One of the reasons I won't be voting for Harper: Economic record

[ironstone]

It was mentioned in the post you partly quoted:

When the Asian financial crisis pulled oil prices down in 1998, oil production accounted for about 3 per cent of GDP. Today, it accounts for nearly 9 per cent, CIBC's data shows.

The Harper government has had the lowest annual growth in exports:

Average Annual Growth in Real Exports: 0.3% - Worst

Every economic statistic shows that his economic record should not be the reason one should vote for him.

Should any of the blame be placed with the provincial leaders for this time period as well?Is Stephen Harper entirely to blame for the sad state that Ontario is in?I know low oil prices are really hurting Alberta now,but Quebec has a more diversified economy than Alberta,and they are a perpetual have-not province.What's their excuse?

I still plan to vote Conservative because the alternatives are much worse and I don't relish the tax hikes and return to deficits we will get from Mulcair or Trudeau.

[Argus]

No, deficits. Heard of them? Only one of the G7 still struggling with them. I thought Harper said he was a.....economist wasn't it?

Sorry, what? Every one of the G7 is running a bigger deficit than Canada. Where the hell did you hear otherwise?

[Argus]

He gave a lot of it to large corps. He gave "us" 130 billion more debt load.

Citation request.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sorry, what? Every one of the G7 is running a bigger deficit than Canada. Where the hell did you hear otherwise?

No, we are the only one in recession.

[Argus]

No, we are the only one in recession.

That's not what you said. You said we were the only one with a deficit.

The mini recession is gone by now anyway.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's not what you said. You said we were the only one with a deficit.

The mini recession is gone by now anyway.

Oh we hope it's gone, but somehow I doubt it. I reckon it's still there due to even worse oil price forecasts and the limpid affect the lower loonie has had on manufacturing. We won't know for a while yet.

[Canada_First]

He gave a lot of it to large corps. He gave "us" 130 billion more debt load.

So in your mind. The Liberals or NDP would not have run a deficit? Balance budgets or surplus year after year and no raised taxes? Amazing.

[On Guard for Thee]

So in your mind. The Liberals or NDP would not have run a deficit? Balance budgets or surplus year after year and no raised taxes? Amazing.

Who knows about "would have's"? However, if you look the "what actually did happen's", the LPC have the best record of surplus or balanced budgets federally, ad the NDP hold the same notoriety provincially. And I' sure you're amazed.

[jacee]

Are you kidding me, that 3.1 has been explained along time ago and guess what it was not missing. Get with the times.

It was spent, but wasn't properly accounted for ... $3.1b, no strings attached?

I don't think so.

We might still want to know what our anti-terror money is buying don't you think?

.

[Evening Star]

However, if you look the "what actually did happen's", the LPC have the best record of surplus or balanced budgets federally,

Cite?

[Argus]

Oh we hope it's gone, but somehow I doubt it. I reckon it's still there due to even worse oil price forecasts and the limpid affect the lower loonie has had on manufacturing. We won't know for a while yet.

But if Trudeau or Mulcair were in power those wouldn't be issues, right?

[On Guard for Thee]

But if Trudeau or Mulcair were in power those wouldn't be issues, right?

Right, because we maybe wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket.

[Argus]

Who knows about "would have's"? However, if you look the "what actually did happen's", the LPC have the best record of surplus or balanced budgets federally, ad the NDP hold the same notoriety provincially. And I' sure you're amazed.

The NDP do not have any such record provincially unless you ignore the last thirty years. As for the Liberals, Pearson ran five years of deficits. Then Trudeau ran ten years of deficits. Chretien ran 4 deficits and 7 surpluses. But in context, Trudeau had no debt to speak of. By the time he handed the budget over to Mulroney he had quadrupled spending and we were paying $40b a year in debt interest costs and had double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. All of Mulroney's debt basically consisted of interest on the Trudeau debt. And Chretien had a unique set of circumstances where he basically faced no electoral threat to his rule. He therefore decided to keep his powder dry, so to speak, and hold off any big spending until he needed it. The only surpluses the Liberals have had federally in the last 50 years stem from this period.

[Argus]

Right, because we maybe wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket.

That is a nonsensical claim that all the lefties make because they hate Harper and they hate the oil industry, but there's no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Paul Martin had no great plans to diversify the economy. It was never even mentioned in his election. He would have embraced the oil industry just as Harper had. And if not, if instead we got some idiot environmentalist who did his best to hamstring the oil industry? Then the great recession which swept over the world, but was merely a light breeze here, would have devastated the Canadian economy just as it did most other countries.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

The NDP do not have any such record provincially unless you ignore the last thirty years. As for the Liberals, Pearson ran five years of deficits. Then Trudeau ran ten years of deficits. Chretien ran 4 deficits and 7 surpluses. But in context, Trudeau had no debt to speak of. By the time he handed the budget over to Mulroney he had quadrupled spending and we were paying $40b a year in debt interest costs and had double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. All of Mulroney's debt basically consisted of interest on the Trudeau debt. And Chretien had a unique set of circumstances where he basically faced no electoral threat to his rule. He therefore decided to keep his powder dry, so to speak, and hold off any big spending until he needed it. The only surpluses the Liberals have had federally in the last 50 years stem from this period.

The NDP actually do have such record provincially, and here is a record of the federal budget performance.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/

[On Guard for Thee]

That is a nonsensical claim that all the lefties make because they hate Harper and they hate the oil industry, but there's no evidence whatsoever to support it.

Paul Martin had no great plans to diversify the economy. It was never even mentioned in his election. He would have embraced the oil industry just as Harper had. And if not, if instead we got some idiot environmentalist who did his best to hamstring the oil industry? Then the great recession which swept over the world, but was merely a light breeze here, would have devastated the Canadian economy just as it did most other countries.

And Martin provided a series of surpluses, the last of which he handed to Harper. The rest is history.

[Argus]

The NDP actually do have such record provincially, and here is a record of the federal budget performance.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/

Your cite agrees with me in every respect. Did you not read it?

And no, the NDP don't have a great record provincially, except thirty years ago. The NDP governments over the last 30 years tended to run deficits.

[Argus]

And Martin provided a series of surpluses, the last of which he handed to Harper. The rest is history.

Martin didn't provide anything. In fact, when Chretien was forced out he committed Canada, in his last budget, to a series of expensive and long running programs, which he also ensured Martin couldn't cancel. Martin, when he was running against Harper, offered up a ton of very expensive promises in hopes of getting elected. If he'd kept them we would have pissed away the entire surplus and probably would have gone into deficit. Harper had a big surplus his first two years. Then came 2008 and the world financial crisis. And any party in power at that time would have run huge deficits thereafter. We don't even have to speculate since we saw the demands of both opposition parties for more spending, even after the Tories had introduced huge incentive spending.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your cite agrees with me in every respect. Did you not read it?

And no, the NDP don't have a great record provincially, except thirty years ago. The NDP governments over the last 30 years tended to run deficits.

Well sorry, but the DP do have the best record. As to federally, have you checked who added how much to the debt?

[On Guard for Thee]

Martin didn't provide anything. In fact, when Chretien was forced out he committed Canada, in his last budget, to a series of expensive and long running programs, which he also ensured Martin couldn't cancel. Martin, when he was running against Harper, offered up a ton of very expensive promises in hopes of getting elected. If he'd kept them we would have pissed away the entire surplus and probably would have gone into deficit. Harper had a big surplus his first two years. Then came 2008 and the world financial crisis. And any party in power at that time would have run huge deficits thereafter. We don't even have to speculate since we saw the demands of both opposition parties for more spending, even after the Tories had introduced huge incentive spending.

Just provided a string of surpluses, and paid down a significant amount of the national debt. Then along came Harper.

[Canada_First]

Who knows about "would have's"? However, if you look the "what actually did happen's", the LPC have the best record of surplus or balanced budgets federally, ad the NDP hold the same notoriety provincially. And I' sure you're amazed.

Did Bob Rae run a surplus of budgets?

I don't see any evidence that the NDP could fulfill all its promises while running a surplus and not raising taxes. Which is your contention.

[On Guard for Thee]

Did Bob Rae run a surplus of budgets?

I don't see any evidence that the NDP could fulfill all its promises while running a surplus and not raising taxes. Which is your contention.

I didn't contend anything beyond pointing out the NDP record of budgets provincially.

[PIK]

39 trade pacts so far?

[Rue]

Oh look who is pissing on Harper. Lol. Could it have anything to do with his foreign policy? Gosh no.

Yah yah heard it. Lol. Ah that Zionist-Ukrainian loving Harper. Damn him.

So now let's talk as to the anti Harper rhetoric...there's more out of work in Canada today than in 2008 says Mulcaiir and the genious "the budget will balance itself" Trudeau.

Ah yes worst in job creation since WW2 and worst economic growth since the 20's.

Here is what neither of those 2 will discuss

You can cherry pick numbers and say for example in 2014 that 1.32 million people are out of work and that's250,000 more than in 2007 and 200,000 more tan in 2008. Then stop rigjht there. That's usually what Liberal and NDP supporters do.

Now who explains to these two geniuses that Canada's population grew by 2.1 million and 1 million more people entered the work force since 2008. Oh but why would Mulcair or Trudeau do that?

Because if these 2 sides of the buttocks did-if thy acknowledged that they would then have to admit there are actually 800,000 more people employed today then in 2008.

See its easy to be an economic genius and come on this board and pull out statistics from their actual context an distort them. Statistics without contex t in economic analysis is a joke-ts a bloody joke.

Bottom line you can cherry pick all the status you want and blame Harper for the world recession, but one stat does not lie and none of you anti Harper whiners will discuss it of course and that is our GDP is one of the best of the G7 since the recession.

When world banks collapsed where were all you Mulcair Trudeau geniuses? I will tell you where I was-in Canada watching our banks with proper regulation handle the storm just fine.

This country's work population has been increasing since 2007. When you arbitrarily pull stats out of your kahoonies remember something called context-millions of Canadians are baby boomers aging and leaving the work force. Without that consideration your stats are meaningless.

As well, commodity prices,interest rates, demographic changes, world events reacting to environmental and man made disasters and international political conflicts are all things behind a PM's control that effect those stats.

We have no independent economy. No country does. Every nation's economy is inter-related and negatively impacted by the economy of others. As well our federal government can not impose on provinces certain policies and your stats do not show how provincial economic policies negatively impacted to make those stats what they are. Yah yah, its Harper's fault Dalton Mchalfwit bankrupt Ontario and drove business out. Its his fault for the corruption in Quebec politics and falling pol prices. Its his fault.

This idiotic comment than Harper made Canada dependent on oil is really stupid. The federal government can only work with the resources it has.

As bay boomers age, they consume less but health care for them sky rockets. Is that Harper's fault?

In 1994-1995 the federal debt was 68% if the gdp with interest costs on that debt at 44 billion constituting 34% of government revenue being spent.

Chretien and Martin did lower that 50% But when Harper then came in he did what they could not, bringing the debt to gdp ratio lower than it was before the crisis and the interest rates got out of control. Today the cost to pay interest is 8.9% of gov. spending which is 1/4 the amount of government spending even after Martin came in.

Paul Martin did a good job, Harper continued that even further.

Interestingly i Trudeau and Mulcair want to spend their way out of a deficit. Mulcair is the liar of the two claiming he can balance the budget while increasing spending by simply increasing corporate taxes. An idiot can figure out that is not mathematically possible.

Trudeau on the other and, that genius out and out states, oh lets run deficit budgets tee hee. No problem. Spend spend spend and worry about the deficits in 3 or 4 years. Tee hee. Someone tell that prancing putz that with aging baby boomers and economic markets internationally out of his control if he spends like Caitlin Jenner on a shopping spree, his credit card debt will choke him on interest and yank us right back up to the crisis point again where our revenue exppendtitures were swamped by interest payments. He's a horse's patoot. He can't fathom that with spending comes interest rates that sky rocket. How could he understand that. The idiot never balanced a book in his life Middle class champion my asp. He's a self entitled sheltered elitist snot who was born with a silver spoon.

Now Mulcair he is a genuine Tory er Liberal er NDP'er. Never mind how many times he has switched allegiances. Never mind he was once a Liberal but wanted to run as a Tory federally-hey what's a political party-its all about power. Now he's taken over from comrade Jack, he talks about not running deficits.

Isn't it interesting he has avoided any reference to unions his core constituency but he has signalled to seperatists and soft nationalists in Quebec he's going to drop the clarity act so he can keep his Quebec votes.

Atta boy divide and conquer and keep those soft national votes from Trudeau.

In the next month with Duffy and refugees 2 trendy topics that zip by the pee sized attention spans of Canadians, it will come down to jobs and the economy. Who do you trust to run it, Mulcair? Trudeau?

Yah yah, a drama teacher whose sole experience in the work force is one year as a drama teacher or a lawyer-career politician who as Environment Mnister did nothing and proved he had no problem defending a corrupt regime.

Yah yah the same Mulcair who sees nothing wrong spending tax payer's money on partisan activities.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Rue

[PIK]

Great post rue, all canadians should read that.