×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务

Big-government Conservative 的粉丝们,不要空洞的语言和词汇,拿数据和事实说话。

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛In Canada, the story is much the same. In their 10 years in office, the Progressive Conservative governments of the 1980s never once presented close to a balanced budget. In 1993, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien inherited an accumulated deficit of $487.5 billion. At the time, this represented approximately 72 per cent of the GDP. It was under the Liberal watch that the tough job of chipping away at those deficits began. In 1997, the government posted a surplus - the first in decades. And a surplus remained until 2007, when the country went back into the red barely a year after the Harper Conservatives took office.

Canada’s Public Accounts underline the point: as a share of the GDP, net debt in 2006 was 32.8 per cent, and down 41 percentage points from its peak of 73.9 per cent on March 31, 1996. Canada’s balance sheet was repaired by the Liberal governments of Chrétien and Paul Martin. They accomplished this through tight management of program spending, some program cuts, revenue increases, expanded trade and a growing economy.

This gross mismanagement didn’t start with the mind-blowing $1.3 billion price tag for two days of meetings, the $16 billion for untendered jets to fight the Russians, or the $12 billion for new prisons to deal with a declining crime rate. Under Harper, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and by $53.8 billion in 2009-10, and is expected to grow by $49.2 billion in 2010-11 and to continue growing through 2014-15 at least. In just three years, all the debt repayment of the previous eight years will be wiped out.

Stephen Harper is, as Tasha Kheiriddin the conservative columnist sarcastically wrote in the National Post, a “big-government Conservative.”

Before the recession of 2008, Harper presided over double-digit increases in government spending. Last year, he took Canada into the deepest deficit in its history to deal with pressing national priorities such as outdoor toilets, gazebos in Tony Clement’s riding, nature trails, swimming pools, and of course, lots of new hockey and curling rink roofs. Of course, let’s not forget the $100 million for government advertising and those thousands of snazzy “Made in the USA” “Economic Action Plan” signs.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下茶话 / 政治经济 / 让数据说话吧,怎么看出保守党能搞好经济?----Don't be duped. The Conservatives are not good for the economy.
    本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛An online poll released today by Ipsos Reid says that the Harper Conservatives continue to be viewed by people as “competent managers of the economy.”

    This is a mirage brought to you courtesy of clever advertising, political spin, and billions of tax dollars spent on things to buy votes that Canada doesn’t need.

    Against overwhelming facts and data, the Harper Conservatives cling to the wholly ridiculous notion that they have credibility on matters of economic management.

    This narrative has not been unique to Canada. Republicans south of the border have been saying that for years. And there, too, the argument is belied by the facts.

    In the United States, the granddaddy of fiscal conservatives, Ronald Reagan, presided over soaring spending increases and record tax decreases, racking up a deficit of $200 billion. George H. W. Bush left a $300 billion accumulated deficit, while his son, George W. Bush, gave the rich the largest tax cut in U.S. history. The younger Bush’s tax-slashing, big-spending ways left his country with a record $482 billion deficit, two wars, and a financial system in tatters. By contrast, that “tax-and-spend liberal” Bill Clinton left office with a $200 billion surplus.

    In Canada, the story is much the same. In their 10 years in office, the Progressive Conservative governments of the 1980s never once presented close to a balanced budget. In 1993, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien inherited an accumulated deficit of $487.5 billion. At the time, this represented approximately 72 per cent of the GDP. It was under the Liberal watch that the tough job of chipping away at those deficits began. In 1997, the government posted a surplus - the first in decades. And a surplus remained until 2007, when the country went back into the red barely a year after the Harper Conservatives took office.

    Canada’s Public Accounts underline the point: as a share of the GDP, net debt in 2006 was 32.8 per cent, and down 41 percentage points from its peak of 73.9 per cent on March 31, 1996. Canada’s balance sheet was repaired by the Liberal governments of Chrétien and Paul Martin. They accomplished this through tight management of program spending, some program cuts, revenue increases, expanded trade and a growing economy.

    So much for those “tax-and-spend Liberals”.

    Since it was elected in 2005, Harper’s Conservative government has reversed that positive trajectory through needless and expensive tax cuts in the wrong places, tax increases in the wrong places and spending increases everywhere else.

    This gross mismanagement didn’t start with the mind-blowing $1.3 billion price tag for two days of meetings, the $16 billion for untendered jets to fight the Russians, or the $12 billion for new prisons to deal with a declining crime rate. Under Harper, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and by $53.8 billion in 2009-10, and is expected to grow by $49.2 billion in 2010-11 and to continue growing through 2014-15 at least. In just three years, all the debt repayment of the previous eight years will be wiped out.

    Stephen Harper is, as Tasha Kheiriddin the conservative columnist sarcastically wrote in the National Post, a “big-government Conservative.”

    Before the recession of 2008, Harper presided over double-digit increases in government spending. Last year, he took Canada into the deepest deficit in its history to deal with pressing national priorities such as outdoor toilets, gazebos in Tony Clement’s riding, nature trails, swimming pools, and of course, lots of new hockey and curling rink roofs. Of course, let’s not forget the $100 million for government advertising and those thousands of snazzy “Made in the USA” “Economic Action Plan” signs.

    Spend our money like it’s going out of style for stuff that doesn’t do much, if anything, to enhance our national competitiveness and productivity, and then throw it back to us with big cheques bearing the Conservative Party logo to take credit for it. That’s a plan only a “competent manager” like Harper could love. Unfortunately, facts have a nasty habit of getting in the way of a good photo-op. And by the way, those too are funded by the taxpayer.

    Before the credit crisis hit the global economy in mid 2008, Canada had the worst economic growth in the G7. Canada has now experienced nine consecutive quarters of zero or negative labour productivity growth. This is the worst record since Statistics Canada began collecting this data in 1980. The U.S., despite its economic troubles, has significantly outpaced Canada in productivity, increasing its competitive advantage in global markets. As the Conference Board of Canada notes, "the failure to boost productivity substantially means lower real wages and incomes for Canadians."

    In 2008, Canada’s level of productivity was US $35 in terms of output per hour worked – much lower than that of the United States, at US $44. This earned Canada a startling 16th place among its 17 peer countries on the level of labour productivity. Only Japan was lower. Worse still, Canada’s productivity level has fallen to 80 per cent of the U.S. level from a high of 90 per cent in the mid 1980s. The gap between Canada and the U.S. is widening, not narrowing.

    Canada’s dismal labour productivity is hurting our international competitiveness and standard of living. Productivity has become the seminal economic issue of our times. Yet the Harper government has shown no leadership on that question whatsoever, despite the fact that there is no greater challenge to Canada’s future economic prosperity.

    During the Harper years, our manufacturing base has been rapidly eroding, productivity has taken a sharp decline, and unemployment is over eight per cent. Last quarter, Statistics Canada reported on Canada’s July trade numbers. It showed a widening trade deficit with the world of $2.7 billion, which makes it the largest deficit since the agency began to track the figure in 1971.

    The upshot of Harper’s economic management? Canada’s job performance is weak, our fiscal situation is deteriorating, trade is suffering, productivity is lagging, the federal government’s spending spree continues.

    Stephen Harper a political careerist. And political careerism is based on short-term expediency in the pursuit of long-term survival. It stresses political survival at all cost. When that’s the game the Harper government plays with our future, where does that leave our long term national interest?更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • The recession and recovery: Australia did it better than Canada (Australia is a more natural point of reference ) and WHY ?
    • 加拿大在金融危机中独善其身主要是两点,政府对银行的监管(这应该归功前任自由党),和资源价格暴涨。保守党只是运气好
      • 对银行的监管救了加拿大的命 !
      • +1
      • 哈哈,所有好处归前任,所有坏处归现任。女人治国,要不得。。。
        • 嗯,这套公式不错
        • Big-government Conservative 的粉丝们,不要空洞的语言和词汇,拿数据和事实说话。
          本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛In Canada, the story is much the same. In their 10 years in office, the Progressive Conservative governments of the 1980s never once presented close to a balanced budget. In 1993, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien inherited an accumulated deficit of $487.5 billion. At the time, this represented approximately 72 per cent of the GDP. It was under the Liberal watch that the tough job of chipping away at those deficits began. In 1997, the government posted a surplus - the first in decades. And a surplus remained until 2007, when the country went back into the red barely a year after the Harper Conservatives took office.

          Canada’s Public Accounts underline the point: as a share of the GDP, net debt in 2006 was 32.8 per cent, and down 41 percentage points from its peak of 73.9 per cent on March 31, 1996. Canada’s balance sheet was repaired by the Liberal governments of Chrétien and Paul Martin. They accomplished this through tight management of program spending, some program cuts, revenue increases, expanded trade and a growing economy.

          This gross mismanagement didn’t start with the mind-blowing $1.3 billion price tag for two days of meetings, the $16 billion for untendered jets to fight the Russians, or the $12 billion for new prisons to deal with a declining crime rate. Under Harper, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and by $53.8 billion in 2009-10, and is expected to grow by $49.2 billion in 2010-11 and to continue growing through 2014-15 at least. In just three years, all the debt repayment of the previous eight years will be wiped out.

          Stephen Harper is, as Tasha Kheiriddin the conservative columnist sarcastically wrote in the National Post, a “big-government Conservative.”

          Before the recession of 2008, Harper presided over double-digit increases in government spending. Last year, he took Canada into the deepest deficit in its history to deal with pressing national priorities such as outdoor toilets, gazebos in Tony Clement’s riding, nature trails, swimming pools, and of course, lots of new hockey and curling rink roofs. Of course, let’s not forget the $100 million for government advertising and those thousands of snazzy “Made in the USA” “Economic Action Plan” signs.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
          • 呵呵,你想说啥?那些钱不该花?阿富汗不该管?鹦鹉学舌的抄些自由党小报,有意思吗?马田总理好啊,为啥赶下台了呢?
      • 左左爱讲运气,右右爱讲上帝。
        • lol......右右们爱讲上帝给他们带来了好运。。。。。
          • 呵呵,没运气这种说法。上帝带来的是恩典和祝福,是十分确定的。但重要的是我们先求他的国和他的义。
      • 加拿大政府早于20世纪80年代即建立“政策与支出管理系统”(Policy and Expenditure Management System),为了控制预算赤字、减少财政支出和提升公共服务质量,
        • 1993年,由让·克雷蒂安领导的自由党政府在政府预算管理中引入了“支出管理体系”( Expenditure Management System,简称“EMS”),并被联邦政府一直沿用至今。
      • 为啥这运气没降落在别的国家身上?我从来不相信有运气,有偶然。所有的偶然都是必然的结果。
      • 原来在银行工作时听头头们议论,加拿大银行没有陷入金融危机是因为反应太慢,一些大的交易磨磨叽叽,资金没有来得及投进去,所以侥幸躲过了一劫。
        • 那些头头要是真懂投资,也不用在那儿混了。倒是加拿大出了经济学诺贝尔奖和一系列大家,颇能提高经济官员素质。国民有保皇党的气派,不似美国人的毛躁,各有利弊。。。
    • 要不咱回顾一下NDP在90年代初是怎么毁了安大略的经济的吧
      • 好,也回顾一下自由党是怎么烧了纳税人11亿建电厂的银子的故事。
        • 也成,反正这俩党我这次都不选。要不回顾一下Mike Harris的Common Sense Revolution也好。
          • 那老猫也可以回顾一下Harris是怎么把407贱卖,以至于现在还时不时haunt back
            • 3billion 1999, 如果投在北上广的房产,应该翻20倍了吧?60billion= 3套地铁了。现在西班牙人一年收0.2b, 收拾得干干净净,比请菲佣都划算。markham的繁荣还依靠她咧。感觉左棍老煽动咱们仇富,却总找错对象,
              净弄些有点钱的邻居来恨,地球那边的他根本不认识,或者装作不认识。
        • 准确地说是烧了11亿不建电厂。
          • +1
          • 上一次 ehealth 丑闻,省民再给了麦肯迪一次机会以观后效,可还是烂泥扶不上墙,安省自由党需要休假养病……
            • 他要真花了11亿修了电厂,我到不太生气,起码没打水漂。现在11亿花了,电厂呐?没有!多伦多修地铁,省里倒说没钱,这不是找抽吗?
              • 现在反过来恶人先告状,告胡大可诬告,再把这个自由党选上去,安省人民就自决了算了。
      • 天,别回忆了。受不了,要奔溃了。
        • 不要感情用事。。。。:))
          • 我是永远不会选NDP的,在经济上理财上,太臭名昭著,铁证如山。
    • 好,这就是反对党的意义:))谁在台上就反对谁,监督睡。
    • 嗯,那你说说,自由党和NDP怎么会搞经济啦?说详细点儿哈,不然我们不信。
      你的言下之意是,自由党和NDP就不会欺骗,就不会浪费啦? 你是不是忘记了,安省自由党的发电厂事件还没结束?到底浪费了我们纳税人多少钱,我们现在还被蒙在鼓里。
      • 别急,等自由党和新民党上台后再说不迟:))
        • 一定要等他们当了联邦帮主了,才可以有数据?可以从自由党在各省的作为看起嘛。安省的自由党是败家子,不提了。其他省的自由党呢?谁来说说?希望可以找出一个不是败家子的自由党三级政府。
      • 一步一步来,我先从联邦政府开始,纠正大家的错误迷信。如果加拿大银行像美国一样deregulation,最后用纳税人的钱来为wall street 的错误买单,这是不是最大的浪费?你那些拉圾清理的问题比起银行的问题来就根本不是问题。
        • 不是我们错误迷信,不是我们认定只有保守党会挣钱,不会花钱。是你这么认为的。
          其实,所有的党都有浪费现象,都有犯经济错误的时候。比如哈珀保守党政府, 签了合约,花了大价钱要为加拿大军队买好的战斗机;可后来反悔,要取消合同;为此,花了很多钱,因为毁约。

          我们之所以觉得保守党在经济方面合格一些,不是因为它完美,没有错误。而是因为,比起自由党和NDP来,保守党合格一些。

          不管你怎么证明,最终的结果还是一个,那就是, 保守党比上不足比下有余。
        • 美国干的荒唐事,正是大左棍奥主席干出来的。人家货币硬,玩得起。加拿大吓傻了,只敢在保守路线上走。实话说,加拿大左棍远不如美国左棍敢想敢干,不分场合,没头没脑的,很不合格呢。还想管银行?洗洗睡吧。
          • 其实导致美国那场危机的决定性的政策都是克林顿的民主党政府制定的,不什政府只是不去纠正那些错误而已。。。穷人也要能贷款买房,不然不平等,平等了没多久就危机了。。。
    • 我不选自由党是因为自由党当年再人头税问题上欺骗华人.