Army Guy Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, Smallc said: Canada halved it's debt to GDP ratio and doubled the size of its economy. That's what happened. A $30B deficit for a few years is nothing. And what happens if Canada's economy takes a nose dive and interest rates go way up.....reality works both ways does it not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 21 hours ago, Smallc said: Chretien did it in two years. In constant (today's) dollar terms, he reduced the deficit by more than $30B in 1 year (1994 - 1995). Harper could have eliminated the deficit. A return of the GST to 7% and a cut back of program spending like the Chretien Liberal did would have more than taken care of it. You can't have it both ways. Personally, I think he did the right thing, minus the GST cut and the austerity during post 2012 slow growth. Canada would not be any worse off economically if it had been running a $10B deficit last year. Paul Martin cut health, education, and infrastructure so badly we still haven't recovered. They stole 53 billion from EI then made it impossible for people to get which the Supreme Court deemed illegal. I'll take Harper anyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 1 hour ago, drummindiver said: Paul Martin cut health, education, and infrastructure so badly we still haven't recovered. Those are, funnily enough, provincial responsibilities. There was no choice in what was done. The budget had to be balanced, and now. That's not the case at the moment, and isn't in the conceivable future. That's the point I'm making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: was their not tremendous pressure from both NDP, Liberal, and others to spend to stim our economy ? Mommy, mommy, it's not my fault. My big sister made me do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 32 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Mommy, mommy, it's not my fault. My big sister made me do it. They did make them do it. It was go huge into deficit or have an election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 19 minutes ago, blueblood said: They did make them do it. It was go huge into deficit or have an election If they actually felt that strongly, they would have had an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 6 hours ago, Wilber said: I can understand that some people don't like the idea of a monarchy but what exactly is broken? Hard to get a specific answer on that score. I think it's the ability to change anything that leads to people feeling like their vote actually matters that's broken. I doubt anyone hates the Queen or anything but people are basically becoming sick to death of politics and the monarchy is just guilty by association. I would have thought it would be the Monarchs job to keep the governments of the Realm in check but apparently not. If anything I'd change that. If we can't get at the politicians from below maybe we could get some help from on high. Unless I'm mistaken the common man used to look to the church, given its assumed moral authority and whatnot - to assure us from time to time that our wicked overlords would eventually get their just desserts in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 10 hours ago, Smallc said: Those are, funnily enough, provincial responsibilities. There was no choice in what was done. The budget had to be balanced, and now. That's not the case at the moment, and isn't in the conceivable future. That's the point I'm making. Such a huge outcry when Flaherty cut increases, but Martin actually decreased dollar amoubts. The Canadian Encyclopedia Determined to reduce the Canadian deficit, he cut the spending of virtually every federal department, reducing government expenditures by more than $25 billion (spread over three years) and eliminating 45 000 public service jobs. Federal transfer payments to the provinces for health and education were slashed by $7 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, Argus said: So what exactly is your point again? Chretien didn't eliminate the deficit in two years. He reduced it by about $30b (according to your cite) at a time of enormous economic expansion for Canada and a flood of money coming in through the GST. Harper similarly reduced the deficit by about $30 billion in two years, though without the huge upsurge in revenues. They used 53 billion ftom EI and continued to use it as a cash cow by making it almost impossible for people to get. Which the SC deemed illegal. edit-I'm speaking of Chretien and Martin. Edited December 31, 2016 by drummindiver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 11 hours ago, Smallc said: If they actually felt that strongly, they would have had an election. The tea leaves said otherwise. It would have been the third election in three years and the people would have been outraged. They played politics and won a majority in 2011 which resulted in the deficit being slayed at the end. Harper actually kept his promise on it. Trudeau lied about how big the deficit would be. Trudeau is vague about ending the deficit as he blew his promise greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 2 hours ago, drummindiver said: Such a huge outcry when Flaherty cut increases, but Martin actually decreased dollar amoubts. The Canadian Encyclopedia Determined to reduce the Canadian deficit, he cut the spending of virtually every federal department, reducing government expenditures by more than $25 billion (spread over three years) and eliminating 45 000 public service jobs. Federal transfer payments to the provinces for health and education were slashed by $7 billion. Right - I don't actually know what I said that you're responding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 10 minutes ago, blueblood said: The tea leaves said otherwise. It would have been the third election in three years and the people would have been outraged. They played politics and won a majority in 2011 which resulted in the deficit being slayed at the end. Harper actually kept his promise on it. Trudeau lied about how big the deficit would be. Trudeau is vague about ending the deficit as he blew his promise greatly. The economy blew the deficit. No lie was necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 Just now, Smallc said: The economy blew the deficit. No lie was necessary. I didn't approve Harper going that far into the red, but he had a plan and got out of his big deficit. However Trudeau is trying to buy a seat at the un, is spending on waste, imposing a tax which makes us uncompetitive. There's deficit because funds are dried up, and then there is waste. Trudeau doesn't even have a plan to get us out of deficit and when the USA is going to slash their rates, we are very uncompetitive. There's going to be no carbon tax in Australia and the USA. Look at what Gerald Butts ideas have done to Ontario - spending piles of money with nothing to show for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 You seem to have a far better crystal ball than most people. he deficits fall every year after next year. That suggests they are headed towards balance. The deficits we're talking about are inconsequential anyway. Ask any economist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 22 minutes ago, Smallc said: You seem to have a far better crystal ball than most people. he deficits fall every year after next year. That suggests they are headed towards balance. The deficits we're talking about are inconsequential anyway. Ask any economist. Economists come in all shapes and sizes. We both know that. The deficit grew this year. And commodities are going to trade sideways until the USA takes off. The deficit is a problem as it money from the budget has to pay it back. Interest rates won't stay low forever. I remember double digit interest and things could very well go back that way when the USA grows and has to curb inflation. A 65 cent dollar is back on the table which in itself is a tax of sorts on consumers. A 65 cent dollar with a carbon tax which makes our products even more expensive is a problem. Going into deficit for the sake of going into deficit is foolish. Ontario is bleeding industry and in Alberta industry is biding their time until notley gets out. It's going to be a tough decade... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 17 hours ago, Smallc said: It shows the deficit going from $30B to a surplus between 1994 -1995 and 1996 - 1997. Are you dyslexic? 1994-95 -36.6 1995-96 -30 1996-97 -8.7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Argus said: Are you dyslexic? 1994-95 -36.6 1995-96 -30 1996-97 -8.7 Can you read? https://twitter.com/JordanPWBrennan/status/712417069548044288/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Now take that and turn it into constant 2015 dollars, as CBC does: http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571 Between 94 - 95 and 96 - 97, the deficit went from $43B to a surplus of $4B. Edited December 31, 2016 by Smallc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 12 minutes ago, Smallc said: Can you read? Well enough to realize you have no point whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 4 hours ago, Smallc said: Right - I don't actually know what I said that you're responding to. You suggested the cuts were cared for provincially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 Just now, drummindiver said: You suggested the cuts were cared for provincially. No, I'm suggesting the things that were cut weren't federal responsibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Smallc said: No, I'm suggesting the things that were cut weren't federal responsibilities. The payments to the province were,as noted in the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 4 hours ago, Smallc said: Right - I don't actually know what I said that you're responding to. You suggested the cuts were cared for provincially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 Sure, and those payments are basically (other than health, due to the CHA) gravy for the provinces from Ottawa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 1 minute ago, Smallc said: Sure, and those payments are basically (other than health, due to the CHA) gravy for the provinces from Ottawa. Education is gravy? Anyways, point being, they made cuts that are still felt today. By cutting this things I mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 2 hours ago, drummindiver said: Education is gravy? Anyways, point being, they made cuts that are still felt today. By cutting this things I mentioned. Point being missed, apparently - education money from Ottawa is money the provinces aren't entitled to, but are lucky to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts