95k jobs created in May - unemployment down to 7.1%

[Hudson Jones]

Wow you went back 9 years to one other government. As a percentage of GDP Harper's deficits aren't that bad when you compare them to the early years of Chretien's administration, Mulroney's, Trudeau's, Clark's, and Pearson's.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/canada-deficit/debt.html

Did you even look at the graph you posted?

It must be nice for Bryan that you try to cover his misinformation with a response. The problem with the information in your link is that unlike what Bryan has said: "Proportional to government income, and as a percentage of GDP, current deficits are very low compared to previous governments.", the Harper governments' debt to GDP ratio has been worse than all governments since the 1990's and pretty much similar to the governments before that or worse.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[Newfoundlander]

Did you even look at the graph you posted?

It must be nice for Bryan that you try to cover his misinformation with a response. The problem with the information in your link is that unlike what Bryan has said: "Proportional to government income, and as a percentage of GDP, current deficits are very low compared to previous governments.", the Harper governments' debt to GDP ratio has been worse than all governments since the 1990's and pretty much similar to the governments before that or worse.

Yet you haven't provided proof. You showed a chart that went back to Martin's government, what about Chrétien, Mulroney, Trudeau, Clark, Pearson etc.? Edited June 9, 2013 by Newfoundlander

[CPCFTW]

Did you even look at the graph you posted?

It must be nice for Bryan that you try to cover his misinformation with a response. The problem with the information in your link is that unlike what Bryan has said: "Proportional to government income, and as a percentage of GDP, current deficits are very low compared to previous governments.", the Harper governments' debt to GDP ratio has been worse than all governments since the 1990's and pretty much similar to the governments before that or worse.

Oh look... Another lefty who doesn't understand the difference between debt and deficit trying to tell everyone how bad the economy is under Harper.

[PIK]

It would be very representative if we could show that diagram going back to Pearson't transition to Trudeau. Trudeau went wild with spending - his philosophy WAS to use debt to fulfil his "vision". Mulroney did nothing but tread water over his years and by the time Chretien took over, something had to be done. You may not like the way Chretien and Martin did it - downloading scads to the provinces and refusing to lower EI rates while using the EI surplus as general revenues to pay down debt - BUT they did tame the Federal debt (while adding debt to the Provinces). As the diagram shows, Harper continued managing the debt through 2006-2008 and then we got smacked with the recession. It took almost a decade for Chretien/Martin to do their thing. So now we have another challenge brought on by the global recession. Lets see what this chart looks like in 5 years......or perhaps people would have liked Harper to do what the NDP suggested - spend MORE! Or the Liberals - spend FASTER! I don't recall anyone saying to spend LESS.

Muldoon slow spending right down and set it up for chretien. Did mldoon not post a samll surplus at the end?

[segnosaur]

Keep in mind that I'm a person who voted conservative in the last election...

I do not think that all of the credit should necessarily go to the conservatives, and its quite possible we would have seen job growth had the Liberals or NDP been in power.

So you don't think raising taxes on business would have effected if they hired employees of not?

It might have. Or it might not have. It depends on a lot of factors... how big the tax hike was, if the money were used for needed infrastructure, etc. And even if tax rates did stifle hiring, sometimes a "hot" economy can hide such flaws.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that its impossible for a government's activities to affect the economy; just that sometimes there are factors outside the government's control that can overwhelm its actions... making a good government look bad or a bad government look good.

Like I said... Maybe the conservative policies helped, maybe they were irrelevant, maybe this was just a short term blip. Lets wait things out and see what happens in the next few months.

[segnosaur]

Muldoon slow spending right down and set it up for chretien. Did mldoon not post a samll surplus at the end?

Mulroney did not post an overall surplus during his terms.

He did post an operating surplus... which meant that government revenue exceeded program spending; however, an overall deficit did remain (due in part to things like interest payments.)

[segnosaur]

Even if 95,000 jobs are created, it doesn't mean Harper can take credit. As stated by a previous poster the economy is affected by factors that are outside of government control.

Keep in mind that that's a double-edged sword. Yes, its quite possible that some of the recent economic successes were due to factors outside the government's control... but then, that means its also possible that Chretien's economic "Successes" when the Liberals were in control were likewise due to factors outside their control (such as strong global economic performance, low inflation and interest.)

Besides, with Harper continuing to run up our national debt, even if he does contribute to job growth, our country will eventually head into economic ruin when we can't pay our bills any longer. He's reckless, dangerous, and needs to go.

First of all, you do realize that there has been a global recession within the past few years, don't you? Such an event is going to negatively affect the finances of any country, regardless of the policies of the government in power.

And should I point out that while some of the deficit is due to government stimulus spending, at the time such spending was introduced there was a minority government and the opposition at the time wanted even higher levels of spending. (Its frankly rather strange to say "Party X is overspending, so lets put Party Y in power because they wanted to spend even more") In fact, the NDP wants even more spending, even now with our current deficit:

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2013/03/18/ndp-launches-budget-campaign-with-no-pricetag-attached

Lastly, the rhetoric of "economic ruin" and "not paying our bills any longer" is rather foolish. The deficit (as a percentage of GDP) is lower than it was compared to the last time the Liberals were in power, and far lower than it was at its recent peak in the mind 90s.

[segnosaur]

Where do you get your information from? Because:

Source

First of all, as other posters have pointed out, you only went back as far as 2004... given the fact that you're comparing a relatively strong economy (from the mid 2000s) with one under a rather strong global recession, the comparison isn't exactly a fair one to make.

Secondly, the chart you gave is not the only one out there. The actual deficit can vary greatly, depending on exactly how the deficit is calculated. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt#Calculating_and_projecting_the_debt) your chart has the debt/GDP ration around 85%, while other methods of calculation have it in the 35% range.

It should be noted that the highest debt/GDP ratio in the last few decades (in the 65-70% range) happened in the mid-90s, under the Liberal government. It should also be noted that the last time the Liberals were in power was the mid 2000s, at which point the ration was over 35%. Currently, the ration is under 35%.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/21/graphic-50-years-of-canadian-debt/

[PIK]

Sober second thought, segnosaur for the senate.

[segnosaur]

Sober second thought, segnosaur for the senate.

Nah, it wouldn't work... I actually pay for my own house.

[PIK]

Nah, it wouldn't work... I actually pay for my own house.

Then buy another one.

[Hudson Jones]

Yet you haven't provided proof. You showed a chart that went back to Martin's government, what about Chrétien, Mulroney, Trudeau, Clark, Pearson etc.?

What do you mean yet?

All I needed to do to prove that Bryan lives in a fantasy world where Harper is the master of economy, was by going back one government. He said:

Proportional to government income, and as a percentage of GDP, current deficits are very low compared to previous governments.

Your chart further proved Bryan wrong and showed how Harper's economy sits in the middle of the pack.

[August1991]

Who cares about government debt or deficit? It is government spending that matters, and specifically what politicians/bureaucrats are buying.

A bridge to nowhere, even on Bill Gate's credit card, is still a bridge to nowhere.

[Bryan]

Hudson, your chart didn't even address what I said in any way. It sure didn't refute my point. As CPCFTW pointed out, you're posting charts about debt, not deficit.

Harpers' current annual deficit is 1.4% of GDP and shrinking. The "worst-list" goes as follows:

Harper's worst deficit was 3.6% of GDP In 2009, right when the big stimulus package was rolled out.

Chretien's worst deficit was 5.3% of GDP. He also posted years of 4.8%, and 3.7%

Mulroney's worst deficit was 8.3% of GDP.

Trudeau's worst deficit was 7.9% of GDP.

You have to go back fifty years to find a PM who served a full term who didn't post a worse deficit than Harper (Pearson, 1963, 2.5%)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/canada-deficit/debt.html

[August1991]

You have to go back fifty years to find a PM who served a full term who didn't post a worse deficit than Harper (Pearson, 1963, 2.5%)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/canada-deficit/debt.html

Bryan, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is simply not important.

What matters is government spending and under Harper, federal government spending is larger than at any time in our history, and it's also the highest as a percentage of GDP.

Moreover, federal government regulations are more complex and intrusive. Harper has not reversed this trend.

----

Government spending is hard to measure but Paul Martin apparently reduced federal government spending when he was finance minister. Brian Mulroney in effect reduced government regulation with free trade and the GST.

Harper has achieved nothing like this in his 7 years in power and if anything, he has simply written cheques (on other people's accounts) to "solve problems".

IMV, Harper is a modern Mackenzie King.

Edited June 12, 2013 by August1991

[August1991]

Bump.

[Bryan]

Bryan, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is simply not important.

What matters is government spending

How old are you? You sound like my grandmother: "$200,000 for a house? We only paid $1200 for ours brand new, and we paid CASH dammit!".

Guess what, everything costs more. Everyone makes more too, and everyone pays more taxes. You will always end up spending more. As time goes by more, and more, and more. What MATTERS, is how much you're spending in relation to your assets.

[AlienB]

About 1mil jobs since jan 2010 and 500k since the cpc got a majority in may 2011.

Fyi 1mil is over 5% of our labour force of 19mil.

But let's hand over the reigns to a drama teacher...

work isn't the nation. if there were only economic concerns in parliament this may be a valid comment but the PM doesn't run the Bank of Canada or the businesses that are creating those jobs. The federal government is cutting jobs not making them.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2013/05/06/feds-eliminated-more-than-15000-public-service-jobs-last-year-pco-report/34650

Also they are taxing businesses and people to line their own pockets. They are just funneling money to people they favour it has nothing to do with the economy.

Wake up the social fabric is more important than the economy, the economy runs itself, canada is not a command economy nation. It is a free market capitalist country. The only way the government effects the economy is a question of how much it rapes from rate payers.

Yeah I guess the PM is responsible for the Alberta flood too because his social policies angered god. Thats it right.

Your logic does not compute.

All the policies equate is more and more offloading burdon and hardship on the poor without providing any anti poverty plan.

This is not glorious whatsoever, and they deserve the hell they will be delivered to.

They are strung out on each others appearance and their own selfish cult head games, while the nation festers into apathy and moral abscess. That is not good government it is ignorant and cancerous. Parliament needs to address the nations issues not their own popularity concerns, it is revolting.

Government creates waste by taking money from people, they are not making jobs they are cutting jobs.

STOP YOUR LIES.

Cabinet doesn't work for the public anyway, its all their own interests. Meanwhile they are taking money from your pocket for no work performed for you. They do nothing. Make an appearance in Britain to bad talk the second most powerful nuclear states leader, and insult the opposition of a foreign country? I could do that for free.

Fact is they are leeching off the public, most of the crap they do has no need, and then they hike their own pay rates to executive class. They are out of touch, and just price gouging people. Of course the golden lining is gone now, they are pledging to stop the 50 billion dollar annual debt loan "budgets" so now people will realize they just borrowed money you could have borrowed yourself to be happy. Now you will pay till you die that amount plus interest. CONGRATULATIONS...

400 BILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT LATER... that is 20,000 dollars for everyone.. was that enough to buy you off? Because if you didn't get your $20,000 you got ripped. I'm sure not everyone got a cheque for $20,000 to get those government services they borrowed for. Maybe some people got more, but I'm guessing more people got nothing.

You mean that 1 million people got to do things that didn't need to be done for no economic growth and a downturn in the economy? Isn't that wonderful economic management. Its not the number of people employed its the economic growth, infrastructure development and long term quality of life gains that matter. AND NOT JUST FOR THE PEOPLE WITH THE MONEY, that being the economy is not measure simply by the upper classes wellbeing.. there are other human beings too.

Your take is like waving a bone infront of a dog before you blow its head off. You like bone don't you... come here rover. POW!

That is what they did to the hard working Canadians.. they ruined their future. DEAD.. they are DEAD. None the less one can question how the government has positioned Canadians for the future. We must not fixate on today but rather plan for the future. A government that wants glory while Rome burns will not survive.

Taking money from people while private businesses employ people, is not making jobs, it is taking money. And that is exactly what the charity that is the federal government had to do. Don't try to distort what your dear leader has actually done to Canadians, ROBBED THEM to fund his house, his security, his aircraft, his meals, etc.. that is what he did, don't lie to the public, its not their fault they didn't get a well enough funded education. IF YOU DON"T GET IT THEY UNDER THREAT OF MURDER AND ROBBERY TAKE MONEY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY EMPLOYED, THEN THEY BORROW FROM THE PEOPLE WITH THE PROMISE TO ROB MORE MONEY FROM THE PUBLIC. That isn't making work, that is being more organized than the mob.

HEY if you want a success story, maybe they can "earn money" without robbing people? They need to wake the hell up and realize most people don't want to pay taxes, and they could do without funding the PMs house, security and other concerns. Maybe if the PM wants to be a hero, he can not resort to robbing the public and borrowing money to pay for his own indulgence.

This latest flood is just a further example of how NOT serving the Canadian public the guy is.. he more or less insulted Quebec and the maritimes when the suffered their flood, now he is flying out to Alberta bringing in the military and pandering to them as they are his people. The guy isn't about Canadians, he doesn't know what that means.

Laying any responsibility on the guy for anything synonymous with Canadians is blindness, aside from Failure.

Maybe its better not to be a leader than a BAD LEADER. No one wants the legacy of being the first lemming in line.

Edited June 21, 2013 by AlienB