Argus Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 (edited) Mulroney should have done more to rein in the debt, yes? Maybe. The official unemployment rate was over 11% when he took over. Interest rates were falling but still over 13% Interest rates in the later part of Trudeau's reign were a staggering 22.75% in 1981. That helped build the debt up nicely, too. For comparison purposes, unemployment reached 11% in 1993 when Chretien took over, but interest rates had dropped to 6.5% Most people seem to have forgotten just how high interest rates can get. God help us if they get that high again with the kind of debt Canada and the provinces are running. Edited September 27, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Most people seem to have forgotten just how high interest rates can get. God help us if they get that high again with the kind of debt Canada and the provinces are running. Furthermore, if they spike during Trudeau's planned "investment" budgets.......turn the lights off on your way outta Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 (edited) Furthermore, if they spike during Trudeau's planned "investment" budgets.......turn the lights off on your way outta Canada. I don't expect them to get anywhere near that high any time soon. But we should be paying down the debt, not building it higher. It's going to take decades, even with concerted efforts. And no one can predict what kind of interest rates we'll be looking at in 2025 or 2030. It will certainly be more than double what it is now, which means, eventually double the service costs (a lot of our debt is on long term at low rates, but everything expires eventually). Edited September 27, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 I don't expect them to get anywhere near that high any time soon. You're probably right, but it will be interesting to see what the United States Fed does later this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Pierre Trudeau built the debt and Jean Chrétien sorted it out. Mulroney failed to reduce it, yes? Are you kidding me? Mulroney added more debt than Trudeau, despite Trudeau being PM much longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Are you kidding me? Mulroney added more debt than Trudeau, despite Trudeau being PM much longer. In fairness, Mulroney did more to fight debt than Trudeau did. Mulroney started with a debt mountain to manage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 27, 2015 Report Share Posted September 27, 2015 Not to mention the hundreds of billions under Mulroney? This is like when Conservative supporters bring up Chretien. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 In fairness, Mulroney did more to fight debt than Trudeau did. Mulroney started with a debt mountain to manage. And he left a much, much larger mountain of debt when he was done. Go back and look at the records. Mulroney left a debt roughly twice as large as the one he inherited. He didn't make the tough decisions - he left that to the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 And he left a much, much larger mountain of debt when he was done. Go back and look at the records. Mulroney left a debt roughly twice as large as the one he inherited. He didn't make the tough decisions - he left that to the Liberals. You forget that Mulroney was also coping with high interest rates, which will always greatly expand the amount of your debt, especially if you have to borrow just to pay the interest, and high unemployment in a recession which made it extremely difficult to simply slash spending. Chretien himself didn't slash spending in the first years of office because you don't do that in a recession. He had to wait until the recession ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 The good news is that nobody, as far as I've seen or heard anyway, have been sucker enough to bite on the "tax lock" bait Harper cast the other day. You'll have to try harder next time, Mr. Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 How? They returned the country to surplus and enacted laws to keep it there, well not raising taxes, and only permitting running into the red in an emergency........isn't that sound fiscal policy......you know, live within your means? That entirely depends. Right now defecit financing is very cheap. Sometimes it makes sense to borrow money for things other than emergencies as long as you spend it wisely. A lot of the western world was built this way. As for the whining about daycare or transit... transportation is a natural function of most governments, and the government loses a lot of revenue from one parent having to leave the workforce after they have a kid. Some kind of daycare system would make sense as long as you were only allowed to use it while you were at work. It would probably be revenue neutral or even generate a surplus. Whats really stupid is the conversatives approach to daycare... The UCCB provides a $160-per-month benefit for children under 6 and a $60-per-month benefit for children aged 6 through 17. All families with children – nearly 4 million – are receiving UCCB benefits. They have sent me thousands of dollars, and I have never once spent a penny on daycare or babysitting. Oddly enough the 120 I get each month is almost exactly enough to pay for my modest liquor bill, so its hard to complain about people without kids being forced to subsidize my drinking habit. Still seems a bit odd. The same is true for hundreds of thousands of other families. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 And he left a much, much larger mountain of debt when he was done. Go back and look at the records. Mulroney left a debt roughly twice as large as the one he inherited. He didn't make the tough decisions - he left that to the Liberals. You're preaching to the choir. Chretien's record on debt reduction is one my favourite stories, although I would not be too hard on Mulroney, given the political constraints he faced. Michael Wilson wanted to cut more but Mulroney felt he didn't have the political capital to carry through. I see Chrétien and Mulroney as birds of a feather politically. Trudeau was different from them, a political titan who created modern Canada but who let spending get out of hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 Are you kidding me? Mulroney added more debt than Trudeau, despite Trudeau being PM much longer. No I am not kidding. Mulroney got saddled with massive debt and interest from day one so his plight was quite different from Trudeau's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpankyMcFarland Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) Chretien's record on debt reduction is a spectacularly successful one, although I would not be too hard on Mulroney either, given the political constraints he faced. Michael Wilson wanted to cut more but Mulroney felt he didn't have the political capital to carry through. I see Chrétien and Mulroney as birds of a feather politically. Trudeau was different from them, a political titan who created modern Canada but who let spending get out of hand. Edited September 28, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 I think the middle class would struggle tremendously under Trudeau and his tax and spend policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 I think the middle class would struggle tremendously under Trudeau and his tax and spend policies. And the upper class will do very well under Harper as they cash their UCCB checks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 That entirely depends. Right now defecit financing is very cheap. Sometimes it makes sense to borrow money for things other than emergencies as long as you spend it wisely. A lot of the western world was built this way. Wouldn't a more prudent approach be to raise revenues.........would you consider going into debt for nearly $1.5 billion to fund "the arts", as the Liberals plan to, a wise use of money? As for the whining about daycare or transit... transportation is a natural function of most governments, and the government loses a lot of revenue from one parent having to leave the workforce after they have a kid. Some kind of daycare system would make sense as long as you were only allowed to use it while you were at work. It would probably be revenue neutral or even generate a surplus. Why should transit be a Federal function? Metro Vancouver recently voted against a tax increase to raise funds for transit upgrades, so if those living in Vancouver don't want to pay "their fair share", why should other Canadians be forced to? Likewise Child care, why is this a role of the Federal Government? If it actually results in an economic gain for a family, shouldn't the family pay invest in it themselves? Likewise, some suggest there isn't enough daycare spaces, my question, what happened to market capitalism? If there was an actual demand, wouldn't people be filling this niche market? My wife has often joked, at an average of $700+ a month per child, she should close her dental practice and open a daycare ranch.........yet, the claimed money to be had, versus the stated demand, leaves a result that doesn't smell right......... They have sent me thousands of dollars, and I have never once spent a penny on daycare or babysitting. Oddly enough the 120 I get each month is almost exactly enough to pay for my modest liquor bill, so its hard to complain about people without kids being forced to subsidize my drinking habit. Still seems a bit odd. The same is true for hundreds of thousands of other families. They don't give you money, they return money you gave to them.........what you spend it on isn't anyone's business really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 Wouldn't a more prudent approach be to raise revenues.........would you consider going into debt for nearly $1.5 billion to fund "the arts", as the Liberals plan to, a wise use of money? Why should transit be a Federal function? Metro Vancouver recently voted against a tax increase to raise funds for transit upgrades, so if those living in Vancouver don't want to pay "their fair share", why should other Canadians be forced to? Likewise Child care, why is this a role of the Federal Government? If it actually results in an economic gain for a family, shouldn't the family pay invest in it themselves? Likewise, some suggest there isn't enough daycare spaces, my question, what happened to market capitalism? If there was an actual demand, wouldn't people be filling this niche market? My wife has often joked, at an average of $700+ a month per child, she should close her dental practice and open a daycare ranch.........yet, the claimed money to be had, versus the stated demand, leaves a result that doesn't smell right......... They don't give you money, they return money you gave to them.........what you spend it on isn't anyone's business really. We give governments our money in exchange for the provision of services. Many of those services ca be provided in a much more orderly fashion by governments than they could be by private enterprise. After that we can argue as to what level of government is best suited to provide which service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 And the upper class will do very well under Harper as they cash their UCCB checks. Those cheques benefit the lower and middle class. The upper class will pay their's back in taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 Yes, lets just pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist. Other nations turned themselves around. The US is ticking now. Iceland completely collapsed and turned itself around entirely. Canada....still sluggish thanks to "austerity" for the poor and tax breaks for the rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 Those cheques benefit the lower and middle class. The upper class will pay their's back in taxes. . We can't discriminate against terrorists, but we can against ppl paying over 33% taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 . We can't discriminate against terrorists, but we can against ppl paying over 33% taxes? Over 50% actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 Other nations turned themselves around. Other nations don't have, as a percentage of GDP, a resource sector that is as large as ours, nor do they have oil reserves that cost as much to extract.. Canada has (IIRC) the highest GDP per capita in the G7. That's because we have a strong service economy, like the rest of the G7, with a strong resource sector on top of that. Right now, the resource sector is facing headwinds, sending ripples through the rest of the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouver King Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 Other nations don't have, as a percentage of GDP, a resource sector that is as large as ours, nor do they have oil reserves that cost as much to extract.. Canada has (IIRC) the highest GDP per capita in the G7. That's because we have a strong service economy, like the rest of the G7, with a strong resource sector on top of that. Right now, the resource sector is facing headwinds, sending ripples through the rest of the economy. Right now? $50-$60 oil is here to stay. What is Harper's plan to adjust to this probability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted September 28, 2015 Report Share Posted September 28, 2015 Right now? $50-$60 oil is here to stay. It's funny how people can say these kinds of things with a straight face. Up until the day oil started plummeting, everyone was saying that "$100 oil is here to stay". Right before the real estate bubble burst, people were saying housing prices can only go up. Etc. Anyone who thinks they know what the future will bring is fooling only themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.