Justin Trudeau the Worst PM Since Pierre Trudeau?

[SirEric]

31 minutes ago, SirEric said:

• Stephen Harper has the worst record of economic growth of any Prime Minister since RB Bennett and the great depression.

If it wasn't for Obama and our liberals of Chretien and Martin....you would be driving the roads looking for road kill to feed your Family

[SirEric]

 

• Fact: Between 1996-97 and 2005-06, the Liberal government paid $81.4-billion against the national debt.

• Fact: The federal debt in the fiscal year 1996-97 was $562.9-billion. By the time the Liberals left office in 2006, it was reduced to $481.5-billion • In contrast, by the year 2014-15, the Conservatives will have added $176,400,000,000 to the national debt.

Let me say that again, Stephen Harper has added and will add $176,400,000,000 to our debt.

• Fact: The Conservative federal debt in 2008-09 = $457.6-billion.

• Fact: The expected Conservative debt in 2014-15 = $634.0-billion (forecasted).

• Fact: 24% of the total accumulated debt since Confederation was amassed under Stephen Harper, this just since 2008.

[Accountability Now]

3 hours ago, SirEric said:

.it takes at least 2 or 3 years in office to for Mulroneys massive  spending policies to be  changed by a new government take over...

I will gladly discuss Mulroney or Chretien with you when you actually prove you have a clue about surpluses and deficits. Thus far you have been provided the info but either willingly choose to ignore it or are that daft to not understand it. No use in exploring a more inticate conversation with someone as elementary as yourself.

So...back to the beginning... is all debt Conservative? 

 

[SirEric]

yes all of are debt is conservative debt

Edited March 3, 2018 by SirEric

[Accountability Now]

22 minutes ago, SirEric said:

yes all of are debt is conservative debt

Ok. I know what I’m dealing with now. 

PS...it’s not ‘are debt’...it our. But keep doing your thing bud! 

[Michael Hardner]

13 hours ago, SirEric said:

 

• Fact: Between 1996-97 and 2005-06, the Liberal government paid $81.4-billion against the national debt.

• Fact: The federal debt in the fiscal year 1996-97 was $562.9-billion. By the time the Liberals left office in 2006, it was reduced to $481.5-billion • In contrast, by the year 2014-15, the Conservatives will have added $176,400,000,000 to the national debt.

Let me say that again, Stephen Harper has added and will add $176,400,000,000 to our debt.

• Fact: The Conservative federal debt in 2008-09 = $457.6-billion.

• Fact: The expected Conservative debt in 2014-15 = $634.0-billion (forecasted).

• Fact: 24% of the total accumulated debt since Confederation was amassed under Stephen Harper, this just since 2008.

You need to provide cites for these.

[PIK]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You need to provide cites for these.

He needs to be banned.

[Argus]

32 minutes ago, PIK said:

He needs to be banned.

You can't ban people for being dumb and obsessed.

[SirEric]

On ‎2018‎-‎03‎-‎02 at 6:00 PM, Omni said:

It certainly wasn't Harper that's for sure.

 

3 hours ago, PIK said:

He needs to be banned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sean-casey/harper-debt-economy_b_3976972.html        look back at previous posts...here it is again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! banned for what reason..because you don't like facts?

Edited March 3, 2018 by SirEric

[SirEric]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

You can't ban people for being dumb and obsessed.

whos dumb....I would say that the person who cant read charts.....or cant  read facts...... is not that intelligent.....why don't you get someone to help you?  I see you have another 2% with you......2 percenters with  things  tht don't go their way..or someone proves them wrong...they always seem to complain if someone makes a spelling mistake or how they write....they are usually....narcissistic   now I will make sure I have spelling mistakes  just to drive you up the wall...you were a bully in school weren't you?            

y

[SirEric]

6 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Ok. I know what I’m dealing with now. 

PS...it’s not ‘are debt’...it our. But keep doing your thing bud! 

your a narcissist too........Is every conservative one?,,,,,oh ya... I forgat about the last 2 conservative leaders.....

[SirEric]

nothing like this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     nothing like risking the lives of others chasing you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2010/08/harper-on-an-atv-i-make-the-rules.html

Harper on an ATV: 'I make the rules'

by James Cudmore Posted: August 26, 2010 2:19 PM Last Updated: August 26, 2010 2:39 PM

Prime Minister Stephen Harper drives an ATV as he visits Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T. on Thursday. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper went ATVing today...on the runway at Tuktoyaktuk.

He took off, and left his RCMP detail in the dust. They then chased him. Two officers on ATVs, and some more in pickup trucks.

Harper roared up and down the Tuktoyaktuk airport runway. He was going very fast. His security detail continued to chase him.

When asked if he had a licence to drive an ATV, especially on a runway, Harper said, "I think I make the rules."

He was clearly very pleased.

[SirEric]

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ranking-canadas-best-and-worst-prime-ministers/  I do not want you to cry after reading this!!!!!!!!!!!! oh sorry I forgot to put a spelling mastake in ....... had to edit it for you

Edited March 3, 2018 by SirEric

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, SirEric said:

why don't you get someone to help you? 

You were asked to provide proof of your numbers, so the helping someone needs to be 'you' at this point.

Eric, please show us that you're worthy of your knighthood by following the basic rules of the board.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, SirEric said:

whos dumb....I would say that the person who cant read charts.....or cant  read facts...... is not that intelligent.....why don't you get someone to help you?  I see you have another 2% with you......2 percenters with  things  tht don't go their way..or someone proves them wrong...they always seem to complain if someone makes a spelling mistake or how they write....they are usually....narcissistic   now I will make sure I have spelling mistakes  just to drive you up the wall...you were a bully in school weren't you?            

y

No. But I'm more likely to show respect to an argument which is put dispassionately, intelligently, and with facts that back it up, than by rambling, ranting, emotion-laden drivel filled with spelling and punctuation errors.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, SirEric said:

your a narcissist too........Is every conservative one?,,,,,oh ya... I forgat about the last 2 conservative leaders.....

You apparently forgot about the present Liberal leader.

I envy you that...

Edited March 4, 2018 by Argus

[SirEric]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

You apparently forgot about the present Liberal leader.

I envy you that...

well I certainly don't envy any of the conservative leaders in the last hundred years...not a one

[SirEric]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You need to provide cites for these.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sean-casey/harper-debt-economy_b_3976972.html

[Accountability Now]

4 hours ago, SirEric said:

your a narcissist too........Is every conservative one?,,,,,oh ya... I forgat about the last 2 conservative leaders.....

I'm going to help you out on a number of points...only because you are new and quite frankly need the help:

The forum rules are located here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/guidelines/. In these rules you will notice the following violations that you have already performed:

1. Your use of Pierre Poutine in place of Stephen Harper is a violation of the rules as per:

Quote

Do not use diminutives or character substitutions in proper names that are not recognized by the original person to whom the reference is being made. For example, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not identify himself as Stevie therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Stevie. Likewise, Paul Martin did not identify himself as Mr. Dithers, therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Mr. Dithers.

2. You need to provide citations for your so called facts. This is as per:

Quote

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (website links etc). It is also important to structure your post in a way that everyone can understand. That means writing complete sentences and paragraphs with the appropriate grammar. If for some reason, you enjoy writing long confusing sentences and paragraphs riddled with poor grammar and spelling mistakes, your post, and therefore your opinions, will likely be discarded.

3. Last but not least, there are no personal insults allowed. As such when you state "your a narcissist too" that would be considered a personal attack. Of course I'm fine with it because I know its the only avenue you have left after not being able to present any coherent arguments. Oh...and remember....its you're a narcissist ...not your!

Quote

Please respect others using this board by refraining from personal attacks. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with a thought or idea and attacking an individual. We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints, not tirades against another poster.

Have fun and keep researching your posts!

[Accountability Now]

4 hours ago, SirEric said:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ranking-canadas-best-and-worst-prime-ministers/  I do not want you to cry after reading this!!!!!!!!!!!! oh sorry I forgot to put a spelling mastake in ....... had to edit it for you

Interesting....a left of center magazine with assumed left of center professional and academic contacts leaned towards left of center for their choices. Who would have thunk?? 

[Accountability Now]

As per the CBC link I provided, http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571 , there have only been three Prime Ministers who have provided surplus fiscal years since 1962. Those PM's are Chretien, Martin and Harper. All PM's with exception of Martin, also provided deficits. As per the interactive chart, deficits seem to be the norm but of course there are reasons to go into deficit which often circles around the economic stability of the country. 

In our recent history, we have have three severe recessions that would justify deficit style spending:

Quote

The C.D. Howe Institute’s Business Cycle Council created a classification system for recessions, grouping them together by category. According to the council: “Category 1 recessions have only a short, mild drop in GDP and no decline in quarterly employment. At the other extreme, Category 5 recessions involve extremely rapid contractions of the economy over an extended period of time.” In 2012, the Council argued that the only Category 5 recessions to date occurred during the Great Depression and that the last three recessions (2008–09, 1990–92, 1981–82) were the most severe since the mid-1950s. Each was classified as Category 4.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession/

The recession in 81-82 was near the end of Trudeau Senior's last term. The one in 1990-92 was in Mulroney's term and the most devastating one was in 2008-09 during Harper's term. Of course one might think that it is the policies put into place by these leaders that lead our country into recession however, as per the same article above:

Quote

All recessions in Canada since 1970 occurred at the same time as the economy of the United States experienced a recession, showing that the two economies are highly synchronized 

The US is our largest trading partner and makes us tied to the hip with whatever economic woes or gains they may have. Now speaking of gains, I find it particularly interesting that  during the same time that Chretien had his surpluses, the US also had its only four surpluses in their recent history.  So again, as much as anyone wants to believe that Chretien was an economic wizard only needs to visit that correlation to realize that we up here in the north are often forced to take a ride that that we don't often have control over. 

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/

[SirEric]

 

And there’s no question that, since coming to office in 2006, the Conservative government has cut taxes. But they’ve mostly been the wrong taxes, cut for the wrong reasons. Tax cuts aren’t just about reducing the overall tax burden on citizens — although that is important. But cutting the right taxes at the right times can spur economic growth, employment, savings rates. Cutting the wrong taxes can end up accomplishing nothing at all — beyond robbing the state of the revenue it needs to do its work, and winning a few points in the polls, short-term.

Back in 2004, the Department of Finance put together a working paper entitled ‘Taxation and Economic Efficiency’, which concluded that cutting taxes on savings and investment yield higher efficiency gains for the economy than cutting taxes on consumption. So the worst possible tax cut you could contemplate would be one which affects consumption only — like a cut to the GST.

So much for expert advice; the Harper government cut the GST by one point in 2006 and another point in 2007. This reduced government revenues by about $14 to $15 billion annually, roughly $110 billion over the past nine years. Oddly enough, this lost revenue accounts for about 80 per cent of the increase in federal public debt over that period.

Over the 10 years between budget 2006 and budget 2014, and including the PM’s “family tax package” announcements of October 2014, tax measures introduced by the Harper government have cost the treasury almost $332 billion. That’s equal to almost 17 per cent of annual GDP and almost one-half of total federal debt.        https://ipolitics.ca/2015/02/23/mr-harpers-taxing-troubles/

[PIK]

Name the PM's that have been busted for ethic''s?

[?Impact]

14 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

1. Your use of Pierre Poutine in place of Stephen Harper is a violation of the rules as per:

I guess we will never see another Justine around here

14 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

2. You need to provide citations for your so called facts. This is as per:

Shall I call out every lack of citation?

14 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

3. Last but not least, there are no personal insults allowed. As such when you state "your a narcissist too" that would be considered a personal attack. Of course I'm fine with it because I know its the only avenue you have left after not being able to present any coherent arguments. Oh...and remember....its you're a narcissist ...not your!

I guess I will call them out as well.

 

[AngusThermopyle]

31 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I guess we will never see another Justine around here

Shall I call out every lack of citation?

I guess I will call them out as well.

 

A great place to start would be with yourself.