Fiscally Conservative?

[madmax]

Ludicrous sputter. Have a look at the world recession he governed during, the interest rates in the high double digits, and their effect on the debt Trudeau left as his legacy. We've been over this many times. The vast majority of the borrowing under Mulroney went to pay the debt servicing charges. That was why the debt kept getting higher and higher.

Mulroney inherited a Debt of 157, 252 millions in 1984.

1984-85 194,419 37,167 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1985-86 227,808 33,389 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1986-87 257,650 29,842 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1987-88 286,667 29,017 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1988-89 314,614 27,947 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1989-90 343,757 29,143 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1990-91 377,656 33,899 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1991-92 409,975 32,319 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1992-93 448,994 39,019 Conservative Brian Mulroney

That is a historic run of deficit spending.

[Mr.Canada]

The Liberals raise taxes and spending at the same time is the only difference.

[M.Dancer]

The Liberals raise taxes and spending at the same time is the only difference.

By how much exactly did Martin raise taxes.....

...take your time

[madmax]

By how much exactly did Martin raise taxes.....

...take your time

That will be hard to answer......

Debt Deficit

1993-94 487,524 38,530 Liberal Jean Chrétien

1994-95 524,156 36,632 Liberal Jean Chrétien

1995-96 554,162 30,006 Liberal Jean Chrétien

1996-97 562,881 8,719 Liberal Jean Chrétien

1997-98 559,922 -2,959 Liberal Jean Chrétien

1998-99 554,143 -5,779 Liberal Jean Chrétien

1999-00 539,885 -14,258 Liberal Jean Chrétien

2000-01 519,994 -19,891 Liberal Jean Chrétien

2001-02 511,946 -8,048 Liberal Jean Chrétien

2002-03 505,325 -6,621 Liberal Jean Chrétien

2003-04 496,180 -9,145 Liberal Paul Martin

2004-05 494,717 -1,463 Liberal Paul Martin

2005-06 481,499 -13,218 Liberal Bill Graham

Brian Mulroney Raised Taxes and spending.

The LPC lowered taxes and spending.

Edited November 25, 2008 by madmax

[Argus]

Mulroney inherited a Debt of 157, 252 millions in 1984.

1984-85 194,419 37,167 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1985-86 227,808 33,389 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1986-87 257,650 29,842 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1987-88 286,667 29,017 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1988-89 314,614 27,947 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1989-90 343,757 29,143 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1990-91 377,656 33,899 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1991-92 409,975 32,319 Conservative Brian Mulroney

1992-93 448,994 39,019 Conservative Brian Mulroney

That is a historic run of deficit spending.

It seems every few weeks I have to post this for those rabid Mulroney haters here.

I will just repost this again:

Given interest rates in the mid to high teens over a number of years any debt will about double if you can't pay it off and have high interest rates

The total debt when Trudeau took power in 1967 was about 12 billion (0.3% of GDP). The deficit was at a measly 187 million. Unemployment was very low, as was inflation.

When Mulroney took over from him in 1985 the debt was up to about 200 billion (8% of GDP) and the yearly deficit had passed 38 billion. Unemployment and interest rates were both into double digits. Debt service costs represtented 22% of the budget. With the bank rate as high as it was the debt jumped to 360 billion within five years because in order to pay the previous year's debt servicing charges the government had to run a deficit - which meant borrowing still more money - which meant the following year's debt charge would be still higher. During Mulroney's reign his government spent $230 billion servicing the debt, all of it borrowed money. Nevertheless, the overall debt dropped from 8% of GDP to 5.8% of GDP

Further, comparing spending is telling:

The yearly budget during Trudeau's time in office doubled between 1967 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1975. The inflation rate during the first 5 year period averaged 4%, and during the second 5 year period 5%. The national debt, during the entire period of his rule, increased by 1200%

Mulroney's first year in office was 1985. The budget that year was $112,362 billion dollars. Five years later in 1990, the budget was up to $151,590. The average inflation rate during that five year period was 4%, which means the budget rose only slightly in real terms during that time, most of which probably went to pay growing debt servicing costs. By 1992, the last full year of Mulroney's reign, the budget had increased by less than the rate of inflation.

By the time Chretien took over in 1993 unemployment and interest rates were both down, and the debt was at 466 billion. Chretien raised that to 600 billion. He did cut back on the deficit, but not for the first two years. It wasn't until continuing improvement in the economy that he was able to make any substantial reduction in the deficit (in 1996).

[madmax]

It seems every few weeks......Mulroney's first year in office was 1985. The budget that year was $112,362 billion dollars. Five years later in 1990, the budget was up to $151,590. The average inflation rate during that five year period was 4%, which means the budget rose only slightly in real terms during that time, most of which probably went to pay growing debt servicing costs. By 1992, the last full year of Mulroney's reign, the budget had increased by less than the rate of inflation.

By the time Chretien took over in 1993 unemployment and interest rates were both down, and the debt was at 466 billion. Chretien raised that to 600 billion. He did cut back on the deficit, but not for the first two years. It wasn't until continuing improvement in the economy that he was able to make any substantial reduction in the deficit (in 1996).[/i]

Just one problem. Under the LPC the size of theDeficit went down, and continued to go down. It never went up.

Mulroney period was not a fiscal conservative with regards to the deficit and debt.

Fiscal conservatism is a political phrase term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates a significant reduction in government spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget of paramount importance.

and now we are seeing waste of the MPs as they blow our money on expensive trips around the globe. They operate at the trough not the taxpayer.

And Harper reigned in no one..... Or perhaps you enjoyed Bernier taking his "travelling Companion" around the globe to serve the taxpayers basic needs.

And with a Deficit before the storm, something is fundamentally wrong with this governments fiscal competence.

[jdobbin]

By the time Chretien took over in 1993 unemployment and interest rates were both down, and the debt was at 466 billion. Chretien raised that to 600 billion. He did cut back on the deficit, but not for the first two years. It wasn't until continuing improvement in the economy that he was able to make any substantial reduction in the deficit (in 1996).[/i]

I think you forget about the big cuts in spending that were required as well to end the deficit.

[Argus]

Just one problem. Under the LPC the size of theDeficit went down, and continued to go down. It never went up.

Is English your fourth language?

I'm sorry, but there's no point in even continuing to attempt to converse with someone who will apparently read what I posted, COMPLETELY ignore all the information in it, and continue to obsessively make brainless, inane claims that are unrelated to reality.

I expect any time now a claim from you that it's Harper's fault that the weather is getting colder... because the weather was warmer prior to the election.

You hate Mulroney. You don't understand why. You don't care why. All you care about is you hate Mulroney. Thirty or forty years from now you'll still be ranting on while everyone rolls their eyes and circles their finger next to their temple as they walk away.

[Argus]

I think you forget about the big cuts in spending that were required as well to end the deficit.

Big cuts in spending? Yeah, uhm, the big cuts you guys made the provinces make. The Liberals basically cut transfers to the provinces for health care, education and social welfare, and then washed their hands of the mess that made. The only real program cuts you made were to Defence - because you don't care about Defence. And if you'd won the election you'd be cutting Defense again - war or no war.

The reality is it was the American's booming economy which caused tax money to flow into government coffers. It was that which did away with the deficit, not anything Chretien or Martin did.

[Oleg Bach]

No they don't care about defence. The mentality of the liberal is that his wife is NOT his property and that the husband is NOT the property of the wife - that the kids are NOT the property of the parents...so if humanity is not private property then it can only be public property. If that is the case when a gang of rapists pile on a liberals wife..he stands back and does NOT defend her in fear that he may harm the self esteem of the rapists. The liberal also believes that Canada does not belong to Canadians and if we are about to be raped or plundered then no defence should be employed...it all connects - even dogs defend their mates - liberals are defenceless fools who fail to see the failings in the human condition - that sometimes they can just be plain bad...and to discriminate against a bad person or nation is a no no ....as we are eaten alive.

[jdobbin]

Big cuts in spending? Yeah, uhm, the big cuts you guys made the provinces make. The Liberals basically cut transfers to the provinces for health care, education and social welfare, and then washed their hands of the mess that made. The only real program cuts you made were to Defence - because you don't care about Defence. And if you'd won the election you'd be cutting Defense again - war or no war.

It wasn't just transfer payments. It was cuts at every level of the federal civil service as has been detailed here before. It was cuts on every program the federal government ran as even the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation has detailed.

The Liberals cut and they cut and they cut some more.

It wasn't just transfer payments. And it wasn't just Defence.

The reality is it was the American's booming economy which caused tax money to flow into government coffers. It was that which did away with the deficit, not anything Chretien or Martin did.

The economy certainly helped but we saw a booming economy under Reagan and Mulroney didn't cut spending and subsequently, the deficit grew despite 19 tax increases (also outlined here).

A booming economy is not the sole reason for the deficit ending. It is spending cuts that are the deciding factor.

Edited November 26, 2008 by jdobbin

[Oleg Bach]

Booming forward and the continued generation of more and more wealth to the point that no more money is needed...is a bit coo coo. More is not always better. It's the human greed factor the enduces the crazyness. Limits must be put on levels of poverty. Just as limits must be put on the mindless accumulation of wealth. It's naturally justified that now both ends of the economic spectrum could end up poor. Capitalism is not about total domination without purpose - It was about - if a person had the talent and energy to generate properity - that person should be allowed to keep what they earned and grant charity privately though his own will - instead of having a large group of less gifted - less skilled - and less energetic individuals gang up on him and rob him...we just don't have proper capitalism anymore..we have two factions where neither is permitted to be happy. The socialist are gloomy and the wanna be capitalists are thwarted from generating wealth...it's at a stand still at present.

[guyser]

It's absolutely true.

The prove it, since your link in no way asserts what you say.

It's again common knowledge for any over the age of 30 who lived through it. You show your age yet again. Now have some respect for your elders and try learning from me. I can teach you a great many things if you would just pipe down and listen. I know that everyone is eager to post since their mom went out and you're home alone but do a bit of research first.

As I am over that age, your ignorance know no bounds.

Research what? Your fallicies? No thanks.

[Oleg Bach]

There is a reason why liberals do not teach "honour your father and mother and your days on earth will be long and PROSPERIOUS" - They want to keep you stupid and thwart the inheritance that you should legitimately recieve from your elders - wisdom...so listen a bit and don't be so pre-judical...I know they taught you that in liberal school ...but they are NOT your friends.

[madmax]

Is English your fourth language?

I'm sorry, but there's no point in even continuing to attempt to converse with someone who will apparently read what I posted, COMPLETELY ignore all the information in it, and continue to obsessively make brainless, inane claims that are unrelated to reality.

I expect any time now a claim from you that it's Harper's fault that the weather is getting colder... because the weather was warmer prior to the election.

You hate Mulroney. You don't understand why. You don't care why. All you care about is you hate Mulroney. Thirty or forty years from now you'll still be ranting on while everyone rolls their eyes and circles their finger next to their temple as they walk away.

I understand that this party rose because of the Mulroney Legacy.

Reform's appeal for smaller government, lower taxes, support of the North American Free Trade Agreement, opposition to the Goods and Services Tax, and social conservative policies won over many conservatives in the West and Ontario. Small "c" conservatives in the West and Ontario were drawn to Reform from their traditional support of the Progressive Conservatives due to their disenchantment with the Progressive Conservative Party for imposing the Goods and Services Tax, the PC government's failure to reduce Canada's growing deficit and national debt,

Tax and Spend!

You are in the wrong thread to defend Mulroney.

The question is that the current government has not been fiscally conservative in their spending. They have been wasteful. On top of that, they have been at the trough as MPs.

There could be a change to this, if, every MP backs some proposed changes to their pay and perks. It seems that even symbolic cuts to their entitlement are meeting resistance.

[Shakeyhands]

There is a reason why liberals do not teach "honour your father and mother and your days on earth will be long and PROSPERIOUS" - They want to keep you stupid and thwart the inheritance that you should legitimately recieve from your elders - wisdom...so listen a bit and don't be so pre-judical...I know they taught you that in liberal school ...but they are NOT your friends.

Your posts tend to bring the discourse to a screaming halt, it's like Eric the Midgets phones calls.