Michael Ignatieff- Question Period May 28th, 2009: "My party has an unimpeachable record in fiscal responsibility". Yes Mr. Ignatieff, they sure do.
"Some consider Trudeau's economic policies to have been a weak point. Inflation and unemployment marred much of his time as PM. When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion (24% of GDP) which was largely left over from World War II; when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion (46% of GDP), an increase of 83% in real terms.
Now also keep in mind what $200 billion in debt would factor out to today using inflation over all those years. Imagine all the wonderful Liberal socialist programs we could have if we weren't paying interest on Trudeau's debt for the last 25 years. Why they might have been able to put in a National Daycare program.
And debt is not the only Liberal record that is impeachable. Double-digit unemployment, sky-high interest rates, wage and price controls (the ones Trudeau said he would never do), corruption. The list goes on. I don't know how Michael Ignatieff could be so ignorant as to not be aware of the actual Liberal record.
Then again, Ignatieff left Canada in 1969, one year after Trudeau first took power, and only returned in 2005. I guess Bob Rae and Joe Volpe were right, you really do miss out on things by not being here.
Update: H/T Wilson:
" From Hebert today:'...Over the course of 11 years of mostly Liberal rule, Canada raked in 10 surprise surpluses for an official total of $85 billion worth of unexpected federal revenues. In a 2008 analysis, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada found that if the governments of the day had not gone on year-end spending 'sprees, that windfall would have totalled $135 billion.""
Hmmm, $135 billion minus $85 billion. That works out to $50 billion.
Funny that.
3 comments:
From Hebert today:
'...Over the course of 11 years of mostly Liberal rule, Canada raked in 10 surprise surpluses for an official total of $85 billion worth of unexpected federal revenues. In a 2008 analysis, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada found that if the governments of the day had not gone on year-end spending 'sprees, that windfall would have totalled $135 billion.'
http://www.thestar.com/canada/columnist/article/642335
On the Harper record of 'spending spree', from that list IMO
remove military spending and fiscal imbalance.
To his credit also is capping equalization and trying to reassess inefficiencies as well as taxpayer funded political parties....which led to the coalition of losers.
.which led to the coalition of losers.
Which tells me Wilson the opposition parties are not interested in the canadian people.
Liberals for the past 13 years only paid $60billion towards the national debt= 4billion dollars yearly.
Conservatives in their three years in office paid $40 billion towards the national debt= $13billion a year.
You noticed the difference.
Had the liberals had paid $13billion(roughly) a year for thirteen years it will come up to $169billion, a far cry from $60billion.
How about the famous eight year balance budget, which came from cutting funds to infrastructure, military, health, provinces, education. Now if they hadn't made those cuts the surplus would have been?
Our troops, well, the liberals were to busy cutting the troop's funds
Don't forget the Liberals amassed those surplus' on the backs of the Canadian taxpayers. Under them we were one of the most taxed people in the OECD; plus cutbacks on health transfers to the provinces.
Post a Comment