Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson
From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: tariffs,shoes: a source
Message-ID: <60@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 00:52:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.60
Posted: Tue Oct 22 00:52:01 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Oct-85 07:08:25 EDT
References: <2650@watcgl.UUCP> <52@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2663@watcgl.UUCP>
Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Distribution: can
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 56
Summary: 

In article <2663@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP writes:
>> ........................................................ Ninety-one 
>> million dollars is a lot of money (except maybe to socialists) and
>                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^
>or people who believe in reagonomics (doubling the national debt in 5 years).

Or people who believe in Liberal economics. (Though any good Liberal
would be the first to admit that he has no underlying philosophy )
Consider that in 1980 the net debt, which is in effect the accumulated
budgetary deficit since confederation, was $68.6 billion. So if we were
as fiscally irresponsible as the Americans then I guess we'd now be
looking at a debt of about $135 billion. Alas, we are not. In his
May budget speech, Michael Wilson made a reference to the public debt,
which he defined as the sum of all past deficits. He said that the
debt was  approaching $200 billion. Thus, it would appear that 
we ***tripled*** our debt during the same five year period. It 
seems that it is hardly necessary to look south of the border for 
gross economic mismanagement - we've got more than enough right here.
[The doubling of the US's debt can be mostly attributed to a 25% 
reduction in federal income tax rates and increased military spending.
What, if anything, have *we* got to show for the tripling of our debt?]

It is too bad that everyone seems too preoccupied with Ronnie's deficit
to take the time to realize that *we* are in serious trouble. In fact,
the only sure thing is that when we start taking our medicine a large
segment of society is not going to like its taste. Thank you, Pierre
Trudeau, for leaving this country in a state of economic shambles.
[BTW, guess which party PET belonged to before joining the Liberals]

>You might like to believe that overspending is the hallmark of socialism
>but the facts just don't bear this out. 

At the beginning of the federal election campaign John Turner was talking
about cutting the deficit in half in 5 years. Brian Mulroney claimed
that a Conservative victory would automagically  revive the economy,
thus bringing down the deficit; all without cutting services or raising
taxes. (My bogonmeter hit the red line on that one). However, when we      
come to Ed Broadment we find someone who not only readily admitted 
that he would be increasing the deficit by about $2 billion in order 
to finance new programs and enhance existing ones, but also claimed 
that said deficit was no big deal. If that's how Ed talks during a 
campaign, then one can only begin to imagine the immensity of the 
torrents of fresh red ink that would have been unleashed had he made 
it to 24 Sussex Dr. Perhaps he should take a few leaves out of New 
Zealand PM David Lange's book: one socialist who seems to realize 
that before you can redistribute wealth you've got to create it.

>........................................Everyone likes to make a big
>stink about the federal deficit but after 40 years of conservative rule
>in Ontario the provincial debt is about $19 billion.  

If it calls itself a duck but feeds at the trough, rolls in the mud, and
oinks like a pig, then a duck it ain't.
[Know what Ontario Hydro's debt is?? $22 billion]

J.B. Robinson