|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On October 09 2015 00:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
in Canadian Federal Politics and in Ontario the NDP and Liberals are always willing to incur more debt in any specific concrete situation.
I dunno about that man.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xEMBwnz.png)
I'll start with the very first example: Trudeau started his government with negligable debt and no deficit. By the end of it if you just do your research you'll see the debt. During the Mulroney years the only money added to the debt was interest on the existing debt trudeau left him with.
You mean Mulroney's 9 years of 50 billion dollar/year deficit on average was 50 billion dollars (2015 dollars) of interest? Who the fuck jacked those interest rates? Does reality not interest you?
And by the way, if you cared at all about history and the reasoning behind the decisions taken by Trudeau in an era where the Liberal party was different from today (IT WAS DURING THE COLD WAR!!!), a very different world, you'd know that Trudeau's deficit (that, we've established, was not significantly lowered by Mulroney except in the imaginary world you live in) was made in a post WW2 world with the welfare state and all that, a period of actually massive growth in Canada and across the world really. It had its problems, and then followed the Reagan/Thatcher era where notably Reagan is still praised for tax cuts and "rationalization of the public finances" (before were disastrous and he backpeddled completely). It's after the Reagan/Thatcher era that your notion of deficit=bad became mainstream and cool. So today we live in a very different world where Pierre Trudeau's cold war era leadership happens under a very, very different context that doesn't compare to today. EVERYONE ran deficits back then. Even Mulroney did. Sorry, it wasn't 50b a year of debt service.
In the US, Ronald Reagan ran a huge deficit too, despite all his talk, and so did George Bush Sr. until the FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE DEMOCRATS came back and Clinton ran a surplus. And then George W. Bush brought back HUGE deficits at the WORST POSSIBLE TIME, right before the recession of 2008-2009, thus undermining the US's finances for probably years still. So it's funny how in both countries, the party which is viewed as fiscally responsible has a history, over the last 40-50 years, of higher deficits than their fiscally irresponsible opponents. It's absolutely amazing that they've managed to spin it that way. As if talking about spending cuts and tax cuts magically solved everything.
It's almost comical, in a way, that these are people who are skeptical of what politicians say, but they straight up believe the conservatives even though statistics and the financial reports don't corroborate their narrative in the slightest.
And btw if the graph is not convincing to despite having been drawn up by an org that hates taxes, you can go check it out and cross check the figures. A bunch of places have those numbers for you.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571
Oh and so I don't come off as someone who supports the liberal party just because I'm saying you're wrong about what you're saying about the debt, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that behind their discourse that seems to have fooled you, they run deficits, just like the liberals, who are also shit.
|
|
|
On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
And by the way, if you cared at all about history and the reasoning behind the decisions taken by Trudeau in an era where the Liberal party was different from today
my sweeping generalization applies to the long term, like 40+ years, delving into the fundamental ideals of these parties throughout their history as politic parties. constant themes emerge. if you don't want to deal with it.. then don't.
somehow implying it can't be discussed? lol.
like all generalizations there are exceptions ... however ... the constant themes are still there in theory and in the budget #s of the ruling parties.
On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
In the US, Ronald Reagan ran a huge deficit too, despite all his talk, and so did George Bush Sr. until the FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE DEMOCRATS came back and Clinton ran a surplus. And then George W. Bush brought back HUGE deficits at the WORST POSSIBLE TIME, right before the recession of 2008-2009, thus undermining the US's finances for probably years still.
I'm just saying that behind their discourse that seems to have fooled you, they run deficits, just like the liberals, who are also shit.
i mentioned Ontario and Canada... liberals , pc , and ndp parties because its a thread about Canada. zero mention of ontario and u bring up republicans and democrats and reagan? uumm ok.
Bill Davis, David Peterson, Bob Rae, Mike Harris, whathisface, and Wynne ... nothing.. ok great... just keep talking about Reagan  .. i'll take that you have conceded on the Ontario thing then.
Mulroney's deficits were all interest generated by debt incurred by the previous liberal government.
The GST introduced by Mulroney went a long way to improving Canada's chronic deficit problems... and the Liberals know it. Which is why after they vehemently opposed it and promised to rescind it they didn't.
|
On October 09 2015 01:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
And by the way, if you cared at all about history and the reasoning behind the decisions taken by Trudeau in an era where the Liberal party was different from today my sweeping generalization applies to the long term, like 40+ years, delving into the fundamental ideals of these parties throughout their history as politic parties. constant themes emerge. if you don't want to deal with it.. then don't. somehow implying it can't be discussed? lol. like all generalizations there are exceptions ... however ... the constant themes are still there in theory and in the budget #s of the ruling parties. Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
In the US, Ronald Reagan ran a huge deficit too, despite all his talk, and so did George Bush Sr. until the FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE DEMOCRATS came back and Clinton ran a surplus. And then George W. Bush brought back HUGE deficits at the WORST POSSIBLE TIME, right before the recession of 2008-2009, thus undermining the US's finances for probably years still.
I'm just saying that behind their discourse that seems to have fooled you, they run deficits, just like the liberals, who are also shit. i mentioned Ontario and Canada... liberals , pc , and ndp parties because its a thread about Canada. zero mention of ontario and u bring up republicans and democrats and reagan? uumm ok. Bill Davis, David Peterson, Bob Rae, Mike Harris, whathisface, and Wynne ... nothing.. ok great... just keep talking about Reagan .. i'll take that you have conceded on the Ontario thing then. Mulroney's deficits were all interest generated by debt incurred by the previous liberal government. The GST introduced by Mulroney went a long way to improving Canada's chronic deficit problems.
Well if you are bringing up ontario parties, then whats the difference bringing up US parties? Both arent at all related to the Canadian federal parties.
Also "the constant themes are still there in theory and in the budget #s of the ruling parties." - What? Did you look at the graphs? It shows the budgets to be exactly the opposite of what you are saying the themes of the theory are. Both sides are generally pretty bad, but it's clear that the Liberal party has been more fiscally responsible historically.
|
sry man.. the Ontario and Federal Liberals , Ontario adn Federal PCs and Ontario and Federal NDP are far more similar... lots of MPPs and MPs move between both systems.
when the leader of US Democrats ends up in the Canadian Federal Liberal party.. .lemme know.
politcians constantly move between the 6 canadian parties i've mentioned.
both the ontario provincial and canadian federal systems are parliamentary systems.. the US system is totally different.
there is no vague analog to the NDP in the US.
|
Past results do not guarentee future performance.
|
|
|
On October 09 2015 01:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
And by the way, if you cared at all about history and the reasoning behind the decisions taken by Trudeau in an era where the Liberal party was different from today my sweeping generalization applies to the long term, like 40+ years, delving into the fundamental ideals of these parties throughout their history as politic parties. constant themes emerge. if you don't want to deal with it.. then don't. somehow implying it can't be discussed? lol. like all generalizations there are exceptions ... however ... the constant themes are still there in theory and in the budget #s of the ruling parties. Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
In the US, Ronald Reagan ran a huge deficit too, despite all his talk, and so did George Bush Sr. until the FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE DEMOCRATS came back and Clinton ran a surplus. And then George W. Bush brought back HUGE deficits at the WORST POSSIBLE TIME, right before the recession of 2008-2009, thus undermining the US's finances for probably years still.
I'm just saying that behind their discourse that seems to have fooled you, they run deficits, just like the liberals, who are also shit. i mentioned Ontario and Canada... liberals , pc , and ndp parties because its a thread about Canada. zero mention of ontario and u bring up republicans and democrats and reagan? uumm ok. Bill Davis, David Peterson, Bob Rae, Mike Harris, whathisface, and Wynne ... nothing.. ok great... just keep talking about Reagan .. i'll take that you have conceded on the Ontario thing then. Mulroney's deficits were all interest generated by debt incurred by the previous liberal government. The GST introduced by Mulroney went a long way to improving Canada's chronic deficit problems... and the Liberals know it. Which is why after they vehemently opposed it and promised to rescind it they didn't.
You understand that the graph he showed you goes back to the 60s, right? As in, 40+ years?
|
On October 09 2015 04:12 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 01:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
And by the way, if you cared at all about history and the reasoning behind the decisions taken by Trudeau in an era where the Liberal party was different from today my sweeping generalization applies to the long term, like 40+ years, delving into the fundamental ideals of these parties throughout their history as politic parties. constant themes emerge. if you don't want to deal with it.. then don't. somehow implying it can't be discussed? lol. like all generalizations there are exceptions ... however ... the constant themes are still there in theory and in the budget #s of the ruling parties. On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
In the US, Ronald Reagan ran a huge deficit too, despite all his talk, and so did George Bush Sr. until the FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE DEMOCRATS came back and Clinton ran a surplus. And then George W. Bush brought back HUGE deficits at the WORST POSSIBLE TIME, right before the recession of 2008-2009, thus undermining the US's finances for probably years still.
I'm just saying that behind their discourse that seems to have fooled you, they run deficits, just like the liberals, who are also shit. i mentioned Ontario and Canada... liberals , pc , and ndp parties because its a thread about Canada. zero mention of ontario and u bring up republicans and democrats and reagan? uumm ok. Bill Davis, David Peterson, Bob Rae, Mike Harris, whathisface, and Wynne ... nothing.. ok great... just keep talking about Reagan .. i'll take that you have conceded on the Ontario thing then. Mulroney's deficits were all interest generated by debt incurred by the previous liberal government. The GST introduced by Mulroney went a long way to improving Canada's chronic deficit problems... and the Liberals know it. Which is why after they vehemently opposed it and promised to rescind it they didn't. You understand that the graph he showed you goes back to the 60s, right? As in, 40+ years?
But the ideas in his head mean more than facts, so he's sticking to his guns.
|
you have done nothing to address the NDP, Liberal and PC fiscal records in Ontario and instead talked about Reagan. so i gather u have conceded Ontario.
the federal liberals started the reliance on running deficits in 1968 as the chart demonstrates and as i stated in my post... a dangerous thing to do in the face of rising interest rates.
the longest stretch of blue deficits in that chart is interest payments on the liberal debt as i stated in my post.
notice also the deficit was lowest in the worst part of the Trudeau era the year that Clark was PM... again backing up my point. Clark probably could've done more, however, it was a minority government. I made the distinction between a minority and majority government in my post.
the introduction of the GST along with lower interest rates were major turning point in deficit reduction. The lower interest rates are independent of who is in power. The GST...well we all know who is responsible for that amazing move.. a PC PM.
the financial meltdown made it tough to balance the budget for Harper.
how is that for facts ?
|
On October 09 2015 01:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
And by the way, if you cared at all about history and the reasoning behind the decisions taken by Trudeau in an era where the Liberal party was different from today my sweeping generalization applies to the long term, like 40+ years, delving into the fundamental ideals of these parties throughout their history as politic parties. constant themes emerge. if you don't want to deal with it.. then don't. somehow implying it can't be discussed? lol. like all generalizations there are exceptions ... however ... the constant themes are still there in theory and in the budget #s of the ruling parties. Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 00:58 Djzapz wrote:
In the US, Ronald Reagan ran a huge deficit too, despite all his talk, and so did George Bush Sr. until the FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE DEMOCRATS came back and Clinton ran a surplus. And then George W. Bush brought back HUGE deficits at the WORST POSSIBLE TIME, right before the recession of 2008-2009, thus undermining the US's finances for probably years still.
I'm just saying that behind their discourse that seems to have fooled you, they run deficits, just like the liberals, who are also shit. i mentioned Ontario and Canada... liberals , pc , and ndp parties because its a thread about Canada. zero mention of ontario and u bring up republicans and democrats and reagan? uumm ok. Bill Davis, David Peterson, Bob Rae, Mike Harris, whathisface, and Wynne ... nothing.. ok great... just keep talking about Reagan .. i'll take that you have conceded on the Ontario thing then. Mulroney's deficits were all interest generated by debt incurred by the previous liberal government. The GST introduced by Mulroney went a long way to improving Canada's chronic deficit problems... and the Liberals know it. Which is why after they vehemently opposed it and promised to rescind it they didn't.
Well not only did you not tackle any of my points, except by saying something blatantly untrue about Mulroney's deficits being on the interests of the previous government's debt, you misunderstand my argument. The reason why I brought up US and UK politics is because you cannot simply look at debt and deficits and draw conclusions. You have to consider the context. Trudeau's leadership happened at a time where every single country across the globe including the US ran huge deficits. You can't just ignore this, it suggests that even conservatives like Reagan and Bush ran deficits, before right-wing think tanks managed to bring back neoliberalism and slowly started replacing keynesianism to an extent.
Now you yourself have decided to look at the context and you cherrypicked certain attempts at facts, for instance to explain Mulroney's failure at handling the debt problem. I explained why that's wrong. In 1984 when Mulroney came into power, the Canadian national debt was about $240B in today's dollars ($135B in 1984 dollars). Do you honestly think that Mulroney's deficit of $50B 2015 dollar was the service of the debt, at a time when Canada itself had loaned a lot of money and was pulling in big interests, but in 1984 nations were not paying anywhere near the 30% interest rate (LOL!) Mulroney would've had to be hammered with in order for his NINE YEARS of 50B A YEAR DEFICIT to be due to debt service. So when you say, and I'll use your words: "Mulroney's deficits were all interest generated by debt incurred by the previous liberal government.", you are either very obviously misguided and the numbers show that with staggering clarity - or you are lying. The worst kind of lying. And if you had any shred of intellectual honesty you'd come back here and apologize for having said this untrue thing TWICE, and you'd correct yourself by agreeing that "from 1984 to 1993, Mulroney's deficits can be explained in part by the interests on the debt". Might even want to look into how borrowing actually made Canada's infrastructure less pitiful, and how those long term investments have long term benefits and made our country competitive economically.
|
On October 09 2015 06:35 Djzapz wrote:
And if you had any shred of intellectual honesty you'd come back here and apologize for having said this untrue thing TWICE, and you'd correct yourself by agreeing that "from 1984 to 1993, Mulroney's deficits can be explained in part by the interests on the debt". Might even want to look into how borrowing actually made Canada's infrastructure less pitiful, and how those long term investments have long term benefits and made our country competitive economically.
getting more aggressive won't prove your points.
the biggest factor in the deficits of from 1975 on forward through the 80s were high interest rates on existing debt. economists were predicting this and Trudeau ignored it and decided to run with deficits. and literally every penny of the mulroney era deficits was interest payments.
and as i stated earlier, its dangerous to run with deficits in the face of rising interest rates.. Trudeau did it any way.
Mike Harris was able to recover from the river of red ink Rae created. I don't see Ontario ever getting out of debt now though. Freeing Ontario of the worry of interest rate changes.
![[image loading]](https://mikisomos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/bank-of-canada-historical-rates.gif)
when you don't have debt then you are independent of the bank rate which is outside of the control of the government. the very "big corporate bankers" that NDP and Liberal parties pretend to despise.
|
JimmyJ how do you explain that the debt was 135 billion, BoC's interest rate was 11-13% (keeping in mind Canada borrows money at preferential rates) and that Mulroney's deficits were around 26B while Canada itself was pulling in money from its own loads to other nations and by investing bond money from Canadian citizens?
Was Canada actually paying a 25-30% interest rate on its debt, even on the money it owed to its own citizens? It doesn't add up, not even close. It's off by billions. Provide a source that shows that "literally every penny of the mulroney era deficits was interest payments", because as far as I can tell that that claim is probably literally off by $25-30B 2015 dollars. Not a small irregularity. At best, the interests can account for half the deficit. For 9 years in a row. As the interest rate was declining.
|
On October 09 2015 06:55 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 06:35 Djzapz wrote:
And if you had any shred of intellectual honesty you'd come back here and apologize for having said this untrue thing TWICE, and you'd correct yourself by agreeing that "from 1984 to 1993, Mulroney's deficits can be explained in part by the interests on the debt". Might even want to look into how borrowing actually made Canada's infrastructure less pitiful, and how those long term investments have long term benefits and made our country competitive economically. getting more aggressive won't prove your points. the biggest factor in the deficits of from 1975 on forward through the 80s were high interest rates on existing debt. economists were predicting this and Trudeau ignored it and decided to run with deficits. and literally every penny of the mulroney era deficits was interest payments. and as i stated earlier, its dangerous to run with deficits in the face of rising interest rates.. Trudeau did it any way. Mike Harris was able to recover from the river of red ink Rae created. I don't see Ontario ever getting out of debt now though. Freeing Ontario of the worry of interest rate changes. when you don't have debt then you are independent of the bank rate which is outside of the control of the government. the very "big corporate bankers" that NDP and Liberal parties pretend to despise.
Uhmmm that interest rate spike is nice and all but try as I might the math really doesnt add up to suggest that interest rates on inherited debt are to blame for that level of below the x net spend. Not even close and certainly "not every penny" Im sorry its going to take alot more then an interest rate graph to prove this kind of claim.
Im sure it contributed, but debt financing isnt always at overnight or standard bank rates and can also be leveraged at fixed rates for certain periods. Something Governments are quite good at negotiating. Not saying thats the case but you know if you can hypothesize of a 2 variable graph why not just go the full Monty and speculate.
Also I dont see anything aggressive in that post. He just called you out for making a mistake or a false claim (Twice), the latter of which if true you really should apologize for, because lying is bad.
|
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=e004d39c-1d94-48a3-b1ca-8ca7b8f84429
"Even though his successor, Brian Mulroney, ran operating surpluses for most of his time as prime minister, the interest payments on the Trudeau debt were so enormous ($20 billion in 1984, climbing as high as $45 billion in 1991) the federal government continued to be dragged into the red every year. By 1993, the net federal debt stood at $487 billion."
Mulroney often ran operating surpluses... the interest killed him
i'll go through all the correct #s year by year when i have more time... but a brief glance at the #s from 1986 to 1991 seem to show it was all based on interest... i'll make sure it is every single year of Mulroney's time as PM though. If not I'll increase the precision of my statement.. but i think its pretty much bang on.
this "shred of intellectual honesty" is pure partisan crap.
Trudeau started with $19B in debt and left with $174B in debt despite starting with relatively low bank interest rates and being advised that interest rates were going up. The increase in Trudeau era debt was not just interest payments on the $19B he was handed. I'll go through it year by year as well.
like i said man.. its dangerous as hell running deficits in the face of rising interest rates and now Ontario is in debt forever thanks to the Liberals .. Even Mike Harris can't save them! But, you don't want to talk about Ontario.
|
On October 09 2015 07:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=e004d39c-1d94-48a3-b1ca-8ca7b8f84429"Even though his successor, Brian Mulroney, ran operating surpluses for most of his time as prime minister, the interest payments on the Trudeau debt were so enormous ($20 billion in 1984, climbing as high as $45 billion in 1991) the federal government continued to be dragged into the red every year. By 1993, the net federal debt stood at $487 billion." Mulroney often ran operating surpluses... the interest killed him i'll go through all the correct #s year by year when i have more time... but a brief glance at the #s from 1986 to 1991 seem to show it was all based on interest... i'll make sure it is every single year of Mulroney's time as PM though. If not I'll increase the precision of my statement.. but i think its pretty much bang on. Trudeau started with $19B in debt and left with $174B in debt despite starting with relatively low bank interest rates and being advised that interest rates were going up. like i said man.. its dangerous as hell running deficits in the face of rising interest rates and now Ontario is in debt forever thanks to the Liberals .. Even Mike Harris can't save them!
Yeah that seems more reasonable. I'd like to see what the response is too that. To be perfectly honest Canadian politics is new too me since I just moved here, but it also matters to me so these things are nice to know.
Problem is that article is also written by a very right leaning individual with obvious biases and Harper as a self professed mentor, so I have to take some salt with that info dump.
|
On October 09 2015 07:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
"Even though his successor, Brian Mulroney, ran operating surpluses for most of his time as prime minister, the interest payments on the Trudeau debt were so enormous ($20 billion in 1984, climbing as high as $45 billion in 1991) the federal government continued to be dragged into the red every year. By 1993, the net federal debt stood at $487 billion."
The deficit in 1984 was apparently 37B. How do yo explain the remaining 17B that compounded in the next years while the rest of the world saw similar issues and it largely solved itself because countries like Canada were also receiving interests at the same time?
|
Mulroney didn't come to power until September 17th 1984. k thx.
|
On October 09 2015 07:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Mulroney didn't come to power until September 17th 1984. k thx.
More or less the same is true of 1985 and the following 8 years.
|
On October 09 2015 07:46 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2015 07:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Mulroney didn't come to power until September 17th 1984. k thx. More or less the same is true of 1985 and the following 8 years.
i'll go through the #s year by year, but it looks like the article i posted is basically accurate. this sniping back and forth is pointless. When did Trudeau run at an operating surplus? Pretty sure the 1 year Clark government had a better operating surplus than any Trudeau year. Again, i'll nail down the #s. and again, Clark was running a minority government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
