Who is worse: Ignatieff or Harper?

[Handsome Rob]

So is this. The net results look terrible, but Harper has accrued nearly half the debt in dollars as Trudeau in a 1/3rd of the time.

No argument from me.

I suspect that a Liberal government would run up larger numbers, but that doesn't believe it by default.

I also don't believe exchanging a Conservative minority, Con/Lib de facto coalition for a Liberal minority, Lib/Con de facto coalition is going to make a semblance of change fiscally, so for me personally, voting will continue to be influenced by the local MP candidate.

[DrGreenthumb]

No argument from me.

I suspect that a Liberal government would run up larger numbers, but that doesn't believe it by default.

I also don't believe exchanging a Conservative minority, Con/Lib de facto coalition for a Liberal minority, Lib/Con de facto coalition is going to make a semblance of change fiscally, so for me personally, voting will continue to be influenced by the local MP candidate.

Time for Canadians to try a different option and vote in an NDP government. At least the spending will be aimed at the people who need it not simply funeled into the bank accounts of the already wealthy.

[nicky10013]

More like 17% of the debt in 1/3 the time.

After adjusting for inflation:

Trudeau debt 70-84: 287 billion in 2010 dollars

Harper debt 07-12: 48 billion in 2010 dollars

And yet, the question of the relevance of thigns from the trudeau era goes unanswered. Why is that when people point out Harper's deficit they reply with things that happened 30 years ago which make this spending alright? Doesn't make sense to me.

[nicky10013]

No argument from me.

I suspect that a Liberal government would run up larger numbers, but that doesn't believe it by default.

I also don't believe exchanging a Conservative minority, Con/Lib de facto coalition for a Liberal minority, Lib/Con de facto coalition is going to make a semblance of change fiscally, so for me personally, voting will continue to be influenced by the local MP candidate.

I don't think they would. It's a fact that Liberal fiscal policy between Trudeau and Chretien underwent a massive shift. The Liberals left the country with the best economic numbers in the nations history. What did we get in return? A guy who screwed it up in epic fashion.

[Handsome Rob]

I don't think they would. It's a fact that Liberal fiscal policy between Trudeau and Chretien underwent a massive shift. The Liberals left the country with the best economic numbers in the nations history. What did we get in return? A guy who screwed it up in epic fashion.

Not yet prepared to completely throw him to the wolves, Economic climate has a very large role to play. Pretty on par.

Not to mention when you peg deficit VS revenue, well we shouldn't forget that quickly,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-canada-shouldnt-strut-on-the-global-stage/article1630573/

In the mid-1990s, international bond markets held a knife to Ottawa’s throat because of too many years of big deficits. We had reached a tipping point. In response, the government of the day set fairly modest deficit reduction targets – 3 per cent of GDP, to be precise – not an original idea, but one appropriated from the European Union.

And then the cutting started, modestly at first, aggressively later. Then dumb luck came along. After years of sluggish growth, the U.S. economy started firing on all cylinders, dragging us along for the ride, filling government coffers with unanticipated revenue. Presto, a modest deficit target becomes a balanced budget in three years.

That, in a nutshell, is Canada’s recipe for countries that seek to eliminate their deficits. It can be summed up in seven words: Cut deep and pray for good luck.

This doesn't mean I approve of Harper, but to unilaterally blame him for all the money flowing out....?

[nicky10013]

Not yet prepared to completely throw him to the wolves, Economic climate has a very large role to play. Pretty on par.

Not to mention when you peg deficit VS revenue, well we shouldn't forget that quickly,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-canada-shouldnt-strut-on-the-global-stage/article1630573/

This doesn't mean I approve of Harper, but to unilaterally blame him for all the money flowing out....?

We were in deficit before the recession began. Furthermore, for an economist, he sure didn't see it coming...either that or he lied. He called an election in 2008 specifically to get ahead of the issue because he knew it would be much easier before the recession than afterwards. The entire campaign was predicated on things were fine and we wouldn't be so much as scathed by the global downturn because our banks were fine. When the recession did hit, he was forced into stimulus and dragged his feet. Even though the program was announced in February, by late 2009 only 13% of the money had got out to municipalities that requested funding. He couldn't prevent the recession. No one can deny that. He could've made it a lot easier for a lot more people. He didn't.

[Handsome Rob]

We were in deficit before the recession began. Furthermore, for an economist, he sure didn't see it coming...either that or he lied. He called an election in 2008 specifically to get ahead of the issue because he knew it would be much easier before the recession than afterwards. The entire campaign was predicated on things were fine and we wouldn't be so much as scathed by the global downturn because our banks were fine. When the recession did hit, he was forced into stimulus and dragged his feet. Even though the program was announced in February, by late 2009 only 13% of the money had got out to municipalities that requested funding. He couldn't prevent the recession. No one can deny that. He could've made it a lot easier for a lot more people. He didn't.

Okay so which is it? You're pissed at him for squandering the money? Or not doling it out fast enough? That's a pretty rapid position change.

[nicky10013]

Okay so which is it? You're pissed at him for squandering the money? Or not doling it out fast enough? That's a pretty rapid position change.

In the situation we were in, not doling it out fast enough was squandering it. Now we've added another 60 billion in debt and for what?

[Smallc]

So close to 60 billion is meaningless? Right...

It's meaningless when you talk bout it out of context, yes.

[nicky10013]

It's meaningless when you talk bout it out of context, yes.

Who is taking it out of context? Surely not I. I'm not the one who brought up Trudeau and his deficits in the first place. It's the CPC lovers who would rather focus on the policies of yesteryear than the problems of today.

[Smallc]

Dollar figures are really quite meaningless when comparing deficits of yesterday to deficits of today. That's why the Trudeau numbers are important.

[nicky10013]

Dollar figures are really quite meaningless when comparing deficits of yesterday to deficits of today. That's why the Trudeau numbers are important.

No they aren't. Not in the least. I asked how people could view Harper as fiscally responsible, the result was to trott out Trudeau. What does Harper's record have ANYTHING to do with Trudeau? Of course other than the fact that Conservatives just don't want to hear what a terrible job the PM is doing fiscally so they bring up old demons that have no relevance to the current debate.

[Wild Bill]

Also, why the harsh anti-intellectualism? I hate to break it to you, but the stuff you learn in university, all those theories that have nothing to do with the real world, are based on what happens in the real world. There are some people who graduate from University who can extrapolate those theories to what's going on today and there are some who can't, but the requisite of being someone who teaches the material is that you have to understand. I never had one professor who didn't. Which makes me think that you've never met any or you simply didn't understand what they were talking about. What professors talk about seems overly complicated because the world is overly complicated. Things are never black and white yet the people who claim that university professors don't know anything seem to be the people who can only understand simple dichotomies to begin with.

Perhaps you're right. I do tend to be a bit harsh towards academia. It's based solely on my own experience. I remember a certain poli-sci prof at McMaster way back when. It was obvious that he was an extreme socialist and unless you agreed with him you would fail, pure and simple!

The rest comes from my work experience. I worked in the high tech field and during the early 80's we saw the birth of the MBA, or Master of Business Arts. Two of the companies I worked for hired a bunch of these graduates and they promptly put the companies into bankruptcy! I watched it happen and noted the commonalities. These fellows really thought that their academic experience was superior to any real world experience of incumbent employees. In some areas this was actually true! The problem was that every business has its own details and these guys failed to recognize that. They leaned on examples and models from their textbooks. Most of these came from the automotive industry. However, much of what these models promoted was dead wrong for our electronic parts distribution industry! It cost our profitability dearly and eventually we all had to find jobs somewhere else. It got so that it became SOP for those of us working in that industry to take note if our companies hired an excessive number of these MBA's and start sending out our resumes. I'm NOT exaggerating!

I have some good friends who are profs who bucked the "establishment" of their universities. They seemed to be very "real world" to me and VERY good at explaining many concepts! All of them had problems getting along with their superiors and two of them were denied tenure.

I don't maintain that ALL academics are not "real world" but I do maintain that there is a high percentage. It's human nature to believe that just because you are intelligent, articulate AND you've read the book you are if not an expert, very close! When you actually have to DO a task is when you discover the details virtually always negate many of your preconceptions!

[Topaz]

What if we started all over again and gave the Feds less responsibility? They could handle the military, the mint, some things on the banks. Cut Fed income tax in half, the other half goes to the provinces, who take over taxes, healthcare, all social programs and divide the national debt up into povinces and territories. Would we need the house of comons or the senate? If not, money saved. The remaining part of the Feds would be run like a corporation. Thoughts? Ideas? Bad Idea?