Trudeau better than Harper and Mulroney combined

[Michael Bluth]

Looks like stalker boy is back probably yelling "it's true, true!" Mulroney is the bestest prime minister! That is, until Harper!" On a percentage level, I wonder how many of stalker posts follow mine from this particular poster. I'd wager it is pretty high.

A search through McGill's records shows that there was no update. The authors themselves said that Chretien's term was not complete so the figures could only be calculated up to what they had.

The right wing might try to convince us that Mulroney was the greatest prime minister ever but he wasn't so regarded by Harper who dumped him and his party to defeat the PCs so that they never won government again.

Valid questions were raised about your unfounded 'massaged' numbers assertion. You provided no information to support it. Instead you turned it into a personal attack.

Your question about evaluating the effects of 9/11 on Chretien was a scurrilous attempt at discrediting the study.

Nobody here has said that Mulroney was the greatest prime minister ever. He had a pretty solid economic record and that shouldn't be discounted.

[jdobbin]

There it is...stalker boy is back in rare form. Still looking to Tory headquarters to find out why Harper didn't like Mulroney in the 1980s but loves him now?

Tom Velk, the economist involved with this has been a longtime CBC freelancer who has done columns called "From the right." His misery index includes far more things than even right wing economist Robert Barro.

I'm not surprised that he didn't update things after Chretien's term because the things that were criticized in 200 and 2001 like unemployment, interest rates and stock market had improved dramatically.

They probably didn't want to draw attention to it. Using the Barro's numbers, Clinton came off better than Reagan when all was said and done. Thereafter, the right went after him because he was morally wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

...They probably didn't want to draw attention to it. Using the Barro's numbers, Clinton came off better than Reagan when all was said and done.

I would agree...history will report that Clinton certainly came off better than Reagan.

[Moxie]

Trudeau modeled Canada after his beloved Europe, because of his socialist idiology Canada has become a fractured country. I loathe what Trudeau did to this country. I also hated Lyn Brian, he will be remembered by me as the worst PM ever. He never seemed to care about Canada, only his own power. A greedy liar.

On a side note, the political parties of today do not resemble the political parties of lore. I believe the Liberal Party should be forced to change it's name. It is so far removed from it's roots that it has nothing in common with the Classical Liberal or his/her ethos. The Classical Liberal has disappeared and has been replaced by the Modern Liberal who are hard core socialist. They love the utopia dream of welfare for a life time, they can't wait to get their hands into my purse to rid me of my "Excessive wealth".

I dare anyone to point out a true Conservative in Ottawa, really I dare you. The Conservatives are the exact party the Liberals were when they used Classical Liberal idiology. The Liberals have shifted so far right they walk sideways or sidle. The Conservatives dropped their religious idiology in favor of a Liberal agenda. It's almost funny, not.

The NDP, are well hopeless.

[Michael Bluth]

I would agree...history will report that Clinton certainly came off better than Reagan.

Clinton will definitely come off better than Reagan. As much as Reagan talked about supply-side economics he never truly followed the model. If he had made the cuts to Government spending necessary for the theory to work the deficit wouldn't have ballooned as it did under his administration.

Just as Stephen Harper isn't GW Bush. Mulroney wasn't Ronald Reagan. Try telling the Canadian left that though...

I dare anyone to point out a true Conservative in Ottawa, really I dare you.

How do you define a 'true Conservative'? Seems like you have an incredibly specific idea of what that is in your mind. Was Mulroney? Clark? Diefenbaker?

[jbg]

I believe the Liberal Party should be forced to change it's name. It is so far removed from it's roots that it has nothing in common with the Classical Liberal or his/her ethos. The Classical Liberal has disappeared and has been replaced by the Modern Liberal who are hard core socialist. They love the utopia dream of welfare for a life time, they can't wait to get their hands into my purse to rid me of my "Excessive wealth".

Really mercantalism, which was the opposite of classical Liberalism. Else why the subsidies to entitles like Bombadier? That has nothing to do with socialism.

[jbg]

Clinton will definitely come off better than Reagan. As much as Reagan talked about supply-side economics he never truly followed the model. If he had made the cuts to Government spending necessary for the theory to work the deficit wouldn't have ballooned as it did under his administration.

Not a chance.

Clinton believed what he said, when he said it. Reagan was fighting and ending the Cold War.

Also overlooked in the Reagan Revolution was the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which reduced tax rates and eliminated almost all tax shelters. He was a true revolutionary in the best sense.

Bear in mind, I voted against him the first time, but he will go down as one of America's great Presidents, while Clinton will inhabit the second tier, at best. He will not fall into the dregs as have Nixon, Harding, Fillmore, Pierce, and Grant.

[jdobbin]

Also overlooked in the Reagan Revolution was the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which reduced tax rates and eliminated almost all tax shelters. He was a true revolutionary in the best sense.

I believe the Democrats sponsored that bill in the House and the Senate. Perhaps it is those Democrats who deserve credit for the tax cut.

It seems Republicans took credit for anything good that came out of the Clinton years. Doesn't seem fair that the Democrats take credit for some of the good that came out of the Reagan years?

Not that this has anything to do with Trudeau, Mulroney, etc. It seems if we try to base everything solely on economics when it comes to Mulroney and Chretien, we are missing the point. Chretien and Mulroney are judged as harshly as they are for other matters.

Trudeau has the benefit of more water under the bridge. And much to the consternation of the right wing, Canadians seem to take pride in the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have embraced it much like the flag and this helps Trudeau's popularity immensely.

[tim pellett]

When the liberals came to power in 1993 there were faced with a 42 billion dollar deficit. There was no operating surplus untill 1997.

right on

[tim pellett]

T he only thing maloony did was give away CANADA, now there is nothing left Canadian. He gave it away under NAFTA. THE USA now owns are oil rights

[jbg]

Trudeau has the benefit of more water under the bridge. And much to the consternation of the right wing, Canadians seem to take pride in the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have embraced it much like the flag and this helps Trudeau's popularity immensely.

Exactly. So it now costs approximately $1 million to erect a Canadian flag in Quebec, of which $200,000 goes to the Liberal Party?

[Michael Bluth]

Exactly. So it now costs approximately $1 million to erect a Canadian flag in Quebec, of which $200,000 goes to the Liberal Party?

But it's *only* $200,000.

We can't expect Canada's natural governing party to take care of us out of a sense of noblesse oblige. Can we?

[margrace]

THis is what gives one the idea that some of these posters are on here just to deny anything except what Harper would have us believe. No comment on Tim Pellet, just deny deny deny. Anyone who buys their BS deserves what they get.

[Michael Bluth]

THis is what gives one the idea that some of these posters are on here just to deny anything except what Harper would have us believe. No comment on Tim Pellet, just deny deny deny. Anyone who buys their BS deserves what they get.

How would you like us to respond to Tim Pellet?

No, Mulroney didn't give away Canada.

Boy what a riveting debate that would be.

If there is something to reply to I'm all for that. 'maloony'? hmmm, doesn't seem to open to actual debate.

[jdobbin]

Exactly. So it now costs approximately $1 million to erect a Canadian flag in Quebec, of which $200,000 goes to the Liberal Party?

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with Trudeau.

[Mad_Michael]

I dare anyone to point out a true Conservative in Ottawa, really I dare you.

Is Ottawa a bishopric or an archdiocese? Either way, I'm willing to bet there is at least one real conservative in Ottawa.

I love it when people use terms like real conservative - knowing that the one thing they DON'T mean is an actual conservative. What they really mean is a real liberal (of the classical liberal variety), but that doesn't sound right I guess.

So what is "real" conservativism when conservativism can't admit to being liberalism?

If you believe in the 'rule of law', you ain't no "real" conservative.

[jdobbin]

THis is what gives one the idea that some of these posters are on here just to deny anything except what Harper would have us believe. No comment on Tim Pellet, just deny deny deny.

There will always be a small core who try to say Mulroney was the greatest. Now that he is Harper's BFF, they are trying to rehabilitate him. Problem is that it just isn't working.

[Michael Bluth]

There will always be a small core who try to say Mulroney was the greatest. Now that he is Harper's BFF, they are trying to rehabilitate him. Problem is that it just isn't working.

Nobody is saying that Mulroney was the greatest.

He made major headway on reigning in program spending. Combine that with the benefits from deregulation and the trade agreements and his economic track record is pretty strong.

There will always be the Mulroeny haters. Fair enough. Better to use juvenile terms like BFF as a means of denigrating him then actually look at his record and examine that.

[Leafless]

T he only thing maloony did was give away CANADA, now there is nothing left Canadian. He gave it away under NAFTA. THE USA now owns are oil rights

Canada does not give oil away to the U.S., it sells it to them.

Furthermore the U.S. does not own Canadian oil rights:

" Contrary to some claims, NAFTA does not commit Canada to exporting a certain share of its energy supply to the United States regardless of Canadian needs. Canadian producers sell without restriction on the open market.

The only significant limitation NAFTA places on Canada is that it prevents the Canadian government from implementing policies that interfere with the normal functioning of energy markets in North America. Provided they have the demand and can pay the price, Canadian consumers could conceivably buy 100% of all energy produced in the country without violating NAFTA.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...s/prb0633-e.htm

It is my belief, Mulroney a Quebec PM, primarily committed Canada to NAFTA for the benefit of Quebec:

"Thanks to the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement, there has been an increase of Québec's ability to compete on the international market. Further to these agreements, its trade relations with other countries have been given a boost. Consequently, Québec's imports have increased significantly. These international exchanges foster the strength of Québec's economy, particularly in matters of employment

Québec exports its goods and services around the world : nearly two-thirds of its goods and services are exported outside Canada. In 2003, international exports totalled $133,640 billion Canadian, or 35 % of its GDP. Québec's international exports for year 2003 are broken down as follows :

United States

83.2 %

Europe

9.6 %

Asia and Oceania

4.4 %

Latin America

1.5 %

Africa and the Middle East

1.3 % "

http://gouv.qc.ca/portail/quebec/pgs/commu...%2Fimportexport

[Michael Bluth]

It is my belief, Mulroney a Quebec PM, primarily committed Canada to NAFTA for the benefit of Quebec:

Sure Quebec benefits from NAFTA, but they are not the primary beneficiaries of the agreement.

It's a good deal for all Canadians. Ontario's manufacturing sector. Alberta's oil and gas. BC's lumber. etc. etc. etc.

[White Doors]

jbg:

He will not fall into the dregs as have Nixon, Harding, Fillmore, Pierce, and Grant.

You forgot Carter

[Leafless]

It is my belief, Mulroney a Quebec PM, primarily committed Canada to NAFTA for the benefit of Quebec:

Sure Quebec benefits from NAFTA, but they are not the primary beneficiaries of the agreement.

It's a good deal for all Canadians. Ontario's manufacturing sector. Alberta's oil and gas. BC's lumber. etc. etc. etc.

Quebec was the primary reason for the 'free trade deal' (NAFTA).

If it was not for Quebec and Mulroney, there would NOT have been a free trade deal:

"It was only because of the Quebec electorate's strong support for the (pro free-trade) Conservative party in 1989, that the Mulroney government was able to push through the first free trade agreement (FTA) with the U.S., English Canada being sharply divided over the issue."

Mulroney was working basically for Quebec!

http://www.hil.unb.ca/Texts/CJRS/bin/get.c...name=Polese.htm

[Michael Bluth]

Quebec was the primary reason for the 'free trade deal' (NAFTA).

If it was not for Quebec and Mulroney, there would NOT have been a free trade deal:

"It was only because of the Quebec electorate's strong support for the (pro free-trade) Conservative party in 1989, that the Mulroney government was able to push through the first free trade agreement (FTA) with the U.S., English Canada being sharply divided over the issue."

Mulroney was working basically for Quebec!

http://www.hil.unb.ca/Texts/CJRS/bin/get.c...name=Polese.htm

Quebec may have been the primary reason the FTA passed, but that doesn't diminish the agreement's value to other parts of Canada. If you look at the time in which original agreement was passed it makes sense. The Liberals and NDP hammered home the bad for Canada line amongst the unions. Which swung a lot of seats in Ontario. And left that province divided. The country's biggest province by population was divided so it's second biggest province had a big impact on the deal being passed. Not really nefarious, just sorta the way things go.

The FTA has been a very good thing for the Canadian economy. Or is it just the Quebec economy that has benefitted from the FTA?

[Mad_Michael]

Mulroney was working basically for Quebec!

This applies to much more than just NAFTA.

Indeed, when did Mulroney ever work for any interest other than Quebec (or his own)?

[margrace]

And another factory closes and goes south, that is what free trade has meant. One good example is the price of books. When our dollar was at its lowest books here were much more expensive, now it is so much higher and books are still so expensive. So explain that one to me