|
Author |
Topic Options
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:13 pm
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... omy-734025$1: But when Oliver goes on about the danger of debt, as he did Thursday, he’s stepping through the looking glass.
He warned voters of Opposition plans for “a debt burden our children should not bear.”
He bragged Canada’s debt is half that of the Group of Seven average, adding, “There’s a moral issue here, because to the extent we pile on more debt, we’re basically asking our children and grandchildren to pay for our expenditures.”
I thought: Oliver is being kind of tough on his boss here, isn’t he?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has added $122-billion to the federal debt since he took office. If Canada has a solid debt to gross domestic product ratio, it is not because of Harper, but because of his predecessors Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, who added only $33-billion in debt from 1993 to 2006.
The Tories were right to borrow to stimulate the economy during the recession, but they should blush when they brag about their record as debt fighters. They repeatedly missed their targets and drove us deeper into debt than necessary, slashing the goods and sales tax and offering boutique tax cuts that cluttered up the tax system without making it fairer or boosting productivity.
It’s the “starve the beast” technique, invented by Ronald Reagan. The idea is you cut taxes, go into debt, then cut spending, which makes it hard for your left-leaning opponents to tax and spend. It’s fair ball, but Canadians are suckers if they let themselves be convinced by millions of dollars in government advertising and endlessly repeated talking points the Tories are the anti-debt party.
The opposition has the opportunity in the next six months to portray the Tories as economic bunglers.
You can certainly make the argument.
Harper made big bets on oil, which is now selling for just $50 a barrel. Unemployment is up. The loonie is worth US80¢. The Bank of Canada governor says the first quarter of 2015 will be “atrocious.” Some economists think we are facing a dangerous housing bubble.
The PM has presided over a (likely inevitable) collapse in central Canadian manufacturing, but he spent all his political capital chasing pipeline projects that haven’t happened.
He’s now pushing to balance the budget for political reasons, when we probably would be better off with a little bit of debt-financed stimulus.
|
Regina
Site Admin
Posts: 32460
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:47 pm
Large black.........roll up the rim to win.
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:00 pm
|
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:09 pm
I am impressed with how the liberals turned the budget around. I think it is unfortunate that Paul Martin's Liberals couldn't continue leading the country. I think they would have been better for us throughout the recession. No doubt about it, they actually balanced the books and not only eliminated the yearly deficit, but were making huge strides toward eliminating the debt as well.
All the Conservatives did was ride on those coat tails. Instead of leaving GST where it should have been, they dropped it, and as such we lost a significant revenue source without much gain.
That said, we are comparing the performance of a party that had specific start and end dates, 1993-2006, to a party that has a start date, but not an end date. It isn't really fair.
If you want to compare fruit to fruit, you have to compare the 1993-2002 performance to the 2006-2015 performance. In this case the Liberals still are better off than the conservatives. I think a fairer assessment would be when things got rough for the conservatives, 2008 and later. With the 7 year period, 1993 - 2000 and 2008-now, liberals still did a better job. That said, the conservatives entered the recession doing exactly what the opposition wanted, which was to increase spending. The liberals, OTOH, pretty much started cutting as soon as they got into power.
So how about the spending cut periods only, from when they started up until the equivalent time of 4 years? 1993-1997 And 2011-now. To me this would be the real apples-apples comparison. If, and it's a big if, the Harper Conservatives are able to balance the budget this year, then they will be on par with Jean Chrétien's Liberal performance in the 90s. If the Harper conservatives remain in power for another 4 years, and we see the same surplus increases into the late 2010s as we did into the late 1990s and early 2000s, then I'll consider them par for the course with the Liberals. At this point though, I feel it's impossible for them to do a better job. They could have if they didn't cut the GST way back when, but they didn't.
All that being said, at this point in time, I have more faith in the Harper Conservatives to balance the budget and keep it balanced than the Trudeau Liberals or the Mulclair NDP (talk about riding on Coattails, RIP Jack Layton). I just wish it didn't have to come with all these excess (and IMO unnecessary) anti-terror measures.
|
Posts: 33691
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:02 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind: I am impressed with how the liberals turned the budget around. I think it is unfortunate that Paul Martin's Liberals couldn't continue leading the country. I think they would have been better for us throughout the recession. No doubt about it, they actually balanced the books and not only eliminated the yearly deficit, but were making huge strides toward eliminating the debt as well.
Realistically, all the Martin Liberals did was dump a lot of debt onto the provinces, robbing Peter to pay Paul. But don't let facts get in the way. Harper isn't responsible for the price of oil, You can thank Barry and the Saudis for that. Oil was a good deal for Canada, but do you notice, when we had the worldwide recession, you would think demand for oil would drop, and the prices as well. It didn't. Now, when there is a 'recovery' of sorts, and you would think demand for oil would be going up, and prices with it, suddenly we are drowning in oil. It doesn't make any sense at all. Harper is sort of responsible for an 80cent dollar, but the alternative of raising interest rates to fight it, well they decided the housing bubble was more important. But again, the dollar is a reflection of the US economy, not ours. The euro has been dropping substantially as well. It's funny how all the lefties were whining and screaming for more stimulus at the beginning of the recession, and are now whining about the fact that the government did spend money. When you want to think about how the Lieberals would have spent; well, we will find out soon enough, the preview is with Orville Reddenbacker, and little Justine will follow along. For your last point, the anti terror stuff is a directly result of the West's utterly retarded immigration and multiculti policies of the last 50 years. If we had proper control of our borders, and immigration system, we wouldn't need these things. But we don't. And he isn't responsible for that, either. Papa Trudeau decided we needed to become the multiculti mosaic. Harper may be dancing the jig, but he ain't calling the shots.
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:21 am
Realistically, all the Martin Liberals did was dump a lot of debt onto the provinces, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And the Provinces in turn, downloaded it to municipalities (wherever possible) that don't have the ability to tax incomes.
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:46 am
Jabberwalker Jabberwalker: Realistically, all the Martin Liberals did was dump a lot of debt onto the provinces, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And the Provinces in turn, downloaded it to municipalities (wherever possible) that don't have the ability to tax incomes. the libs dumped a lot of debt on the provinces, and the cons took that debt back on the feds' shoulders, that's why they added 4 times the debt of the libs, is that what you're saying?
|
garryb
Junior Member
Posts: 24
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:26 am
The Liberal Government basically had such a low deficit on the basics of two things.They sold off the Gold Reserve and downloaded a lot of expenses etc. to the provinces. The Liberal party has nothing to be proud of. The Election will be won by Big Buisiness (read puppets).
|
OnTheIce
CKA Uber
Posts: 10666
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:26 am
andyt andyt: Jabberwalker Jabberwalker: Realistically, all the Martin Liberals did was dump a lot of debt onto the provinces, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And the Provinces in turn, downloaded it to municipalities (wherever possible) that don't have the ability to tax incomes. the libs dumped a lot of debt on the provinces, and the cons took that debt back on the feds' shoulders, that's why they added 4 times the debt of the libs, is that what you're saying? No, he's saying that because the Fed's cut transfer payments to the Provinces, they were able to balance the books on the backs of the various Provincial and Municipal governments.
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 8:28 am
And the Cons reinstituted those transfer payments, which is why that Cons added 120 bil in debt in 9 years, while the Libs added 30 bil in15 years. Is that what you're saying, the cons reversed the loading of debt to the provinces?
|
Posts: 14139
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:06 am
Jabberwalker Jabberwalker: Realistically, all the Martin Liberals did was dump a lot of debt onto the provinces, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And the Provinces in turn, downloaded it to municipalities (wherever possible) that don't have the ability to tax incomes. Nope, but they have the ability to crank up property tax rates, which many of them did.
|
OnTheIce
CKA Uber
Posts: 10666
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:28 am
andyt andyt: And the Cons reinstituted those transfer payments, which is why that Cons added 120 bil in debt in 9 years, while the Libs added 30 bil in15 years. Is that what you're saying, the cons reversed the loading of debt to the provinces? Why do you converse like a child and put words in people's mouths, even people who aren't in the conversation? Such a loser.
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:43 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9: Jabberwalker Jabberwalker: Realistically, all the Martin Liberals did was dump a lot of debt onto the provinces, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And the Provinces in turn, downloaded it to municipalities (wherever possible) that don't have the ability to tax incomes. Nope, but they have the ability to crank up property tax rates, which many of them did. They had no choice. They were paying for things like maintaining roads that were previously Provincial highways and that suddenly became county and municipal roads. There was a lot of that sort of thing. Why is the City of Toronto building low cost housing for the poor when: A) The Feds are bringing in poor immigrants by the plane load and almost all of them settle in Toronto and B) It has been a Provincial responsibility to provide social services since the BNA Act was first penned on parchment.
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:21 am
OnTheIce OnTheIce: andyt andyt: And the Cons reinstituted those transfer payments, which is why that Cons added 120 bil in debt in 9 years, while the Libs added 30 bil in15 years. Is that what you're saying, the cons reversed the loading of debt to the provinces? Why do you converse like a child and put words in people's mouths, even people who aren't in the conversation? Such a loser. Why not just answer my question instead of having to hurl insults. Got nothing else? Maybe I have to explain the question for you. The libs cut transfer payments to the provinces and - I agree. Which is why they amassed such little debt and had balanced budgets. Is it your contention that the Cons increased transfer payments to the provinces again, which is why they amassed 4x the debt in less time than the Libs? If the Cons didn't up the transfer payments, then your point is irrelevant, since that debt must come from something else. Cutting the GST to 5% loses 14 billion a year, so that would be 9 x 14 = 122 billion, or about exactly the amount the Cons added to the debt. Just leave the GST at 7% and they could have added not one penny to the debt.
Last edited by andyt on Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
andyt
CKA Uber
Posts: 33492
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:21 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9: Jabberwalker Jabberwalker: Realistically, all the Martin Liberals did was dump a lot of debt onto the provinces, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
And the Provinces in turn, downloaded it to municipalities (wherever possible) that don't have the ability to tax incomes. Nope, but they have the ability to crank up property tax rates, which many of them did. Not an income tax.
|
|
Page 1 of 5
|
[ 63 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests |
|
|