Paul Martin Named Man of the Year

[Progressive Tory]

I'm reading the responses before they're even posted, but while I may not think that Paul Martin was the best Prime Minister Canada ever had, he was definitely the best Finance Minister. I'm so glad that he will be working behind the scenes if the Coalition has to take over.

"Our derided ex-PM set a fiscal course that could save Canada from the worst of this meltdown"

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/557552

"Martin was disliked even more by the left than by the right. They thought his approach to deficits was savage and inhumane. Now we know that because of his discipline in the 1990s we are about to go into a recession from a position of strength."

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.

[Bryan]

I'm reading the responses before they're even posted, but while I may not think that Paul Martin was the best Prime Minister Canada ever had, he was definitely the best Finance Minister. I'm so glad that he will be working behind the scenes if the Coalition has to take over.

"Our derided ex-PM set a fiscal course that could save Canada from the worst of this meltdown"

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/557552

"Martin was disliked even more by the left than by the right. They thought his approach to deficits was savage and inhumane. Now we know that because of his discipline in the 1990s we are about to go into a recession from a position of strength."

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.

Martin was an idiot, and a terrible finance minister. He left bills unpaid, obligations unfulfilled, over charged on taxes, wasted billions on useless programs, embezzelled hundreds of millions for his friends, and illegally raided EI.

[Argus]

I'm reading the responses before they're even posted, but while I may not think that Paul Martin was the best Prime Minister Canada ever had, he was definitely the best Finance Minister. I'm so glad that he will be working behind the scenes if the Coalition has to take over.

Your fairy-tale coallition is done like yesterday's dinner.

As to Martin, you approve of how he squirreled money away with illegal accounting tricks to hide the size of the enormous surplus even while people were dying in overcrowded hospitals, do you? Some Liberal!

Year after year he played games to hide the huge surplus, while underfunded government services deteriorated, especially health and education. Was it really that he was that miserly, that he was determined to pay down the debt? Or did he, like Chretien, simply not care a damn about what was going on so long as their poll numbers remained high? We got the answer to that one when their poll numbers began falling. Suddenly the money taps were turned on! Billions and tens of billions in promises made! Martin jetted around the country offering money to any province who wanted it!

And so we saw that health care didn't matter, education didn't matter, the military didn't matter, daycare didn't matter, welfare didn't matter, roads didn't matter. All that mattered was their polling numbers. And only when their cushy jobs were threatened did Martin and Chretien start spending cash - without any regard to the debt, btw.

These ar the self-serving political weasels that you admire so much.

[Moonbox]

Personally I think Martin was a good finance minister and Chretien was a good PM. I'm a young Canadian (25) and my biggest concern in government is that the old farts that voted in Trudeau and Mulroney start paying off some of the debt they're leaving my generation.

Yes, they were arrogant and quite likely corrupt. Yes, they screwed the provinces over on funding, but they DID pay down the debt. I'm thankful for that. I voted for Harper because I was disgusted with Liberal entitlement back in 2006 and I voted for him again because I was disgusted with the current batch of Liberal leaders.

[jdobbin]

Martin was an idiot, and a terrible finance minister.

You must really hate Flaherty then as well.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am not a fan of his. He has lied and gone from surplus to deficit.

[Moonbox]

I am not a fan of his. He has lied and gone from surplus to deficit.

The deficit wasn't going to be avoided regardless but the lying...well you've got him there.

[punked]

The deficit wasn't going to be avoided regardless but the lying...well you've got him there.

What are talking about if they kept with Martins policies their would be no deficit.

[Smallc]

What are talking about if they kept with Martins policies their would be no deficit.

That's right. Modest spending increases with modest tax cuts and a moderate surplus to act as a barrier to deficit.

[Progressive Tory]

Martin was an idiot, and a terrible finance minister. He left bills unpaid, obligations unfulfilled, over charged on taxes, wasted billions on useless programs, embezzelled hundreds of millions for his friends, and illegally raided EI.

What? Embezzled hundreds of millions? From where? Mulroney left a 42 billion dollar deficit and Paul Martin turned it into a 13 Billion dollar surplus. Harper and Flaherty have now turned that into dust.

[Progressive Tory]

Your fairy-tale coallition is done like yesterday's dinner.

As to Martin, you approve of how he squirreled money away with illegal accounting tricks to hide the size of the enormous surplus even while people were dying in overcrowded hospitals, do you? Some Liberal!

Year after year he played games to hide the huge surplus, while underfunded government services deteriorated, especially health and education. Was it really that he was that miserly, that he was determined to pay down the debt? Or did he, like Chretien, simply not care a damn about what was going on so long as their poll numbers remained high? We got the answer to that one when their poll numbers began falling. Suddenly the money taps were turned on! Billions and tens of billions in promises made! Martin jetted around the country offering money to any province who wanted it!

And so we saw that health care didn't matter, education didn't matter, the military didn't matter, daycare didn't matter, welfare didn't matter, roads didn't matter. All that mattered was their polling numbers. And only when their cushy jobs were threatened did Martin and Chretien start spending cash - without any regard to the debt, btw.

These ar the self-serving political weasels that you admire so much.

All that mattered were their polling numbers? Hmm. Interesting. Let's just say I wish he was running the country now during this economic crisis. The only good news is that there's no more money for Flaherty to steal.

I want them to wear this for awhile, and just have the Coalition as a united Opposition. It won't make the Conservatives honest, but they'll have to do their jobs and the Social Conservative agenda will remain on the backburner.

[Progressive Tory]

Personally I think Martin was a good finance minister and Chretien was a good PM. I'm a young Canadian (25) and my biggest concern in government is that the old farts that voted in Trudeau and Mulroney start paying off some of the debt they're leaving my generation.

Yes, they were arrogant and quite likely corrupt. Yes, they screwed the provinces over on funding, but they DID pay down the debt. I'm thankful for that. I voted for Harper because I was disgusted with Liberal entitlement back in 2006 and I voted for him again because I was disgusted with the current batch of Liberal leaders.

I'm so glad that as a young Canadian you are becoming engaged in your future. However, 'Liberal entitlement' is one of those often used phrases that most people can't really back up, like 'Western Alienation' and 'Welfare States'. I agree that Paul Martin was a very good Finance Minister but didn't really care for him much as PM.

Part of the problem for young people concerned with the future; is our current electoral system, that doesn't reflect the Majority of our voters. The Conservatives get almost 170,000 fewer votes this time than in 2006 but get more seats. The Bloc gets 10% of the votes and net 50 seats, while the Green earn 7% and get no seats. We have a real problem here, which is why you will probably see proportional representation on the table soon.

I attended a recent lecture given by the former head of the Political Science Department at Queen's University, and he discussed much of this and agreed that our Democratic System was in peril. Another problem he believed for young people is the pollsters. Pre-election polling has become almost biblical, but unfortunately, since only people with lan lines are called; represent the views of mostly older people. Many young people use cellphones almost exclusively. However, when they read the polls, they assume the election has already been decided so don't go to the POLLS! That's not Democracy.

Good for you though, in doing your homework before voting and selecting your candidate based on your own belief. That's what it's all about.

[Moonlight Graham]

Having a surplus doesn't mean you're a good finance minister. Martin simply lowballed his budget estimates each year & conveniently had a surplus at the end of the year. Wow he's so smart!! But at least thats better than running a deficit, so i'll give him a bit of credit.

[segnosaur]

What? Embezzled hundreds of millions? From where? Mulroney left a 42 billion dollar deficit and Paul Martin turned it into a 13 Billion dollar surplus. Harper and Flaherty have now turned that into dust.

Martin's (and Chretien's) reputation as a 'deficit fighter' are, at best, greatly overstated.

It is true that Mulroney failed to cut the deficit himself (for which some criticism is deserving). But, when Paul Martin came to power, he had several advantages:

- A period of strong global economic growth and low interest rates

- The previous conservative government had voted for tax increases, much of their impact took place after the conservatives lost power (so the conservatives get the blame, the Liberals get the glory)

- The previous conservative government had also negotiated free trade deals, which improved our trade surplus and would have provided even more money to the government

- The presence of a conservative government in Ontario who was willing to cut spending (and in many ways acted as a scape goat for many of the problems in central Canada)

It should also be noted that the Liberals also significantly cut spending in areas such as health care and the military, something that shifted the burden of 'deficit fighting' to either the provinces (in the case of health care cuts) or future government (in the case of military cuts, where the current Conservative government has to spend more to replace outdated equipment.)

Given the economic win-fall that the Liberals experienced (much of it out of their control) and the willingness to pass the buck to others, pretty much anyone could have eliminated the deficit.

[punked]

Martin's (and Chretien's) reputation as a 'deficit fighter' are, at best, greatly overstated.

It is true that Mulroney failed to cut the deficit himself (for which some criticism is deserving). But, when Paul Martin came to power, he had several advantages:

- A period of strong global economic growth and low interest rates

- The previous conservative government had voted for tax increases, much of their impact took place after the conservatives lost power (so the conservatives get the blame, the Liberals get the glory)

- The previous conservative government had also negotiated free trade deals, which improved our trade surplus and would have provided even more money to the government

- The presence of a conservative government in Ontario who was willing to cut spending (and in many ways acted as a scape goat for many of the problems in central Canada)

It should also be noted that the Liberals also significantly cut spending in areas such as health care and the military, something that shifted the burden of 'deficit fighting' to either the provinces (in the case of health care cuts) or future government (in the case of military cuts, where the current Conservative government has to spend more to replace outdated equipment.)

Given the economic win-fall that the Liberals experienced (much of it out of their control) and the willingness to pass the buck to others, pretty much anyone could have eliminated the deficit.

Unless you are Conservative where you give huge tax cuts with huge spending increases. Harper has created this deficit don't fool yourself.

[jdobbin]

Martin's (and Chretien's) reputation as a 'deficit fighter' are, at best, greatly overstated.

Given the economic win-fall that the Liberals experienced (much of it out of their control) and the willingness to pass the buck to others, pretty much anyone could have eliminated the deficit.

Really? How is it other countries went back into deficit years earlier in good economic times and Canada didn't? It was because Canada kept spending down. Harper has been spending like crazy since he got into power and a lot of it was in areas that hardly could be justified such as re-opening a closed military college or funding a rail link in Flaherty's riding.

[segnosaur]

Martin's (and Chretien's) reputation as a 'deficit fighter' are, at best, greatly overstated.

Given the economic win-fall that the Liberals experienced (much of it out of their control) and the willingness to pass the buck to others, pretty much anyone could have eliminated the deficit.

Really? How is it other countries went back into deficit years earlier in good economic times and Canada didn't? It was because Canada kept spending down.

Yes, the Canadian government kept spending down... just as I said... by passing the problems down to the provinces and future governments.

Hey, I can keep my own personal spending down if I can find someone else to pay for my mortgage. Too bad I can't force the squirrels nesting in my attic to pay rent.

And while I am not happy with some of the conservative government's spending, much of the budget increases was due to increased health care funding (you do think its good to care for sick people, don't you?) and increased military spending (replacing equipment which should have been replaced years ago.)

[jdobbin]

Really? How is it other countries went back into deficit years earlier in good economic times and Canada didn't? It was because Canada kept spending down.

The provinces made choices then as well. Many cut taxes rather than fund programs. Some passed the cost on to the municipalities.

The Feds actually cut spending but didn't start cutting taxes until the deficit was ended.

Yes, the Canadian government kept spending down... just as I said... by passing the problems down to the provinces and future governments.

Hey, I can keep my own personal spending down if I can find someone else to pay for my mortgage. Too bad I can't force the squirrels nesting in my attic to pay rent.

The provinces couldn't expect the Feds to keep funding all their programs by wrecking the nation's credit. Rather than keeping their revenue for important programs, provincial governments cut taxes. It thereby increased their own deficits and that is why they had to cut back on programs themselves or pass it along to the municipalities or individuals.

And while I am not happy with some of the conservative government's spending, much of the budget increases was due to increased health care funding (you do think its good to care for sick people, don't you?) and increased military spending (replacing equipment which should have been replaced years ago.)

Stable funding for health was in place from 2005 on. The claim that all the spending above the rate of inflation and population for health is just bogus.

The increases under the Tories you are speaking about were for increases across the board. They were used for an increase in transfers.

I haven't even included military spending and aboriginal affairs. The promise that Harper made was for regular program spending to be kept under the rate of inflation and population growth. There was no excuse for going over that. Harper couldn't control himself from restoring $600 million to VIA or re-starting the closed military college in Quebec.

[Progressive Tory]

Really? How is it other countries went back into deficit years earlier in good economic times and Canada didn't? It was because Canada kept spending down. Harper has been spending like crazy since he got into power and a lot of it was in areas that hardly could be justified such as re-opening a closed military college or funding a rail link in Flaherty's riding.

Exactly. There's a misconception that Republican style Conservatism is fiscally responsible, but they're always the ones to run deficits. The debt clock was taken down during the Clinton Administration because there was no debt. It was taken down again at then end of the Bush administration because there were not enough zeros to add to the end of the National debt. The Democrats are always cleaning up after the Republicans and the Liberals are always cleaning up after the Conservatives.

Someone on one of the threads said that Flaherty was for modest spending, modest tax cuts and modest surplus. I checked my calendar to see if it was April 1. The only thing right in that was MODEST tax cuts; he just didn't cut them in the right place, so few of us benefited. Modest spending I guess means spending more than any other government in Canadian History and if you read his economic statement you'd see that we only have a 'modest' surplus if we sell 12 Billion dollars worth of valuable Real Estate in a buyer's market.

Flaherty was a crook in the Ontario Mike Harris Government and now that he has more money to steal, I can't wait to see how much he's pocketed. It'll probably set records.

[dlkenny]

Unless you are Conservative where you give huge tax cuts with huge spending increases. Harper has created this deficit don't fool yourself.

A true conservative wouldn't have spending increases and Harper himself has said that it pains him to be increasing spending. With a minority government though he's walking a fine line and has to appeal to both sides. He cannot simply cut spending to match the tax cuts because that would upset the opposition and have him thrown out. The whole thing is not functional and someone needst to take the wheel.

On the subject of Paul Martin, he's an aristocratic liberal who was in power solely to put money in the pockets of his own family and friends. He and Cretien had their hands in the cookie jar, which to me is theft which means they should be in prison.

[punked]

A true conservative wouldn't have spending increases and Harper himself has said that it pains him to be increasing spending. With a minority government though he's walking a fine line and has to appeal to both sides. He cannot simply cut spending to match the tax cuts because that would upset the opposition and have him thrown out. The whole thing is not functional and someone needst to take the wheel.

On the subject of Paul Martin, he's an aristocratic liberal who was in power solely to put money in the pockets of his own family and friends. He and Cretien had their hands in the cookie jar, which to me is theft which means they should be in prison.

Yes you are right the budget is the sole fault of the opposition parties. With Dion passing everything Harper through at him how could he expect to pass anything which the Liberals not only agreed with but under Martin actually did.

PPPfffftttt you are fool Harper tried to buy his government instead of working for the people and earn it. It didn't work get over it.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Martin's (and Chretien's) reputation as a 'deficit fighter' are, at best, greatly overstated.

It is true that Mulroney failed to cut the deficit himself (for which some criticism is deserving). But, when Paul Martin came to power, he had several advantages:

- A period of strong global economic growth and low interest rates

- The previous conservative government had voted for tax increases, much of their impact took place after the conservatives lost power (so the conservatives get the blame, the Liberals get the glory)

- The previous conservative government had also negotiated free trade deals, which improved our trade surplus and would have provided even more money to the government

- The presence of a conservative government in Ontario who was willing to cut spending (and in many ways acted as a scape goat for many of the problems in central Canada)

It should also be noted that the Liberals also significantly cut spending in areas such as health care and the military, something that shifted the burden of 'deficit fighting' to either the provinces (in the case of health care cuts) or future government (in the case of military cuts, where the current Conservative government has to spend more to replace outdated equipment.)

Given the economic win-fall that the Liberals experienced (much of it out of their control) and the willingness to pass the buck to others, pretty much anyone could have eliminated the deficit

Getting warm, both Dalton Camp and Chretien gave credit for cutting the deficit to Michael Wilson the previous conservative finance minister, as he put in place much of what Martin executed. In addition Martin, the snivelling weasel, took liberties with his "blind trust" and greatly assisted his own financial position through his holdings in CSL.

On his watch as finance minister the money poured out for the sponsorship scandal, which it is highly doubtful he knew nothing about, however as with much else in his life there was an abundance of fall guys to protect him from harm.

In the end his spoiled child blind ambition was both fulfilled and his downfall as it left him isolated from much of his party and left to his own devices he was a singular failure.

Starry eyed fawing for these liberal elites is the hallmark of the weakminded lemmings who propagate myths to get close to liberal power hoping to enrich themselves at the government trough.

[Argus]

That's right. Modest spending increases with modest tax cuts and a moderate surplus to act as a barrier to deficit.

That was not Martin's policy. That was his policy when their poll numbers were high and the opposition was fractured.

In the last year under Chretien and under his own, Martin's policy was "Spend, spend, spend! Buy votes at any cost! The hell with the debt!"

[Argus]

What? Embezzled hundreds of millions? From where? Mulroney left a 42 billion dollar deficit and Paul Martin turned it into a 13 Billion dollar surplus. Harper and Flaherty have now turned that into dust.

Only the most ignorant compare finances under a government in the midst of a worldwide recession, with the finances under a government which rules in a worldwide economic boom.

[Smallc]

That was not Martin's policy. That was his policy when their poll numbers were high and the opposition was fractured.

In the last year under Chretien and under his own, Martin's policy was "Spend, spend, spend! Buy votes at any cost! The hell with the debt!"

There was funding that needed to be restored. To health, to infrastructure, and to the military. But they didn't try to massively cut taxes at the same time. Even a monkey would know that's a bad idea.