Friday, July 25, 2008

Harper - Trudeau the second

Harper's a moron. He is destroying all of Canadian's hard work and saying no to unaffordable spending to make Canada a strong country.

Thanks to a moron named Trudeau I entered adulthood in an environment of high taxes and a sluggish economy for years to pay for his excesses.

Harper is screwing young people today as much as Trudeau screwed my generation.

Congratulations Harper, you managed to undo 24 years of Canadian pride in controlling our deficit in record speed. The deficit is massive. You had no business reducing taxes we were all used to paying and mortgaging the next generation's future. Trudeau screwed my generation over royally. We've spent our lives paying the taxes that weren't paid in the 70s.

This is an exert from an unanswered letter to this moron that I wrote at the beginning of October last year. Unfortunately these morons do things and the time it takes for their gross incompetence to show up, well, usually it is the next guy being blamed, much like Mulroney is unrecognized for what he did for Canada in working to clean up Trudeau's mess.

I read the linked article, , where it implies that you have indicated there will be a round of tax cuts and I became grossly concerned.

We have come so far in Canada and I have always felt that Brian Mulroney was our greatest Prime Minister for setting the stage so that there would one day be surplus budgets again. This is his victory, not yours and to reduce taxes would be to undo that which is once again liberating Canadians from debt.

We have an aging population and if anything, we need to further reduce spending. We have a tax system that has indoctrinated into a beliefs a system of draconian policy that takes away from youth and gives to age. It has resulted in gross division of wealth.

It is already a hard economy and Harper is ensuring that those coming of age will have a much harder time.


Jay Walker said...

Sorry Deb but your assertion that Mulroney "cleaned up the mess" is outrageous. I say that having voted for him in 88 (not in 84).

In 1984 Mulroney was handed a huge mandate to fix what was wrong, primarily the weak economy. He didn't take any of the necessary action to cut spending. He was much too busy trying to enjoy being popular. In my opinion, any debt taken on after 1-2 years of him being PM was due to his own inaction.

What he did do was to increase the tax revenues of the state (GST), and secure and enhance our trade access, positives to be sure (in the context of the times). However, virtually all economists agree that deficit reduction involves spending cuts, first and foremost.

Mulroney unfortunately fritted away the glorious 211 seats he was handed in 1984 - opportunity lost - and we all paid for that during the lost decade of the 1990's.

Jay Walker
The Confused Capitalist

Deborah said...

You and the masses seem to fail to understand that Canada's suggish economy was because of the debt. The lost decade was because of the debt. When he was elected in 84 spending, not taking into account debt servicing, but spending was $39 billion more then taxes.

If you've got $39 billion going into program spending that isn't being covered by taxes, no kidding the economy is going to have the illusion that it is good. Everyone has a job and taxes are low, until the game runs out and it has to be paid for.

Just how do you expect an economy to not be sluggish when you have to cut government spending by $39 billion just to match reciepts, let alone cover debt servicing costs?

Mulroney did nothing but harp about our debt and its crippling effects. He was not responsible for it, but he was responsible for turning that mayhem around.

I truly hope that history views Mulroney in a longer term window than you have.

Jay Walker said...


I guess me and the masses aren't too smart. Nevertheless, in my opinion, he took way too long to begin cutting government spending after he was handed the huge mandate to fix the economy.

His relative inaction resulted in more pain down the road.

He did not "clean up the mess" - he doubled the deficit. I know he "slowed the growth rate" of entitlement spending, but that's not, IMHO, the same as cleaning up the mess.

I believe that job ultimately fell to Mr. Paul Martin.

Just my 2 cents ...


Deborah said...

If you look at the deficit under Trudeau it is concave up. Under Mulroney it is concave down.

Concave up means the rate of increase is out of control and increasing.

Concave down means the rate of increase is concave down and decreasing.

Your comments lead me to believe you either never took calculus or never appreciated what the math concepts were teaching and what a concave up and concave down curve are saying.

The actual control is not in the deficit numbers themselves but the rate of increase. The rate of increase was declining with Mulroney.

Trudeau was heading down a path that would have quadrupled the debt.