the left brings up abortion or SSM and claim that Harper has settled the matter by saying he won't reopen such things and/or not move to block them.

In addition, there was context behind the debate with Tricks. He was thinking "good for Harper doing all these things and run a surplus" and my counter was "He'll either break promises or send us into the red".

Of course everybody expects politicians to break their promises. That is the fault of the voters. We won't elect anybody who dosen't promise pie in the eye promises devoid of reality.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

On a side note, who would deserve a medal? How about what would have deserved a medal? What would you have done differently in 1993 and what result do you think you would have gotten?

I think Paul Martin had the stones do make changes that were needed to get the budget in check. However, I think that the outcome with health care underfunded and the miliatary left in ruins was a steep price to pay....but something had to give. I'm not sure what I would have done differently nor would I speculate.

I think Harper did a great thing his first few years in office, using every cent of surplus to pay down our debt. I think that dumping ~38 billion off our debt in a couple years was great.

It's hard to compare on a apple to apple basis because one government was a majority and the other a minority and I think they've both done well financially considering the individual circumstances.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

It's hard to compare on a apple to apple basis because one government was a majority and the other a minority and I think they've both done well financially considering the individual circumstances.

Martin didn't. That is my other point. He was forced to wheel & deal to get his budget passed to and he choose the NDP based almost entirely on the fact Harper refused to make any such deal with the hated Liberals.

That's why we had that big drop in surplus revenues. Just as many Cons here think things will be a lot different under a Harper majority I think a Martin majority would have been fantastic.

[dino_bobba_renno]

DerbyX DerbyX:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

He was also simply contradicting Winnipegger posted a chart that only showed half of what happened under Chrétien/Martin and not the full story and also contradicted Lemmy’s numbers; the ones that only Lemmy has access to, has no sources for and which contradict most published findings. The chart I’ve put up is not bias in any way, it is simply the numbers that out for public consumption. They don’t favour the Conservatives any more than the Liberals.

And he is wrong. I've shown it time and time again. Lemmy has shown it and its his profession and he thoughtfully explained why.

Lemmy has shown two things:
1. Jack
2. Shit

Lemmy Lemmy:

dino dino:

He was also simply contradicting Winnipegger posted a chart that only showed half of what happened under Chrétien/Martin and not the full story and also contradicted Lemmy’s numbers; the ones that only Lemmy has access to, has no sources for and which contradict most published findings

I gave the source of my stats: Statistics Canada. If you want to pay for the Cansim search, you can have them to. Don't put it on me that you're too cheap to check the facts as I've reported them.

Hey you’re the one who posted those numbers, do your own dirty work. If those numbers are so widely excepted then it shouldn’t be hard to back them up.

I’ll admit that what I posted came from two pretty dubious and notoriously bias sources; Stats Can and The Library of Parliament.

[OnTheIce]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Martin didn't. That is my other point. He was forced to wheel & deal to get his budget passed to and he choose the NDP based almost entirely on the fact Harper refused to make any such deal with the hated Liberals.

That's why we had that big drop in surplus revenues. Just as many Cons here think things will be a lot different under a Harper majority I think a Martin majority would have been fantastic.

On one hand, you talk about government inheriting previous good/bad work and then here you act as if Martin did it alone.

Martin inherited the work of his previous majority government.

[DerbyX]

And Jack left town?