Jerry J. Fortin Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 So you're a fiscal conservative? Does anybody really know any "fiscal conservative" politicians? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Don't get me wrong, being a VERY PROUD CANADIAN, I'll still be voting Liberal, as I've done since Diefenbaker when he, at the behest of his American puppet masters, scrapped the Avro Arrow... Yup, I'm a PEARSON/TRUDEAU Liberal... Wait a second... you're a "Trudeau Liberal", even though he managed to take the debt load from $19 billion to $172 billion? Who had a budget surplus in his first few years, and left with a huge deficit, which he ran for over a decade? And yet you criticize Harper for running a deficit at a time when there is a global recession? Wow, just, wow. Does your hypocrisy know any bounds? Regardless of what I say or do it will make not one bit of difference whenever the next election comes about; unless an apathetic, mostly STUPID and ignorant... I see.. So the Canadian public is "stupid and ignorant". So what exactly are you proud of then? Oh, and by the way, its the same basic population base that also elected Chretien and Trudeau. Still think people were 'stupid and ignorant' then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Again, right on the money (in more ways than one)... A good "money point" would be Paul Martin... He was GREAT when it came to matters involving Canada's economy and managing Canada's finances... Ummm.. no. When Martin became finance minister, he inherited a budget surplus, plus the global economy was robust and interest rates were low. A brain damaged monkey could have balanced the budget under those conditions. He could have sat with his thumbs up his butt for the first term or two and the deficit still would have been eliminated. I explained all this to you before. (Of course your only response was "Brian Mulroneey was a poo-poo head" or something along those lines.) About the only major thing that Martin did right (and that I give him credit for) is revamping the CPP, but that has nothing to do with his reputation for "managing Canada's finances". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1ninja Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) Ummm.. no. When Martin became finance minister, he inherited a budget surplus, plus the global economy was robust and interest rates were low. A brain damaged monkey could have balanced the budget under those conditions. He could have sat with his thumbs up his butt for the first term or two and the deficit still would have been eliminated. I explained all this to you before. (Of course your only response was "Brian Mulroneey was a poo-poo head" or something along those lines.) About the only major thing that Martin did right (and that I give him credit for) is revamping the CPP, but that has nothing to do with his reputation for "managing Canada's finances". It seems, Ireland couldn't find a brain damaged monkey. (With interest rates that low, a lot of other heads of state thought it was free money time.) Edited March 11, 2011 by no1ninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 When Martin became finance minister, he inherited a budget surplus, plus the global economy was robust and interest rates were low. A brain damaged monkey could have balanced the budget under those conditions. It seems, Ireland couldn't find a brain damaged monkey. (With interest rates that low, a lot of other heads of state thought it was free money time.) The main difference between the Chretien years and the current situation in Ireland is that, as I pointed out before, Chretien came in at a period where there was a strong expanding economy. For example, if you look at the 1993-2003 growth period, the U.S. economy (GDP) grew by around 40%. (Now, why am I using the U.S. economy here instead of Canada's? I'm doing so as a way to show that the growth had nothing to do with Chretien.) That works out to an expansion of 4-5% per year on average. That means more Canadian exports, more jobs, and more importantly, more tax revenue. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230 On the other hand, the situation in Ireland coincided with a global economic slowdown. Still, don't really see why the situation in Ireland is relevant though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1ninja Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) The main difference between the Chretien years and the current situation in Ireland is that, as I pointed out before, Chretien came in at a period where there was a strong expanding economy. For example, if you look at the 1993-2003 growth period, the U.S. economy (GDP) grew by around 40%. (Now, why am I using the U.S. economy here instead of Canada's? I'm doing so as a way to show that the growth had nothing to do with Chretien.) That works out to an expansion of 4-5% per year on average. That means more Canadian exports, more jobs, and more importantly, more tax revenue. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230 On the other hand, the situation in Ireland coincided with a global economic slowdown. Still, don't really see why the situation in Ireland is relevant though. It's relevant because Martin had a lot of pressure by groups urging him to spend that surplus on social programs and commercial economic stimulation. Being a tightwad, he did not. In Ireland they did just that. They spent money they did not have. They were booming for a while, fastest growing economy in Europe. I guess you can say the "global recession stopped" them... as if they had sustainable policies, lol, they contributed to this "global economic slowdown" you attribute as their unpredictable demise. Edited March 11, 2011 by no1ninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 It's relevant because Martin had a lot of pressure by groups urging him to spend that surplus on social programs and commercial economic stimulation. Yes he did. But guess what? The point is, he had a surplus, and he had one with little or no effort. Being a tightwad, he did not. Actually, he wasn't quite the tightwad as you might think. For example, under Martin and the Liberals you had: - The Millennium scholarship program (multi-billion dollar program) - Canadian Gun registry (1-2 billion) - Quebec sponsorship program (multi-million dollars) And it is true that they did cut other spending, but many of their spending cuts were in things like health car, things many Canadians would think perhaps shouldn't be cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 So you're a fiscal conservative? Yup, pretty much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 Yes he did. But guess what? The point is, he had a surplus, and he had one with little or no effort. YOU are an IDIOT! Remarks by Gordon Thiessen Governor of the Bank of Canada to the Canadian Club of Toronto Toronto, Ontario 22 January 2001 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Just as I believe that the restructuring in our private sector in the 1990s was impressive, I also think that Canadian governments (federal and provincial) responded forcefully and effectively in the mid-1990s to the need to cut fiscal deficits and slow down the accumulation of public sector debt. The overall government sector moved from a total deficit of close to $45 billion or 6 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1995, to a balanced position in 1997 and 1998, and to surpluses thereafter. Moreover, net public debt as a ratio of GDP fell from close to 104 per cent in the fiscal year 1995/96 to an estimated 80 per cent in 1999/2000. That is some adjustment! - READ all of it if you have that capability, if not have your parents read it to you... YOU know NOTHING about how hard the Chretien/Martin Government had to work to make Canada a VIABLE Country again... In ADDITION to having elements of Canada trying to tear Canada apart... TOUGH TIMES require TOUGH MEASURES, but then you wouldn't know about that would you, even though I've shown you over and over how TOTALLY WRONG you are about EVERYTHING you've posted... Go away, your constant STUPIDITY is annoying and boring... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 SCANDALS CENTRAL Add your VOTE(s) and be heard... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 12, 2011 Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 YOU know NOTHING about how hard the Chretien/Martin Government had to work to make Canada a VIABLE Country again... International investors saw Canada for what it was. So our dollars start to slip all the way to 62 cents. Despite the benefit of (Mulroney's) GST, Liberals robbed the E.I. and stashed it into general revenue, decimated national defence AND increased national debt. And those were the economic good times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2011 International investors saw Canada for what it was. So our dollars start to slip all the way to 62 cents. Despite the benefit of (Mulroney's) GST, Liberals robbed the E.I. and stashed it into general revenue, decimated national defence AND increased national debt. And those were the economic good times. Having a little reading difficulty tonight I see... Give your head a shake a few TIMES and it may clear up... If not make an urgent appointment with your doctor... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2011 International investors saw Canada for what it was. So our dollars start to slip all the way to 62 cents. Wasn't too bad for me 'cause I was getting US dollars at the TIME, meaning a 56% (it cost $1.56 cdn = $1 US at it's worst) instant PROFIT on every dollar I got... Thanks to lyin' Brian MORONey I did OK, other Canadians, not so much... When lyin' Brian put Canada into debt to the tune of 104% of GDP is it surprising Canada's "credit rating" was less than stellar? To get this thread back on track, it's certainly something Canadians may want to think about when they take to the polls the next TIME... We alraedy KNOW where the Harper regime will take us... He SURPASSED lyin' Brian's old RECORD of $43 BILLION deficit spending setting a NEW RECORD of $56 BILLION just last year... Being $26 BILLION "off" (short) on Harper's last "budget" doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the upcoming one, regardless of what Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will have to say... just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Today in the NEWS: RCMP asked to probe Conservative aide Harper government's ad buy costs taxpayers $26M also - To those who think that Mr. Ignatieff wants to support paying for "arenas" for professional sports, why don't you take the time to read what he REALLY said on the subject? I can't find anything he said about building an arena for a professional hockey team, but he did say that he was open to the idea of building public centers that would be used as cultural centers also, not just in Quebec, but anywhere in Canada. Don't just read the headlines and take them as some wierd truth. Some headlines don't have anything resembling the story content. Wanna guess which "news item" tops the "media"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 SCANDALS CENTRAL Add your VOTE(s) and be heard... Hmmm, no takers? Scared what you may find? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Yes he did. But guess what? The point is, he had a surplus, and he had one with little or no effort. YOU are an IDIOT! Ummm... you do know that my discussion of the surplus was as part of a discussion with no1ninja regarding in comparing the situations in Ireland and Canada. Remarks by Gordon Thiessen Congratulations... you can quote other people's opinions. But guess what? just because Thiessen has an opinion does not necessarily mean that that opinion is correct, or that it is describing the complete story. Thiessen is not here to answer any challenges to his claims, nor is he here to provide any clarification that might be needed. As such, neither you nor I can say how much of the deficit elimination was due to Chretien's work and how much was due to dumb luck. In short, if you can't prove your own point using basic facts, resorting to another's opinions is not any more convincing. YOU know NOTHING about how hard the Chretien/Martin Government had to work to make Canada a VIABLE Country again. Yes I do. The fact that I don't view their "efforts" as significant does not mean "I don't know". It means that I've looked at, you know, the facts (which of course I've provided references for) and based my opinions on that. Fact: The conservatives left power with an operating surplus Fact: The largest contributor to the debt at that point was interest payments on the debt Fact: Global interest rates dropped significantly when Chretien was in power, reducing the interest payments Fact: The global economy expanded strongly throughout much of Chretien's years as PM, giving him more tax revenue to work with .. In ADDITION to having elements of Canada trying to tear Canada apart... The Parti Quebecois first came to power when Trudeau was in power. Hmmm... yet you once called yourself a "Trudeau Liberal". Oh, and by the way, many of the same "elements trying to tear Canada apart" were also around when Mulroney was in power. Or do you think all Quebec Separatists just disappeared for those years? TOUGH TIMES require TOUGH MEASURES.... Does that include spending billions on a Scolarship program that possibly oversteps the bounds of Provincial jurisdiction? Does that include spending a billion on a gun registry program? Does that include spending millions on a sponsorship program? Go away, your constant STUPIDITY is annoying and boring... Here's a suggestion... if you're bored of me correcting all your mistakes, then perhaps you should actually, you know, research your facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Ummm... you do know that my discussion of the surplus was as part of a discussion with no1ninja regarding in comparing the situations in Ireland and Canada. Congratulations... you can quote other people's opinions. But guess what? just because Thiessen has an opinion does not necessarily mean that that opinion is correct, or that it is describing the complete story. Thiessen is not here to answer any challenges to his claims, nor is he here to provide any clarification that might be needed. As such, neither you nor I can say how much of the deficit elimination was due to Chretien's work and how much was due to dumb luck. In short, if you can't prove your own point using basic facts, resorting to another's opinions is not any more convincing. Yes I do. The fact that I don't view their "efforts" as significant does not mean "I don't know". It means that I've looked at, you know, the facts (which of course I've provided references for) and based my opinions on that. Fact: The conservatives left power with an operating surplus Fact: The largest contributor to the debt at that point was interest payments on the debt Fact: Global interest rates dropped significantly when Chretien was in power, reducing the interest payments Fact: The global economy expanded strongly throughout much of Chretien's years as PM, giving him more tax revenue to work with The Parti Quebecois first came to power when Trudeau was in power. Hmmm... yet you once called yourself a "Trudeau Liberal". Oh, and by the way, many of the same "elements trying to tear Canada apart" were also around when Mulroney was in power. Or do you think all Quebec Separatists just disappeared for those years? Does that include spending billions on a Scolarship program that possibly oversteps the bounds of Provincial jurisdiction? Does that include spending a billion on a gun registry program? Does that include spending millions on a sponsorship program? Here's a suggestion... if you're bored of me correcting all your mistakes, then perhaps you should actually, you know, research your facts. I'm quite sure that never in the annals of MLW has one person posted so much false and totally uninformed "information" in one long post... Especially with not a single "fact" presented by you... Unbelievably STUPID is being way too kind in describing you... Have a nice day... (Oh and thanks for another good laugh at your expense...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'm quite sure that never in the annals of MLW has one person posted so much false and totally uninformed "information" in one long post... Here's a suggestion... If you think I'm wrong about something give a reference to the correct information. And when I say 'reference', I am referring to an unbiased source from a mainstream outlet, not a wikipedia 'opinion', and not some opinion piece by someone who is giving no facts/information to verify. The fact that you do not do so, and spend more time running around engaging in personal attacks should be a pretty good indication that you've lost the debate. (Actually, you're looking more and more like Charlie Sheen... "Winning". Next thing you know you'll be a warlock flying an F18 deploying your ordinances of truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Here's a suggestion... If you think I'm wrong about something give a reference to the correct information. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18166&view=findpost&p=638362 What part didn't you understand? (silly question isn't it ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
segnosaur Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18166&view=findpost&p=638362 What part didn't you understand? (silly question isn't it ) Already dealt with in my previous posts: From post 116: Thiessen is not here to answer any challenges to his claims, nor is he here to provide any clarification that might be needed. As such, neither you nor I can say how much of the deficit elimination was due to Chretien's work and how much was due to dumb luck. In short, if you can't prove your own point using basic facts, resorting to another's opinions is not any more convincing. From post 118: if you think I'm wrong about something give a reference to the correct information. And when I say 'reference', I am referring to an unbiased source from a mainstream outlet, not a wikipedia 'opinion', and not some opinion piece by someone who is giving no facts/information to verify. I highlighted the most important parts, since you seem to have a problem reading things. (It happened when you were quoting the article about the summit costs, where you ignored information in your own reference that debunked your argument, and it appears to be happening here.) So, once again, point out the actual information that was wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 Harper think the opposition parties are playing a political games and that they don't care about the economy as he does. Really. Hasn't it sunk into his brain that his government is being charge with contempt of Parliament, including Bev Oda? What arrogance this PM has, that in his view its not a good time for an election but it was a good time for the two elections he called and the two times he prorogue Parliament to stop them. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-links-japanese-quake-opposition-threat-of-snap-election/article1943122/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 “All of these things should remind everyone, should remind everybody in Canada, should remind all the parties in Parliament, that the global economy remains extremely fragile. It does not take very much to make us all, not just in Canada and the United States but all around the world, very worried,” he said. “The fact of the matter is this should be a wake-up call that we cannot afford to take our focus off the economy to get into a bunch of unnecessary political games or, as I said, an opportunistic or unnecessary election that nobody was asking for.” Harper made this statement after reflecting on the devastation in Japan, how our hearts and thoughts are with the Japanese people. I think what he said about the economy is bang on....it's simply stating how things are. It's been often stated that Canadians are content with a minority government - one that seems to hold the Conservatives in check, so to speak. Yet the opposition would risk an election that Canadians don't want, that would potentially put the economy at risk, and yet - it would seem that the only outcome would be a similar Parliament or a Conservative majority. Go figure....but what he said was accurate and appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 Harper made this statement after reflecting on the devastation in Japan, how our hearts and thoughts are with the Japanese people. I think what he said about the economy is bang on....it's simply stating how things are. It's been often stated that Canadians are content with a minority government - one that seems to hold the Conservatives in check, so to speak. Yet the opposition would risk an election that Canadians don't want, that would potentially put the economy at risk, and yet - it would seem that the only outcome would be a similar Parliament or a Conservative majority. Go figure....but what he said was accurate and appropriate. How would an election put the economy at risk again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 [T]he two times he prorogue Parliament to stop [elections]. Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 How would an election put the economy at risk again? Indeed...such an odd notion...that a democratic election represents "risk". Is it the money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.