Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Riley W





Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 857
Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5Reputation: 35.5
votes: 10
Location: Manitoba

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can say while working in this youth parliament project, that the Blue/Red Tory divide is a super-hard one to overcome.

Had a Reform and PC party start yesterday. But me and a few others worked hard, and they folded and rejoined us.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Riley W wrote:
I can say while working in this youth parliament project, that the Blue/Red Tory divide is a super-hard one to overcome.

Had a Reform and PC party start yesterday. But me and a few others worked hard, and they folded and rejoined us.

If you can do it, hopefully the rest of us can as well. :)

-Mac
IcemanA





Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 17
Reputation: 10.7

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kwlafayette wrote:
Bleatmop wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
Craig wrote:
I was too young to really know so please enlighten me. How was Mulroney conservative? I googled "tax cuts, mulroney" and found nothing. Did he put a lid on government spending? Did he put forward tough law and order measures? Did he fight for unborn children?
In terms of spending, Mulroney doubled the debt. This was a vast improvement from Trudeau, who multiplied by 10.


Doesn't that mean they each increased it by the same amount?

When Truedeau came to power, the debt was X. As you stated, he increased it by 10 time. Now when Mulroney came to power you say he doubled it. Therefore:

Trudeau: X * 10 = 10X
Mulroney: 10X * 2 = 20X

Both PM's increased the debt by 10X, no?
No. 10X * 10 is 100X.


So If Trudeau increased debt by 10 times, from say $10 to $100, and Mulroney doubled it from $100 to $200, isn't Mulroney the bigger spender?
Montgomery





Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 53
Reputation: 10.6
votes: 1
Location: Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IcemanA wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
Bleatmop wrote:
kwlafayette wrote:
Craig wrote:
I was too young to really know so please enlighten me. How was Mulroney conservative? I googled "tax cuts, mulroney" and found nothing. Did he put a lid on government spending? Did he put forward tough law and order measures? Did he fight for unborn children?
In terms of spending, Mulroney doubled the debt. This was a vast improvement from Trudeau, who multiplied by 10.


Doesn't that mean they each increased it by the same amount?

When Truedeau came to power, the debt was X. As you stated, he increased it by 10 time. Now when Mulroney came to power you say he doubled it. Therefore:

Trudeau: X * 10 = 10X
Mulroney: 10X * 2 = 20X

Both PM's increased the debt by 10X, no?
No. 10X * 10 is 100X.


So If Trudeau increased debt by 10 times, from say $10 to $100, and Mulroney doubled it from $100 to $200, isn't Mulroney the bigger spender?

No. That debt is nominal debt, not real debt. Nominal debt is not adjusted for inflation; real debt is.

That being said, I doubt those figures are correct... if someone could go out and actually locate the real ones instead of making up statistics, that would make me happy. ;)
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What you have to do is chart it on a graph. It is like the difference between exponential and linear growth. Then I think you begin to understand the magnitude of what Trudeau did to to us.

For example, if you look at the 1983-1984 fiscal year, you will find that Trudeau had revenues of $65,261,000,000. Program spending was $77,194,000,000 (several billions more than revenue). Compare this to the deficit of the same fiscal year, $32,363,000,000 (debt charges were over $20 billion). Trudeau was borrowing money to pay interest on past borrowing, plus borrowing more to keep spending; not a good practice. It would be like you getting another Visa card so that you could make the minimum payment on your existing Visa, then also buying a new Xbox 360 and a 12 speed bike. It does not take many months of that before you are in a deep deep hole.

It took till the 1987/88 fiscal year before government revenues was larger than government spending. This is a big part of Mulroney's legacy. Not saying that he couldn't have done better, just saying that he did quite a good thing for the country there.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let us also consider what Mulroney was not capable of doing. Lets examine the 1985/86 fiscal year, Mulroney was elected in September of 1984, and March of 1985 would have been his first budget.

From http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/Fe.....1-2009.pdf

Revenue: $77,742,000,000
Debt charges: $33,389,000,000
Spending: $83,874,000,000

If he had undertaken to actually balance the budget that year, spending would have actually been $44,353,000,000 instead of the almost $84 billion that was actually spent. Clearly, it would have been impossible to cut that much spending in one year without some serious implications for the economy. He would have had to cut the size of the federal government in half in one year, clearly not easy or even possible to do.
The Trusty Tory





Joined: 18 Nov 2007
Posts: 31
Reputation: 16.7Reputation: 16.7
votes: 1
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly. Which is why if I hear "42 billion dollar deficit" again from a Liberal's chops, I'll lose it...
scarborough_tory





Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 23

Location: Scarborough, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And if Mulroney had slashed program spending to the levels needed to balance the budget sooner, no doubt the Liberals would have been screaming bloody murder over the cuts!
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mulroney had a somewhat similar situation to Harper when it came to introducing change to government.

Trudeau's Liberals ran the House from 1968 through to 1984 plus there was 5 years of Pearson's Liberal government before that. 21 years gives you tons of time to stack the upper ranks of the supposedly non-partisan public service with party hacks, to top-fill the Supreme Court of Canada with idiots of the quality of Louise Arbour, the make every political appointee on every committee in the land a Liberal. Trudeau didn't have enough committees to fill so he created a whole raft of new ones!!

Why do you suppose Mulroney's government was plagued by endless information leaks and disclosures which the Rat Pack morphed into faux-scandals? The biggest difference was Mulroney had a huge majority in his first government and a large majority in the second term. I could never understand why he didn't pull the plug on whole sections of the bureaucracy which Trudeau created. I can only conclude that the "Red Tory" influence in the party wasn't disturbed by Big Government.

-Mac
Swan Song





Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 133
Reputation: 26.7Reputation: 26.7Reputation: 26.7
votes: 1

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The biggest difference was Mulroney had a huge majority in his first government and a large majority in the second term. I could never understand why he didn't pull the plug on whole sections of the bureaucracy which Trudeau created. I can only conclude that the "Red Tory" influence in the party wasn't disturbed by Big Government.


Mulroney had two majority governments in two tries. Harper has had one minority government in two tries. I don't know what sports you watch, but in my world Muldoon is a winner and the other guy is Loser!
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swan Song wrote:
Mulroney had two majority governments in two tries. Harper has had one minority government in two tries. I don't know what sports you watch, but in my world Muldoon is a winner and the other guy is Loser!


Winner for conservatives? Or winner for himself? IMHO, successfully moving conservative values forward is the definition of victory and Mulroney did little of that.

If we elected Paul Martin as leader of the CPC and he won a majority and pushed forward liberal policies would we have "won"?
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Winner for conservatives? Or winner for himself? IMHO, successfully moving conservative values forward is the definition of victory and Mulroney did little of that.


That's a salient point, Craig. Mulroney's coalition may have ultimately shattered because it was too focused on pragmatism and compromise. Harper's strategy seems to be based on incrementally reintroducing Canadians to conservatism, which I think will pay off better in the long run.

Mulroney tried to build his big tent around the crowd, then relied on charisma and force of will to keep everyone inside. Harper's built his tent just to right of the mushy middle, and is persuading voters in one at a time.
mltoryblue





Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Posts: 109
Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7Reputation: 7

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Craig wrote:
Winner for conservatives? Or winner for himself? IMHO, successfully moving conservative values forward is the definition of victory and Mulroney did little of that.


That's a salient point, Craig. Mulroney's coalition may have ultimately shattered because it was too focused on pragmatism and compromise. Harper's strategy seems to be based on incrementally reintroducing Canadians to conservatism, which I think will pay off better in the long run.

Mulroney tried to build his big tent around the crowd, then relied on charisma and force of will to keep everyone inside. Harper's built his tent just to right of the mushy middle, and is persuading voters in one at a time.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Mulroney was alwas in the middle on policy, because of this it allowed supporters to break of to the left and right. Harpers government is a centre right coalition, this makes it only vulnerable to the left and right now the left is very crowded.
Swan Song





Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 133
Reputation: 26.7Reputation: 26.7Reputation: 26.7
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Mulroney was alwas in the middle on policy, because of this it allowed supporters to break of to the left and right. Harpers government is a centre right coalition, this makes it only vulnerable to the left and right now the left is very crowded.


That is fine as long as you acknowledge that Harper's coalition is a MINORITY coalition, and Mulroney's was a MAJORITY coalition. If you are happy with taking home less rather than more money at the end of the year, I would be happy to hire you to work for me. That must be the "new math" they teach out West!
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That is fine as long as you acknowledge that Harper's coalition is a MINORITY coalition, and Mulroney's was a MAJORITY coalition. If you are happy with taking home less rather than more money at the end of the year, I would be happy to hire you to work for me. That must be the "new math" they teach out West!


The anti-Western sentiment you put on display every other post is, within the context of the OP, exactly what needs to end to keep us united. There will be no chance of any conservative government, minority or majority, if East, West, and Atlantic cannot accept each other as equal partners in a coalition.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


What will it take to finally unite the right?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB