Debate Winners and Losers

[August1991]

Only need a one word response to this: "MULRONEY"

The federal government deficit ballooned in the early 1980s under Trudeau. This occurred because of a recession, higher Liberal spending and high interest real rates.

Mulroney began the process of controlling the deficit. In the 1980s, this was extremely difficult because interest rates remained relatively high. As Mulroney said, "compound interest will eat you alive". To his credit, he reformed Canada's archaic MST and gave us a modern, federal value-added tax.

What really reduced the federal deficit in the 1990s was sustained economic growth through the 1990s, largely the product of innovations in computers in the US. With inflation clearly under control, interest rates fell to long term historical averages.

The Liberals and Martin reaped the rewards. To his credit, Martin made a concerted effort to control the growth of the federal government in the mid 1990s. He is rightly blamed for reducing transfer payments to the provinces. But this was less draconian than some would suggest.

It has been said that this forum is a right-wing love fest. By defending Mulroney, I hope I'm not going to contribute to that image. There are enough left wing types participating here to tell me I'm wrong. In fact, I consider this forum to be a left-wing love fest. Just goes to show you.

[Black Dog]

I don't think the debate changed many minds. The core support for the parties has long been shored up, a few previously undecideds will decide, and most Canadians will vote with their feet: by putting them on the coffee table and staying home.

On the debate: Harper was, well, Stephen Harper. A suit and a plastic haircut. No emotion, no conviction. certainly did nothing to dispel the fears around him. And he got creamed on the Iraq issue.

Martin: defensive, but scored some good shots (Harper's $50 million black hole and his admission that he could have swept the sponsiorship business under the rug).

Layton: wild and energetic, which he had to be in what the media is framing as a two horse race. Good work on pointing out the essential non-difference between the Liberals and Cons.

Duceppe: I like this guy more the more I see of him. I wonder if we could get a BQ/ND coalition together...

And how many, I wonder, know anything at all about our present foreign policy, or what Canada's been doing and saying abroad, or what others think and say about Canada? A hint. It's not pretty. I said on another thread that Canada's foreign policy is that of a whore, and that pretty much describes it.

Under Harper, we'd not be a whore, but a slut: giving it a way for free. Duceppe's line about not droppping to our knees for our allies was gold.

Do you actually think a Harper government would run a deficit? Please!

Harper might not run a defecit, but he'd slash the hell out of social programs to fill the massive holes in his budget. Harper, it should never be forgotten, is from the school of economic "thought' that would" make government so small as to drown it in a bathtub.

[Goldie]

In my view, despite the denial from media and alot of people on the post Harper scored big time on the numbers. "How can you say you know the numbers? where is the 100 million?" That says it all. It goes to Paul Martin's one perceived strong point, that he was a good finance minister. It takes away the phony 50 billion black hole charge. So the closest thing to a knock out punch was that kick in the nads.

[August1991]

And how many, I wonder, know anything at all about our present foreign policy, or what Canada's been doing and saying abroad, or what others think and say about Canada? A hint. It's not pretty. I said on another thread that Canada's foreign policy is that of a whore, and that pretty much describes it.

Under Harper, we'd not be a whore, but a slut: giving it a way for free. Duceppe's line about not droppping to our knees for our allies was gold.

Argus started this whore thing about Canada's foreign policy. Now he's on to "what people abroad think of us".

Then we get BD saying that Harper will turn us into a slut.

WTF?

Most people in the world know Iceland or Finland as well as they know Canada, and they care as much.

IOW, we are boringly irrelevant. At most, people think of Canada as being "one of those nice places you never hear about". Outside of Canada, how many know there's a federal election now? Am I missing something here?

[Argus]

Martin: defensive, but scored some good shots (Harper's $50 million black hole and his admission that he could have swept the sponsiorship business under the rug).

He only scored points with people who didn't have any knowledge on the issues. He could have swept it under the rug? And how was he going to do that after that devestating report from the AG? And don't tell me he didn't try. He had his pet seals on the comittee slow everything down and then cut the hearings short well before they could find out who was responsible. That's not exactly trying to get to the bottom of things.

And Harper's so-called $50b deficit is fairly easy to explain - except that Martin wouldn't shut up long enough for him to do so. It's $50b over five years, remember, so that's ten billion per year. If Harper slows current government growth plans from 7% to 4% that alone will save $4.5b per year.

See how easy it is?

And how many, I wonder, know anything at all about our present foreign policy, or what Canada's been doing and saying abroad, or what others think and say about Canada? A hint. It's not pretty. I said on another thread that Canada's foreign policy is that of a whore, and that pretty much describes it.

Under Harper, we'd not be a whore, but a slut: giving it a way for free. Duceppe's line about not droppping to our knees for our allies was gold.

What we've seen from the Liberals has been a deliberate attempt to cozy up to anti-American bigots, and it has cost us big time, with a barely civil relationship with the American government. All Harper is proposing is we stop antagonizing the Americans and start behaving as though we're their friends and allies, not the goddam French. The only people who have a real problem with that are people who despise the United States.

[Black Dog]

It's $50b over five years, remember, so that's ten billion per year. If Harper slows current government growth plans from 7% to 4% that alone will save $4.5b per year.

See how easy it is?

And the remaining $6 billion will come from...where?

The $50 billion figure is from Cons' claim they will cap the rate of spending increases at 2.9% per annum over the next five years. Of course, that doesn't account for increasing program costs (like health care, where costs are increasing across the board), increased spending and decreased revenues that a Conservative government would bring in and is based on a wildly optimistic surplus estimates.

And Harper has an economics degree?!

All Harper is proposing is we stop antagonizing the Americans and start behaving as though we're their friends and allies, not the goddam French.

Anti-French bigot!

Harper would have had Canadian soldiers coming back from Iraq in metal boxes. He'd turn our military into a U.S. proxy force, loaded with expensive gadgets that will enhance our ability to jump when Harper's masters say so.

This has nothing to do with "anti-Americanism" (whatever that means) and everything to do with Harper's idealogical alignment.

[Analyst]

Harper Resents Quebec and doen't even get along with the PQ so I think he should not be Prime Minister-He is a Great Deceiver-He is no Economic Genious!

[Argus]

It's $50b over five years, remember, so that's ten billion per year. If Harper slows current government growth plans from 7% to 4% that alone will save $4.5b per year.

See how easy it is?

And the remaining $6 billion will come from...where?

Perhaps he'll simply steal less than the Liberals did?

As to the other $5.5b, well, I understand he has plans to slash spending in the area of "economic development" which for years has been synonymous with "pork". Something over $17b per year go into these various "regional economic development" funds and agencies, the greater part of it wasted with temporary make work schemes and subsidies to companies which don't need them. Then there's millions and millions wasted in a vast variety of grants from HRDC, Public Works, Heritage, and what not; paying for festivals, parades, canoe museums, blonde joke books, golf course refurbishment, payoffs to hotel owners - I think it was an HRDC grant which built that big fountain in Shawinigan, though I'm not sure who paid to convert the steel mill to an art gallery - but I digress, studies of the mating habits of sea cows, vast overpaid advertising schemes, roads in the middle of nowhere, building private docks, refurbishing private airports for rich people, loaning and guaranteeing loans in a wide variety of schemes, most of which never get paid back. Then there's the incredibly costly Indian Affairs department, which manages to spend bililons while natives live in squalor, and all those hundreds and hundreds of political appointees getting big fat salaries to sit on the boarsd of all those government agencies and commisions - most of them doing nothing of value and knowing nothing of value. And God knows what else.

And why the F*ck should I be paying to build up Toronto's waterfront anyway? I know Martin's no more likely to come through on this promise than his previous one, but WHY should my money build up Toronto's waterfront? Let the people who live there build their own damn waterfront.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why the federal government uses our taxes for so many bloody stupid things? That's my money, and while I'm no anarchist, and I want the government to do its basic job well, why on Earth should they fritter away my money on programs, large and small, which, for the most part, are none of their business nor mine? Remember Alan Rocks' stupid promise to spend a billion on bringing internet to the boonies? Why the hell would he think the feds should pay for that? Sheila Copps gave $500m to arts groups to get them to pull for her leadership chances. If I want art I'll pay for what I want, and like, myself. Remember them paying $100m for a pair of jets we didn't need from Bombardier? How about the overpriced crap CIDA buys from liberal connected companies and then gives away overseas? How about asking why we give foreign aid to countries like India and China, which spend billions on nuclear weapons?

Have you ever looked at those trust foundations Martin established? He's socked something like $10b into them in the last five years, hiding it from the books so his surplus didn't look too big. Almost none of it has been spent yet. And oh by the way, what about that $45b EI surplus?

I'm fairly confident that, with reasonable efforts, the Tories can find oodles of waste to cut without affecting needed and neccessary government programs.

Harper would have had Canadian soldiers coming back from Iraq in metal boxes.

Or not. Australia has had 2,000 troops there the whole time without one casualty. We have, however, had deaths in Afghanistan.

He'd turn our military into a U.S. proxy force, loaded with expensive gadgets that will enhance our ability to jump when Harper's masters say so.

You mean like bullet proof vests? Like trucks that have armor and armored personnel carriers that aren't forty years old? Helicopters that aren't rusting out and aircraft which aren't museum pieces? If you people want to keep sending men and women overseas then we damned well have to equip them properly.

[Argus]

Harper Resents Quebec and doen't even get along with the PQ so I think he should not be Prime Minister-He is a Great Deceiver-He is no Economic Genious!

How do you know he resents Quebec? And just which party DOES get along with the PQ?

And if he did get along with the PQ you'd be accusing him of playing up to separatists.

[noelandmero]

Well I have never posted to this site before and have only been reading the post since the election was called. First I would like to congradulate a number of people on this site for truly debating issues rather than just name calling although that does seem to be on the increase.

Anyway I would like to point out to some of the people who seem to think the NDP is the answer and that Harper is the devil. If Canada continues to swing to the left you will have more and more people like me who vote not with there pen but with there feet. I got my education virtually free of charge thanks to the U of A and the Canadian tax payer and then moved to USA to setup a private practice. 25 % of my clientel are Canadian expats who could do better for themselves and there families here. They are all educated professionals. The decision to leave youre home is not one taken lightly; Especially as Canadian politicians would have you believe that the poor here are dying in the streets and that everyone owns an ak-47 which they shoot in the street.

That is not actually the case and it is getting easier to leave as the difference in possible standard of living is growing making the vote with youre feet decision simpler. I think maybe you should evaluate the reality of Canada's situation which is that the US is next door like it or not. If Canada becomes north america's Sweden the educated tax paying middle class will leave and then were are the tax dollars for the programs going to come from. Comunism on paper looks great but in the real world you get cuba and russia.

[Reverend Blair]

Ummm....how can you blame the NDP for your personal (and I think misguided) choice to move south? They've never been in power in Canada.

More than that, what's wrong with us just being Canada. Why are you saying we have to make a choice between being like the US or being like Sweden?

The truth is that most Canadians do not have a "practice." Most Canadians have jobs and have seen those jobs disappear under the same sort of policies that Harper is presently proposing. The people who have jobs that haven't disappeared have seen their real wage be eroded, the social services that are supposed to help them disappear, and the environment they must live and work in become slowly more poisonous.

Harper is offering more of the same at an ever-increasing rate.

[noelandmero]

I don't think Canada has to chose between being the US or Sweden but if all the left advocates is creating more programs and spending more money on them Canada will soon become Sweden. I loved living in alberta aside from the fact that the weather sucks and I don't think the we need to become the US either. I do think we need to make the programs we have work better with out costing more money so that we can lower taxes for everyone. After all most the canadians that live here have jobs not business and they pay alot more than they do in canada thats why they moved. As for me I think Canada would have been better served if the small buisness environment was a little more friendly so I was employing Canadians and not americans. If you see youre wage being eroded why rely on the goverment to do anything for you move south do somethiung for youreself. Trust me American companies love to hire Canadians as they are the harder working and better educated than just about anybody.

[August1991]

Goldie, on reflection, I think you're right:

"How can you say you know the numbers? where is the 100 million?" That says it all.

I recall hearing this in the debate but it was wedged among so many scattered voices on top of voices that I thought it would just be lost.

But recall Harper's raised tone of sarcasm when he said "You say you know the numbers!"

I have now heard several times this clip on radio and TV. It is definitive.

Most people don't listen to debates anymore. But they do listen to the highlights. This apparently was the key one.

To see the "Know the Numbers" clip, go here and choose the four-way debate video clip (at the bottom of the screen) that lasts 7:30. The exchange occurs about 2:20 in.