Jump to content

Is it Conservative "greed" or are leftists unrealistic?


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Justin's made a fool out of himself internationally on virtually every stage.  You don't have to convince me that's not the case.  Him showing up with his family in India wearing cringe Bollywood costumes would be like Narendra Modi visiting Canada in lumberjack-wear complete with coontail courer-de-bois hat.  The guy's a complete joke.   

That the clowntown fringe of the EU's two-bit nations are criticizing him isn't in the least bit remarkable .  Who the hell cares what some bald and fat mouth-breather from Romania says, or what the illustrious representatives from Croatia or Finland's right wing say while they're trying to score cheap points back home?  Nobody.

Canada's reputation around the world is fine, Justin's embarrassing performances aside.  He's not taken seriously and is considered a lightweight, but to think our international reputation is in shambles over the Freedumb Convoy or his frequent cringe-inducing moments forgets how unremarkable he is compared to Donald Trump and his carnival of foreign relations disaster.  

Just wondering how we go from the "Guy is a complete joke" to Canada's reputation is fine, in my world both are intertwined, Justin represents Canada, everything he does and says reflects on our reputation....i personal would not say fine, but well below fine, for many reasons our allied do not put much trust in Justin or Canada , this is made obvious on many occasions...

The clowntown is making a splash across many different countries who are expressing the same sediment they think Justin is not worthy of a NATO leader, let alone a G-7 country...They are reinforcing their points with other cringe worthy things Justin is done, lets also not forget in a lot of these countries they normally don't care what happens in Canada but some how this has made the news...front page...So clowntown is getting traction...and it is not doing our nation much good.

Our reputation world wide has not been that great for decades, Justin is just the cream of the top...One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out, start to piece all the little pieces together and it adds up, Canadians are not very good at taking criticism, and still figure their shit does not stink when it comes to the international stage...

On the military side it was the same story over and over asking Canada to do anything presents more problems than it does fix., same on the political side, having Justin as the man that traveled around gathering support for NATO spending or support for Ukraine, was a fools errand, meant more to embarrass him than get the job done...you can see the irony in all that right...

Or when NATO leaders agree to resign the NATO commitment of spending 2 % that trump as seeking , Justin signed the document, then a couple of days later, in front of the media said he had not intentions of living up to any of it...why sign it in the first place, why not withdraw form the agreement, these acts have play a great role in inter national reputation...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Harper's first two years amounted to nothing.  He erased nearly ten years of Liberal debt reductions by the end of his term.  

You and I can both agree on this.  Trudeau's not a good steward of our public books and after his father's legacy I am not surprised by his behavior.  Let's just not rewrite history and pretend that Harper did a good job either.  He spent a lot of money to prop up his minority governments that he didn't need to.  His tax policy was bad (virtually every economist would agree that income tax reductions would have been more helpful than GST/PST and he did not leave things better off than when he started.  

Lets be honest, Chretien's reduction of deficit was not all that life changing as well for all the pain and suffering it produced....That being said Harpers name is attached to that accomplishment in many sources...

When compared to Justin , Harper is a miracle worker...Justin is the master of deficits, he gave the word a whole new meaning, lets also remember Harper did mange his issue with a minority government , which translates he had to have support form the other parties to make any of that happen, i remember the liberals screaming to spend more...so it was collaborative...

The pandemic well any 3 year old could punch holes in the Liberals response from day one, and it all could have been done with 1/2 the price...and yet still today very little lessons learned have been corrected, it is like everyone just said screw it it's over now... lets worry about what is coming tommorrow.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Lets be honest, Chretien's reduction of deficit was not all that life changing as well for all the pain and suffering it produced....That being said Harpers name is attached to that accomplishment in many sources...

Chretien's deficit reductions were the only ones we've seen in the last 40 years that amounted to anything.  What sources are attaching Harper's name to that?  Come on dude.  The numbers are there.  

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

When compared to Justin , Harper is a miracle worker...Justin is the master of deficits, he gave the word a whole new meaning, lets also remember Harper did mange his issue with a minority government , which translates he had to have support form the other parties to make any of that happen, i remember the liberals screaming to spend more...so it was collaborative...

I voted for Harper.  I'd take him back in a heartbeat over Justin.  Again, let's just not play revisionist history and pretend he was a master of tackling deficits.  He grew them - a lot.  He was not anywhere near as bad as Justin is or will be, but he was no fiscal miracle worker.  He was a cynical pragmatist and spent his way out of being defeated by non-confidence during his minority governments.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Chretien's deficit reductions were the only ones we've seen in the last 40 years that amounted to anything.  What sources are attaching Harper's name to that?  Come on dude.  The numbers are there.  

I voted for Harper.  I'd take him back in a heartbeat over Justin.  Again, let's just not play revisionist history and pretend he was a master of tackling deficits.  He grew them - a lot.  He was not anywhere near as bad as Justin is or will be, but he was no fiscal miracle worker.  He was a cynical pragmatist and spent his way out of being defeated by non-confidence during his minority governments.  

I did say i found that reference in YOUR source you provided....so yes your right the numbers and info are there...

That is not what i said, i was discussing your post when you said Harper was just as bad... and i said not even close...not even in the same universe...No where did i say Harper was a miracle worker unless you are comparing his deeds to Justins...and then i think that would be true...Harper atleast got control over his spending, Just has already been in 8 years and not projecting a balanced budget until 2027 which as you know is another lie...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Chretien's deficit reductions were the only ones we've seen in the last 40 years that amounted to anything.  What sources are attaching Harper's name to that?  Come on dude.  The numbers are there.  

You have been quick to point out deficits from COVID and West was quick to point out deficits from the Financial Crisis, both as a way to justify spending at those times. However you have a number of times commented on the Liberals deficit reduction during Chretien's period alluding that this was some genius tactic all the time not realizing that North America in general (maybe the world) was in a financial wave from the dot com bubble. You want proof? Chretien had four years of deficit when he took office and then ended with seven years of surplus. You know who else had four surplus years in the same time? Our largest trading partner...the US. It was their only four years of surplus in the last 50 years which is something else considering the usual size of deficits they take on. 

Point being, external circumstances both good and bad often dictate the bulk of the numbers. Our government is the captain of the shipping navigating either through calm seas or rough waters. Just as much as you can't blame them for the rough waters, you also can praise them for calm seas.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

You have been quick to point out deficits from COVID and West was quick to point out deficits from the Financial Crisis, both as a way to justify spending at those times. However you have a number of times commented on the Liberals deficit reduction during Chretien's period alluding that this was some genius tactic all the time not realizing that North America in general (maybe the world) was in a financial wave from the dot com bubble. You want proof? Chretien had four years of deficit when he took office and then ended with seven years of surplus. You know who else had four surplus years in the same time? Our largest trading partner...the US. It was their only four years of surplus in the last 50 years which is something else considering the usual size of deficits they take on. 

Point being, external circumstances both good and bad often dictate the bulk of the numbers. Our government is the captain of the shipping navigating either through calm seas or rough waters. Just as much as you can't blame them for the rough waters, you also can praise them for calm seas.  

Deficits happen but it's what the government is blowing our money on thats a concern. 

A billion to a vaxx pass system? Money to pay celebrities to push Trudeau's agenda? Cash to WE charities to run a volunteer program? Carbon taxes on top of $2 a liter gasoline? 

They are neglecting areas where money should be spent in exchange for pet projects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is veering into socialist dictatorship.  The population relies too heavily on government programs and mandated behaviour and beliefs.  We have major deficits in Canada.  The last thing we need is more social programs. We can’t even do the basics on defence.

Our country is living well beyond its means.  The Liberal-NDP government did this before the pandemic, not just during it.  How can we solve runaway inflation caused by overspending through even more spending?   It’s insane. The biggest challenge for workers and the poor right now is the high cost of living due to inflation — oh, and carbon taxes.  How about at the very least we wind back those?  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

That is not what i said, i was discussing your post when you said Harper was just as bad...

but I didn't say that, nor did I say Justin was the same as Harper.  My argument was never anything more than that Harper wasn't fiscally conservative, that he spent heavily and ran up huge debts, and that we haven't had a federal government seriously tackle our accumulated debt since Chretien/Martin.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Accountability Now said:

Point being, external circumstances both good and bad often dictate the bulk of the numbers. Our government is the captain of the shipping navigating either through calm seas or rough waters. Just as much as you can't blame them for the rough waters, you also can praise them for calm seas.  

That's true, but governments have a tendency to match spending with economic growth and we've not really had a government since the Chretien/Martin Liberals who've avoided this temptation.  The debt-to-GDP ratios (a far more useful calculation) rose substantially under Harper (from around 70% in 2006 to around 90% by 2015) and continued to rise long after we came out of recession.  In Trudeau's first four years, debt to GDP fell.  Going through COVID-19 will change the story completely, but as an economic shock this was an order of magnitude larger than the financial crisis.  The economic impact of the two aren't really even close. 

I've very little faith that Trudeau's policies and spending in the coming years will be helpful and he's clearly (IMO) sending us on the same path his father did (drowning in debt).  What always bothers me about these conversations, however, is silly notion that the Conservatives are by definition more fiscally prudent, and that the Liberals are somehow automatically not.  Up until COVID-19, the criticism against Trudeau's spending was wildly overblown and the nostalgic/revisionist memories of Harper's fiscal conservativism was fantasy.   

The difference here really is that Harper cut taxes and and ran up deficits doing it.  Justin Trudeau is going to take us on a social spending spree with Jagmeet Singh and I don't like where's it leading.  If I had to choose, I'd take Harper, but it's a shame we can't find someone who'll just pay down the damn debt rather than squeeze us from the right or the left.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Agreed. It’s easy to use a crisis as an excuse to overspend 

Yup. It's like your personal spending. A mortgage payment is probably necessary debt. Putting an 80 inch screen in your basement and financing it over several years probably isn't a wise decision unless you can actually afford it. Right now we can't afford the 80 inch screen as a country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's true, but governments have a tendency to match spending with economic growth and we've not really had a government since the Chretien/Martin Liberals who've avoided this temptation.  The debt-to-GDP ratios (a far more useful calculation) rose substantially under Harper (from around 70% in 2006 to around 90% by 2015) and continued to rise long after we came out of recession.  In Trudeau's first four years, debt to GDP fell.  Going through COVID-19 will change the story completely, but as an economic shock this was an order of magnitude larger than the financial crisis.  The economic impact of the two aren't really even close. 

I've very little faith that Trudeau's policies and spending in the coming years will be helpful and he's clearly (IMO) sending us on the same path his father did (drowning in debt).  What always bothers me about these conversations, however, is silly notion that the Conservatives are by definition more fiscally prudent, and that the Liberals are somehow automatically not.  Up until COVID-19, the criticism against Trudeau's spending was wildly overblown and the nostalgic/revisionist memories of Harper's fiscal conservativism was fantasy.   

The difference here really is that Harper cut taxes and and ran up deficits doing it.  Justin Trudeau is going to take us on a social spending spree with Jagmeet Singh and I don't like where's it leading.  If I had to choose, I'd take Harper, but it's a shame we can't find someone who'll just pay down the damn debt rather than squeeze us from the right or the left.  

 

I'd need to see your source on your numbers , the reason i ask my sources are not even close to your numbers.

Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2013–2014- state debt to GDP as only was down to 32.5 % from 33.5 in 2012, the web site does not have any other records for early times, atleast when i tried...

Archived - Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada Fiscal Year 2013–2014 - Canada.ca

note want to change reports just change the year in the source to fit any year you want to see...

In these same reports Justins records from 2015 to 2016 climb by.01 or 1 bil in deficit ( Harpers hand over)

                                                                         2016 to 2017 climb by .01 % 01 17.8 in deficit

                                                                          2017 to 2018 down .07 % and add 19 bil in deficit

                                                                          2018 to 2019 down .04 % and add 14 bil to deficit

                                                                          2019 to 2020 down .04 and add 39.4 to deficit

It does show Justin did not post debt to GDP ratios in positive territory his 1 st two years are in the negative...

he also added 89 bil in over spending, but added a grand total to the deficit of the country of 109.1 bil...in his first term of office...and we are not in a pandemic yet, it set us up perfectly for the pandemic though, becasue thats what they do fuck the future we are going to party like it was 1999, and what did he accomplish with those 89 bil , well he brought in pot....can you name any others.... .....and Harper was in a crises at the time... but this was Justins regular spending and he spent 1/2 of what Harper did... He may not of been a shinny star to hang your hat on , but boy Justin is the worse case scenario.

Quote

Up until COVID-19, the criticism against Trudeau's spending was wildly overblown and the nostalgic/revisionist memories of Harper's fiscal conservativism was fantasy.   

Well just look at history, and tell us who has spent more and who has shown some concern or effort to control spending...the 2 Trudeaus spending habits account for a good chunk of our national debit...i'm sure you can find a few more liberals with black eyes...hence why the liberals are considered the rich kids they way they break out the wallets...and start tossing fifties at strippers...

  And his spending during the pandemic is controversial, but it is easy to brush off over 475 bil in spending and place it all on the pandemic in a pretty bow......and yet the liberals have yet to lay out what they spent and where.... you can take your word for it, but me sorry i don't trust people who constantly deceive and lie to Canadians...Maybe you can back up some of those comments with sources so we can end this he said she said debate...oh wait the liberals still have not posted where all that was spent...

You may claim your a conservative, but you spend 95 % of your time defending him...pick a side you do know it is legal to be a liberal you know....not very smart but it is acceptable in most crowds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That's true, but governments have a tendency to match spending with economic growth and we've not really had a government since the Chretien/Martin Liberals who've avoided this temptation.  The debt-to-GDP ratios (a far more useful calculation) rose substantially under Harper (from around 70% in 2006 to around 90% by 2015) and continued to rise long after we came out of recession.  In Trudeau's first four years, debt to GDP fell. 

 

Can you cite where you are getting your data from? I don't see it ever getting above 70%. According to this site, he started around 50% and was trending down until the financial crisis hit in 2008/09. After leveling off it did trend downward again until Trudeau took over where it appears to be somewhat level. 

debtTOGDP.thumb.jpg.342d3fc7bb8b4aa1cdb0f4a50bbb65df.jpg

When looking at the Net Debt to GDP ratio, Harper actually achieved the lowest Net Debt to GDP in the entire period this chart shows. This feat was upended the year after by the Financial crisis however it never got above 34% even during these clearly turbid times. However it never really rose drastically like we see under JT  with COVID. Chretien only ever got below 34% in his final year however that was a huge fall from where he started. But again, he certainly had good economic times to help him achieve that feat. 

262007025_NetDebttoGDP.thumb.jpg.c0a0d29788ab7426461b7b611084092e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Can you cite where you are getting your data from? I don't see it ever getting above 70%. According to this site, he started around 50% and was trending down until the financial crisis hit in 2008/09. After leveling off it did trend downward again until Trudeau took over where it appears to be somewhat level. 

They're using net debt to GDP instead of gross debt, with the difference being that net debt subtracts the government's financial assets from the gross debt levels.  For Canada in particular, net debt is a terrible measurement of overall indebtedness because of how public pension plans are managed and operated compared to other countries.

Specifically, most countries like the US fund social security purely through government debt.  On their balance sheets, bonds/treasuries are listed as "assets" for social security, but then a debt is listed on the federal government's balance sheet to correspond.  The result is no change in "net debt". 

CPP and QPP, however, are actively managed and not required to buy government securities (unusual around the world).  The plan's holdings are wide and varied.  Most of the CPP's assets are still included in the national net debt calculation, but there is no associated liability.  This enormously inflates the value of the federal governments "assets", despite the fact that those assets and their earnings are already spoken for in future pension liabilities.  

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/caution-required-when-comparing-canadas-debt-to-other-countries.pdf

(it's a long, but interesting read). 

The CPP's open mandate has been a huge boon to public finances and saved taxpayers loads of money and required contributions, but it has rendered "net debt" a fairly useless international measurement for Canada.  It's worrying because the Trudeau government parades our relatively reasonable net-debt levels around as justification for their spending, but the numbers are actually much worse than they would have you believe.      debtgdp.thumb.png.5324591030879dd58f93416cff8ebcad.png

https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

They're using net debt to GDP instead of gross debt, with the difference being that net debt subtracts the government's financial assets from the gross debt levels. 

 

The first chart I quoted had gross debt and the numbers were still off from yours. Maybe it’s because they use Nominal GDP?

Either way, thanks for your cite. Your graphic doesn’t really change what I said though. Harper still achieved the lowest debt to GDP ratio before the financial crisis took hold. Even with that crisis, he held numbers lower than Trudeau has ever achieved and probably will ever achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

The first chart I quoted had gross debt and the numbers were still off from yours. Maybe it’s because they use Nominal GDP?

I think my chart was quoting aggregate provincial/federal debts in Canada, so yours is probably better.  My bad.

Here's everything side by side:

686879849_aggregateddebt.thumb.png.ec6412eb355f206f4949abbf69ee43e9.png

 

23 minutes ago, Accountability Now said:

Either way, thanks for your cite. Your graphic doesn’t really change what I said though. Harper still achieved the lowest debt to GDP ratio before the financial crisis took hold. Even with that crisis, he held numbers lower than Trudeau has ever achieved and probably will ever achieve.

I'm not sure why you think this is so remarkable.  Harper inherited the large surpluses and strong finances of the previous liberal government and all he had to do to lower debt-to-gdp was not squander those surpluses immediately.  The reality is that government spending increased under his leadership by any measurement.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/both-trudeau-and-harper-increased-size-of-federal-government

Prime Minister Harper also increased the size of the government. According to data from the federal Department of Finance, the Harper Conservatives increased per person spending (inflation adjusted) from $6,992 in 2005 to $7,740 in 2014—an increase of 10.7 per cent.

Prior to Harper taking office in 2006, federal government spending as a share of the economy was 12.5 per cent. By the end of his tenure, Prime Minister Harper had increased spending (as a share of GDP) to 13.0 per cent. No matter how you slice it, the Harper Tories increased the size of the federal government.

In contrast, the Liberals under Chretien reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP from 17.1% to 12.5% when they were done. 

Worse, however, is that Harper increased spending while cutting taxes and reducing revenues.  Feel free to criticize Justin Trudeau, because he's looking like he'll blow our finances up over the next four years, but Harper was hardly the fiscal conservative everyone pretends he was.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I think my chart was quoting aggregate provincial/federal debts in Canada, so yours is probably better.  My bad.

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I'm not sure why you think this is so remarkable.  Harper inherited the large surpluses and strong finances of the previous liberal government 

Inherited and then maintained until the financial crisis hit. I'm still surprised how you build up the Liberal surpluses like they were caused by the Liberals when I already showed you the US was getting surpluses then too. The main point I made is something that you continue to ignore. Canada is not an island. We experience highs and lows based on external factors that are beyond the control of any party in power. Chretien got the wave of a dot com bubble, Harper got the trough of the Financial crisis, and Trudeau is getting probably the largest trough of COVID. Not taking those into account is poor debating. 

 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

all he had to do to lower debt-to-gdp was not squander those surpluses immediately.  

You made this sound like doing just that was a pretty big feat (ie not overspending when times were good. Not the same for Harper?

 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The reality is that government spending increased under his leadership by any measurement.

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

In contrast, the Liberals under Chretien reduced government spending as a percentage of GDP from 17.1% to 12.5% when they were done. 

Do you notice how you change the metric to suit your argument? Your first argument is SPENDING and then your second argument is SPENDING as a % of GDP. You need to compare apples to apples if you want to actually compare. 

Looking at the % Change of Expenses (as per RBC http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/canadian-fiscal/prov_fiscal.pdf), you will see both governments increased their spending year to year with the Libs making a massive increase in spending in 2004-05. Why? Maybe needed to buy some votes after the Sponsorship Scandal? Not sure. Harper had a similar increase of about 13%. Why? I'm pretty confident on this one; financial crisis. 

The reason why your claim that the Liberals decreased spending as a % of GDP was true was simply because they benefited from higher GDP/higher revenue. Look at that RBC link and check out the Revenue relative to GDP. The Liberals boasted rates of 15.8 to 17.7 while Harper got 14.7 to 15.9. Simply put the spending increased but Chretien had and increased GDP to offset that equation.

Bottom line is I'm not a financial wizard and don't really care to compare the different parties on their economic performance because no party is operating in the same external conditions as other parties. If you are not willing to take into account these external factors then you really aren't doing a proper comparison. 

 

 

 

expenseschange.thumb.jpg.7d57d1f9d25362237aba9fc8fa89a86e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Inherited and then maintained until the financial crisis hit. I'm still surprised how you build up the Liberal surpluses like they were caused by the Liberals when I already showed you the US was getting surpluses then too. The main point I made is something that you continue to ignore. Canada is not an island. We experience highs and lows based on external factors that are beyond the control of any party in power. Chretien got the wave of a dot com bubble, Harper got the trough of the Financial crisis, and Trudeau is getting probably the largest trough of COVID. Not taking those into account is poor debating. 

Circumstances/environment matter, but that doesn't mean the government's actions don't.    

16 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

Do you notice how you change the metric to suit your argument? Your first argument is SPENDING and then your second argument is SPENDING as a % of GDP. You need to compare apples to apples if you want to actually compare. 

I didn't change my argument.  I said Harper increased spending no matter what measurement you use.  

16 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

The reason why your claim that the Liberals decreased spending as a % of GDP was true was simply because they benefited from higher GDP/higher revenue.

except it wasn't just that.  The Chretien Liberals decreased spending per person noticeably over the same period, and those numbers are inflation-adjusted.  By contrast, Harper increased per-person spending by over 10%.  These numbers are also included in your RBC links.  

You can certainly make the argument that that GDP growth can improve your debt-to-gdp ratios and obscure the government's "performance", but you can use more absolute numbers like per-person spending (probably the best apples-to-apples number) and the conclusions are the same.

By any available measurement, Harper grew the government substantially and what hurts the most about it is that he did so while implementing poorly-targeted tax cuts that most economists criticized him for at the time and that have delivered questionable results.  Increasing spending while decreasing revenues is a poor recipe for sound fiscal measurement.  

The big caveat here though is that Trudeau's doing an arguably much worse job.  The point I'm trying to make is that fiscal credibility is a lot more complicated than "Blue good, every other color bad".  We need to look at a government's records and platforms and judge them by the numbers rather than by heuristics or mythical narratives.  The Trudeau Liberals are a very different breed than the Chretien/Martin Liberals.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I didn't change my argument.  I said Harper increased spending no matter what measurement you use.  

I quoted you twice on that argument. On the first one, you said that Harper increased his spending. The second quote was where you said Chretien decreased spending as a percentage of GDP. When you look at just spending (as per the RBC tables) both governments INCREASED spending. So if Chretien decreased spending as a percentage of GDP then that can only mean the GDP increased substantially in his time which wouldn't surprise me since it was surplus years across North America. 

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

except it wasn't just that.  The Chretien Liberals decreased spending per person noticeably over the same period, and those numbers are inflation-adjusted.  By contrast, Harper increased per-person spending by over 10%.  These numbers are also included in your RBC links.  

The only table referencing spending per capita in those group of tables is the Program Expenses per capita and even that one shows that amount INCREASING for the Liberals. Have you provided a separate cite for this? Maybe you have but I haven't seen it.

I want to be clear about a number of things here:

1. I voted for Chretien. I was younger then but I still think he did a good job. So don't take my arguments as an anti Chretien approach.

2. I am continuing to argue with you on the metrics because I am not clear on this and so far your arguments aren't making sense.  If you are talking spending as an objective value then these tables show that the Liberals increased spending over their time. If you can provide contrary evidence then please provide. 

3. Ultimately I don't think Harper got a true chance to show his financial wisdom as people claim he has. The first couple years he was a minority government and was forced into spending due to the threat of a Lib/NDP coalition. The next number of years were dogged by the financial crisis.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

I quoted you twice on that argument. On the first one, you said that Harper increased his spending. The second quote was where you said Chretien decreased spending as a percentage of GDP. When you look at just spending (as per the RBC tables) both governments INCREASED spending. 

The absolute numbers aren't very useful without context when you consider that Canada's population grew by about 20% under that Liberal government.  Hopefully we can agree that an extra ~5.5 million Canadians would expand the requirement for government services and administration, and thus other measurements are needed.  That's why we can use per-person spending if you don't want to look at debt-to-GDP.  

12 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

The only table referencing spending per capita in those group of tables is the Program Expenses per capita and even that one shows that amount INCREASING for the Liberals. Have you provided a separate cite for this? Maybe you have but I haven't seen it.

You have to adjust for inflation, which is required for any useful analysis.  I did already post the link for those numbers:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/both-trudeau-and-harper-increased-size-of-federal-government

Prime Minister Harper also increased the size of the government. According to data from the federal Department of Finance, the Harper Conservatives increased per person spending (inflation adjusted) from $6,992 in 2005 to $7,740 in 2014—an increase of 10.7 per cent.

...

Before Chretien took office in 1993, per-person program spending was $6,995. At its lowest point, Prime Minister Chretien reduced this number to $5,806. Although per-person spending inched up to $6,670 near the end of his tenure, the amount was still lower compared to when he took office.

12 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

2. I am continuing to argue with you on the metrics because I am not clear on this and so far your arguments aren't making sense.  If you are talking spending as an objective value then these tables show that the Liberals increased spending over their time. If you can provide contrary evidence then please provide. 

I've already provided it.  You're focusing on plain/absolute dollar values which are of limited use.    

12 hours ago, Accountability Now said:

3. Ultimately I don't think Harper got a true chance to show his financial wisdom as people claim he has. The first couple years he was a minority government and was forced into spending due to the threat of a Lib/NDP coalition. The next number of years were dogged by the financial crisis.  

I'd have more sympathy for Harper if not for the fact that he slashed public revenue with poorly-designed tax cuts and tax credits that were of minimal benefit to the average Canadian.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moonbox said:

The absolute numbers aren't very useful without context when you consider that Canada's population grew by about 20% under that Liberal government.  Hopefully we can agree that an extra ~5.5 million Canadians would expand the requirement for government services and administration, and thus other measurements are needed.  That's why we can use per-person spending if you don't want to look at debt-to-GDP.  

You have to adjust for inflation, which is required for any useful analysis.  I did already post the link for those numbers:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/both-trudeau-and-harper-increased-size-of-federal-government

Sorry. I do remember you sending that link before but I thought that was in reference to Harper and not Chretien. I can agree that that per person spending is the most useful and I will also concede that your point that per person spending decreased under Chretien but again a key points:

1. Chretien achieved this feat  by making a massive budget cut in the 1995 budget and then slowly started to increase spending year after year. Even with his drastic cut of 95, he almost ended up where he started.  Point being, he wasn't really different than any other PM except for a the one massive cut he made. Again...kudos to him for doing what was needed but also very obvious that he had no adversity in his time of governance. As you can see in the graphic below, he was one of few PMs that doesn't have a foot note like "recession" under his years. 

2. Based on the graphic below, one can see how people get the idea that Conservatives cut costs and Liberals spend.  Liberals like King, St. Laurent, Pearson, Trudeau Senior and now Trudeau Jr all show significant increases in their time. While, Conservatives being Deifenbaker, Mulroney and Harper all show minor/moderate increases. Chretien is an anomaly compared to the other Liberals and again, I feel he was able to make such cuts because he had no recession to deal with in 95-96 and then was given the benefit of a strong North American economy in his following days. 

 

prime-ministers-and-government-spending-2021-infographic.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2022 at 8:19 PM, Army Guy said:

Just a question, did Harper not hand the liberals a surplus at the end of his term, ? My goggle search shows Yes, army guy they did...so they must have stopped something...

And your being very dishonest to just say Justins and his merry band have carried on the "same path".... tell me any party that has doubled our national deficit like Justin has, and is on course to triple the size of the deficit thats not on the same path, thats on a whole new highway..."On the same path" , your a funney guy...

Every Canadian has the same chance of working for the public service, very little special knowledge required....but most Canadians like to deliver pizzas and complain why they are not making billions.... like they are the only over paid workers in Canada, but hey nobody likes public service workers anyways... 

 

Not defending either one but, Harpers problems were compounded by recession and his budgets went out the door and Justins  had to cope with COVID.

The difference is Harper got booted before he could fix anything and we love Justin so much to keep voting him back and he keeps on spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2022 at 12:09 PM, West said:

One of the most overused leftist catch phrases, in my opinion, is that everything could be better if those darn white people would just pay more taxes and stop being so greedy. 

I guess my question is is it more complex than "the rich don't pay their fair share" or are Conservatives actually "greedy"? 

The way I see it, leftists love to spend money like drunken sailors often times borrowing money to "invest" in social programs. Who benefits from that? Well I would say the rich benefit from borrowed money as that's who makes interest. 

Who loses? Well if you increase the housing benefit, middle class renters are the ones who don't benefit as they are now competing against more people for housing, driving up the cost. 

So who really benefits from the Liberal/NDP coalition? Certainly not who they think does. Though maybe the whole point is to actually make the rich richer

Well, I will just address your main point of "greed".  It is a human personality trait.  Conservatives are no more or less greedy than liberals.  Churchill called socialism the politics of envy.  There are probably more rich liberals than conservatives.  Think of the Clinton family, George Soros, the Heinz family, Al Gore, ect....  

Greed of course is also very subjective.  If I penny pinch and don't give money to windshield wiper boys does that make me greedy?  Or does that make me a good steward to my family?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2022 at 5:15 PM, Nexii said:

Social programs are good but unfortunately too much is politically driven rather than for actual good. That is to say I probably do lean left but the left is horribly inefficient at allocating money into social programs. Giving money to people to buy things like homes for example. Or continually funneling money into reservations which have no economic future.

The right in recent years hasn't been much better, shoveling money to corporations instead. At least the right would increase military spending, which isn't a total waste as that can do some good in the world.

The sickness I think is that government always wants to be seen as 'doing something' even if that something is usually a complete waste of money.

I use to think liberals were just mindless do gooders, but I don't anymore.  Al Gore of course we found out owned companies that traded on carbon credits.  In New York I use to assume politicians built new low income homes because they cared.  But they don't.  You find out there have a political donor who will be building those homes.  Cha Ching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...