Canada Needs the Old Liberal Party

[Pliny]

Not true...The BoC is a crown corporation without any "public control".

True enough.

[Wild Bill]

I would suffer Sponsorgate, even a hotel in Shawinigan, to bring back a Chretien as PM and a PM as Finance Minister.

Forgive me for saying this August but you live in Quebec. Perhaps corruption like this doesn't bother you as much, given that it has been an integral part of Quebec politics since before Duplessis and Bourassa. Quebecers may be more blase about it than those of us in other parts of Canada.

I think you'd find that ONLY Quebecers would share your fantasy! Most of us in the other provinces were totally disgusted with AdScam to the point where the Liberal brand is far weaker outside of Quebec than perhaps at any other time in its history.

[Pliny]

I would suffer Sponsorgate, even a hotel in Shawinigan, to bring back a Chretien as PM and a PM as Finance Minister.

I want a government that spends wisely, and less.

They didn't spend wisely - sponsorgate, Shawinigan, A billion misplaced in thr HR department, a blooming bill on the gun registry from 128 million to how many billion now?

If there were a reson for me to want the liberals back it would be there promise to continue the Chretien legacy of doing as little as possible for the Canadian people.

[kimmy]

Since technically we the people control the Bank Of Canada, why don't we try not charging interest on the national debt. Why would we want to continuously put ourselves into more and more debt.

The debt is not held by the Bank of Canada. The debt is held by private citizens and corporations in the form of government bonds. If you stop paying interest on those bonds, you're depriving some poor grandmother of her retirement income or wiping out the college fund a parent is building for their child.

You'd also be breaking a legal agreement between the government of Canada and the bond holder. You'd also be undermining or destroying confidence in our financial system.

This is the kind of step taken by desperate third-world governments. We're not third world, and we're not desperate.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....This is the kind of step taken by desperate third-world governments. We're not third world, and we're not desperate.

....but these types don't depart for the so called "third world" utopias...and we know why!

[Keepitsimple]

I would suffer Sponsorgate, even a hotel in Shawinigan, to bring back a Chretien as PM and a PM as Finance Minister.

I'm originally from Montreal and I admit, there seem to be plenty of Quebecers who share your masochistic loyalty to the Liberal Party. If there was one thing that Mr. Duceppe said that made sense, it was his continual portrayal of the Liberal party as a paternalistic government with a "Father Knows Best" attitude. After years of fighting the Liberals over the fiscal imbalance - something the Liberals would not admit to....it was the Conservatives who not only acknowledged the imbalance - they acted on it and sent billions to Quebec and other provinces. Then there was the Quebec as a nation motion - that never came from the Liberals. We have Paul Martin's fiscal wizardry that offloaded billions onto the provinces by slashing transfer payments for Health and Education - causing Quebec and other provinces to run large deficits to compensate. And during those hard years, Martin also managed to suck some money out of the pockets of workers by keeping EI rates artificially high and funnelling the surplus into general revenues. So after being hit on the head with a hammer, you're now asking for more? They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over, expecting different results.

[Bryan]

Fiscally responsible Liberals? That is the funniest thing I've read in weeks. Making huge commitments while leaving the bills unpaid is not responsible. Moving spending off the books is not responsible. Stealing billions from EI is not responsible. leaving the Provinces hanging is not responsible.

[Smallc]

Fiscally responsible Liberals? That is the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

That's because you're a Conservative partisan. The Chretien Liberals were perhaps the most fiscally responsible government we've had.

[August1991]

Chretien didn't HAVE to spend much. It had big majorities and no threats from the opposition. What was the point of spending money on new initiatives? Why bother to even address problems, like the growing gap in health care funding? Who cares? If you're a politician guaranteed re-election you don't have to put a lot of care into anything but your endless vacation planning.

Well, if it takes a majority to rein in government spending, I'm all in favour.

Argus, I would happily elect (said with tongue firmly in cheek) the Hell's Angels to cabinet if it meant that they would spend less.

Because as soon as the Right amalgamated and Chretien saw it as a threat the wallet came out and the promises began flowing. Chretien had, in fact, by the time Martin took over, not only reduced the yearly budget surpluses to zero, but he had committed the federal government to expensive, multi-year programs. Martin came in and promised even more, cranking the money taps even further open.

You mean the Right is responsible for all this government spending?

But thanks for making my point. By all appearances, Chretien and Martin cut government spending.

Unless Quebec gets out. If that were ever to happen. If Quebecers, in a fit of nationalist pique over some great imagined insult, finally decided to leave and form their own little primitive, bankrupt nation state, Canada would once again be governed by majority governments with big surpluses.

Right, it's all Quebec's fault.

Maybe you slept through all those years where Martin's biggest challenge as finance minister was trying to come up with clever accounting tricks to hide the size of the yearly suprluses.

This is a valid point. I wonder how much of the cuts in the 1990s were smoke and mirrors. By all accounts, they were real if far smaller than the Left pretends. In fact, Chretien/Martin simply stopped the growth in government spending.

I miss Cretien too. If you want a fscally responsible socially liberal government, Jack Layton has one waiting in the wings. The New NDP is a lot like the old liberal party, that is why I WAS a Liberal and NOW I AM a New Democrat.

God no. Please not. As Argus asked, what you smoking?

bump

giggle.

Chretien's 38-41% popular vote is only marginally higher than the 36-38% Harper has received in the past two elections, but the results are considerably different because of the location of their support. Having their support concentrated in urban ridings in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal has let the Liberals win a lot more seats than they would have if their support was spread evenly across the country.

So what?

Who cares how or why Chretien/Harper became PM. To me, there is simply one question. I want governments to spend less money. I want a PM (and Finance Minister) who can say NO! So far, Harper and Flaherty keep saying yes. Martin and Chretien had the courage/majority to say no.

Edited May 9, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

Since technically we the people control the Bank Of Canada, why don't we try not charging interest on the national debt. Why would we want to continuously put ourselves into more and more debt.

I may risk a thread highjack but government deficit/debt is not the problem. Government spending is the problem.

MapleLeaf, if you think about this, you'll understand my point.

Forgive me for saying this August but you live in Quebec. Perhaps corruption like this doesn't bother you as much, given that it has been an integral part of Quebec politics since before Duplessis and Bourassa. Quebecers may be more blase about it than those of us in other parts of Canada.

I think you'd find that ONLY Quebecers would share your fantasy! Most of us in the other provinces were totally disgusted with AdScam to the point where the Liberal brand is far weaker outside of Quebec than perhaps at any other time in its history.

WildBill, fair point. But politics is politics. You live with the end result.

And frankly, the most important end result right now is that government spending is growing and no one knows how to stop it. I'm looking for a solution and if a sump pump does the job, I don't care what it looks like or where it is or what it has to do.

They didn't spend wisely - sponsorgate, Shawinigan, A billion misplaced in thr HR department, a blooming bill on the gun registry from 128 million to how many billion now?

If there were a reson for me to want the liberals back it would be there promise to continue the Chretien legacy of doing as little as possible for the Canadian people.

By all accounts, Chretien/Martin spent less than Harper/Flaherty.

I'm originally from Montreal and I admit, there seem to be plenty of Quebecers who share your masochistic loyalty to the Liberal Party.

I may live in Montreal but I don't think anyone on this forum would accuse me of being loyal to teh Liberal Party.

After years of fighting the Liberals over the fiscal imbalance - something the Liberals would not admit to....it was the Conservatives who not only acknowledged the imbalance - they acted on it and sent billions to Quebec and other provinces.

Good point, KISS. Chretien had the courage to say NO and Harper didn't.

We have Paul Martin's fiscal wizardry that offloaded billions onto the provinces by slashing transfer payments for Health and Education - causing Quebec and other provinces to run large deficits to compensate.

I say, "Whatever it takes to reduce government spending."

And during those hard years, Martin also managed to suck some money out of the pockets of workers by keeping EI rates artificially high and funnelling the surplus into general revenues.

The Ei thing is a taxation issue, not a government spending question.

-----

My point in all of this is that I want to reduce government spending. I want to reduce government transfers. I want to reduce government regulation.

I want less government. I want smarter government.

Like it or not, the old Liberal government of Chretien/Martin in fact did this. (They explain in part why Canada is now in good shape compared to Greece and so many other countries.) This Harper government OTOH spends like a drunken sailor.

Edited May 9, 2010 by August1991

[Bryan]

That's because you're a Conservative partisan. The Chretien Liberals were perhaps the most fiscally responsible government we've had.

The Chretien/Martin fiscal management was all smoke and mirrors. They were not even remotely responsible by any marker. They starved the provinces, cut billions from health care, made spending commitments they couldn't keep, gave millions away to Liberal friendly ad agencies, blew billions on programs that were supposed to be self sustaining, stole over $50 billion from EI to create their phoney "surpluses", then turned around and immediately spent all of that surplus on other pet projects.

[Smallc]

They also balanced the books, cut corporate taxes, and indexed federal income tax to inflation, giving Canadians what amounts to the biggest tax break ever. Yes, some departments were starved, but without that pain, we'd be in far worse shape today.

[yarg]

The same liberals that complain about conservative spending were demanding the conservatives spend more on the stimulus package last year and shortly after complained about the deficit, yeah we need more of those liberals..

Edited May 9, 2010 by yarg

[dizzy]

Well, you said that you wanted the provinces to have complete control of healthcare. They already have that, they simply all agree to abide by the Canada Health Act (mostly). Innovation can happen within the act.

FTR I'm quite happy with the healthcare I receive. But I'm also not alone in recognizing that there are problems, some of the more significant surrounding the question of where to find more dollars. The CHA is a framework for easy money and is preventing provinces from making big change. In the end, the shrink in funding that came from the move to the CHST leaves provinces with only one option, which is raising taxes (something Ontario and now Québec have already done, arguably BC as well if you consider the HST). As of today, the only example of large scale change to the status quo on this front came by the supreme court decision that forced Québec's hand on limits to private insurance and practice.

[dizzy]

The same liberals that complain about conservative spending were demanding the conservatives spend more on the stimulus package last year and shortly after complained about the deficit, yeah we need more of those liberals..

When have you seen an opposition party perform differently? Like it or not, this is the nature of accountability in our legislature; the government proposes, the opposition finds holes.

[Handsome Rob]

That's because you're a Conservative partisan. The Chretien Liberals were perhaps the most fiscally responsible government we've had.

In what scope of time? I wasn't alive at the time, but I can't imagine Pearson, Laurier or even Defenbaker being close to as bad as any post-Trudeau government.

[Handsome Rob]

By all accounts, Chretien/Martin spent less than Harper/Flaherty.

How much of that has to do with the size of tax revenue's and economic climate?

How much pressure is being applied to further 'stimulus' spending? Isn't it our present day opposition that has placed consistent pressure on the government to increase budgets?

I agree, I'd elect a lamp post if it cost less, but as of right now I think the Harper government, until the Liberals stop acting like the NDP, is the best bet as fiscal conservatism, not without it's penalties, but nothing is free.

[capricorn]

They also balanced the books, cut corporate taxes, and indexed federal income tax to inflation, giving Canadians what amounts to the biggest tax break ever. Yes, some departments were starved, but without that pain, we'd be in far worse shape today.

Currently, starving departments that actually deliver services benefiting the public should take second place to curtailing discretionary spending. The Conservatives are trying to trim expenditures that won't affect services, like funding ineffective and outdated advocacy groups, and festivals, and all hell breaks loose. We need to get our priorities straight.

[waldo]

How much pressure is being applied to further 'stimulus' spending? Isn't it our present day opposition that has placed consistent pressure on the government to increase budgets?

and even if one were to accept your premise... are you equally accepting that Harper can't/won't say "NO" to more/increased spending? Why can't/won't Harper... just say "NO"?

[Handsome Rob]

and even if one were to accept your premise... are you equally accepting that Harper can't/won't say "NO" to more/increased spending? Why can't/won't Harper... just say "NO"?

Unparalleled partisanship aside, what is the point in having a government if one cannot even get the budget signed?

[waldo]

Unparalleled partisanship aside, what is the point in having a government if one cannot even get the budget signed?

well..... either:

- the Harper Conservatives embraced a "liberal principle" that in bad times governments can reverse economic decline by shoveling money into the private sector... and if the Harper Conservatives willingly took this course, then they simply repudiated fiscal theories they so zealously presume to stand for, rejecting smaller government, opposition to deficits, market economics, etc.

or

- the Harper Conservatives brought forward a so-called "Liberal budget" because it was their only recourse to hold onto power... that for political expedience sake they concluded that the budget was not Conservative worthy, that it was bad for Canada... yet, they brought it in anyway!

which was it?

[Smallc]

FTR I'm quite happy with the healthcare I receive. But I'm also not alone in recognizing that there are problems, some of the more significant surrounding the question of where to find more dollars.

Well that's where I stop even thinking about two tier. No matter what, Canadians are going to pay for healthcare. We might as well take the money and have it benefit everyone rather than just a few if we're going to spend it anyway.

[Smallc]

Currently, starving departments that actually deliver services benefiting the public should take second place to curtailing discretionary spending.

As a percentage of GDP (and possibly spending), the current deficit is much smaller. When the Liberal's cut, they cut everything, from the civil service to the CBC, because there was no other way to find that much money. Canada is a much different place today with a far more solid fiscal framework and a far larger economy. That makes the current situation easier to handle.

[Handsome Rob]

well..... either:

- the Harper Conservatives embraced a "liberal principle" that in bad times governments can reverse economic decline by shoveling money into the private sector... and if the Harper Conservatives willingly took this course, then they simply repudiated fiscal theories they so zealously presume to stand for, rejecting smaller government, opposition to deficits, market economics, etc.

or

- the Harper Conservatives brought forward a so-called "Liberal budget" because it was their only recourse to hold onto power... that for political expedience sake they concluded that the budget was not Conservative worthy, that it was bad for Canada... yet, they brought it in anyway!

which was it?

B, but not without question.

Simply look at the Republican bailouts to the south, is it really a Liberal ideology alone anymore? Others may call it funneling money into the private sector to promptly disappear.

[Argus]

That's because you're a Conservative partisan. The Chretien Liberals were perhaps the most fiscally responsible government we've had.

My position is that while they did do some necesarry cuts in the first years in power, from then on, once the recession ended, they simply coasted. They had no particular desire to do anything, to improve anything, to make life better for Canadians, to prepare for things like the boomers retiring. They were pigs at the trough living the good life without conerns for anyone else. With all that money rolling in, and no particular care or interest in doing anything with it, they certainly did save money. But I give them little credit for that because I don't think financial responsibility was ever their intent. Chretien simply wanted to build up a big bank account so he could use it if he felt the need to buy votes. And the moment he felt that need we saw him spend, spend spend.