This did the equivalent of raising rates by close to 1% without actually raising them.
You're on your own now for anything over $1 Million. CMHC won't touch it after that.
Ontarios Debt.
- Thread starter Red_Liner740
- Start date
This did the equivalent of raising rates by close to 1% without actually raising them.
You're on your own now for anything over $1 Million. CMHC won't touch it after that.
Reagan.
He's the one who introduced unparalleled government deficit spending, and the only way other nations could compete was to match it. Then once the lazy, stupid populace got used to the easy life, living off the backs of their kids future labour, it became extremely difficult to wean us off that freeloading teat. There are threads here complaining about all sorts of horrible, life-ravaging cutbacks, like scaling back to one garbage pickup per week these days, from the two of old. What an unimaginable fate to suffer! Or this thread, with people complaining about the cost of living when in fact it is still quite a bit cheaper here than most any other place you might choose to live and work.
Notice, however, that the Ontario government had been successfully scaling back the debt since the days of "miraculous" Mike Harris, continued apace by the "deviant" Dalton McGuinty, all to be scuppered by the crisis. Now used as an excuse by Sun Media Corp to further their agenda of pushing corporatism onto anyone who is just bright enough to copy/paste onto a chat forum.
I just want people to stop complaining, unless they are willing to point the finger at themselves as well. Sure, politicians and lobbyists and unions have a corrupting effect on the system, but that's not the subject of this thread. The government was doing a good job reigning in the debt until the crisis. No help from anyone here, I can assure you. Let's give credit where credit is due.
Last edited:
That's a pretty graph, but it fails to show that when you tax the hell out of people, Net Debt decreases, and GDP remains unchanged. Actually, it's a terrible graph because Net Debt increased by 50% while he was in power. Yes, the economy took a down turn, no question. But, taxes have increased, in some areas dramatically, which should have either lowered the ratio, or at least kept it in check. eHealth, Ornge, Power plants, and other mis-spending scandals aside, how is it possible for someone that's financially responsible to have the sunshine list balloon over 500% in the first 6 years of leadership? I actually agree that spending can promote an economy when times turn for the worse, but I also think that saving when times are good is needed first. And regarding the teachers, for the first 8 years he promised them the world, when he realized he f'd everything up, he backpeddled and ran away. He was, without question, the single worst entity in Ontario's history.Come again?
McGuinty was elected in 2003. In 2007 the CAD hit parity with the USD, and in 2008 the great recession struck. Or are you blaming McGuinty for the exchange rate and the global economic crisis? Did you see him play hard ball with the teachers last year? Seems to me like he always did what had to be done, and never got any credit for it.
Net debt is irrelevant. Ontario net debt is a fraction of US net debt, but it's still significant because it's a lot RELATIVE TO OUR GDP. And if you're still criticising the effects of the credit crisis, then it applies to every single last leader in the world and is therefore a pretty insignificant criticism of any one leader. Why do you choose not to look at what was happening BEFORE the crisis? Willful blindness?
Oh, so now the ratio is important? You're not even keeping up with your own distortions of reality. And do you really figure it's that easy? Increased taxes = lower debt, lower taxes = increased debt? What foolishness are you trying to say exactly?
What's the right number for the sunshine list? Show me something concrete to support your outrage, because outrage itself is not an argument.
You don't say. So exactly what McGuinty did, then?
"Promised the World", "realised he f'ed everything up", "backpedaled and ran away". I can demonstrably prove that none of those three statements are true. I get that you're outraged, but could you try and say things that actually make sense or just keep your baseless outrage to yourself, please?
Don't put words in my mouth. You posted the graph, that was released by the Ontario Ministry of Finance, I'm simply commenting on it. What I said was that the Net Debt shouldn't have remained flat, or risen given the fact that taxes in virtually every area of Ontario increased even before the 2009 crisis. That increase in taxes should have been used to pay off debt which would have lowered the ratio. Instead, he wasted every penny that he took, and then some. Google 'McGuinty scandals' please.
That's not a distortion of reality, you can't lower debt without paying it off. And you can't pay it off without income. He increased income for Ontario by raising taxes, but didn't lower debt. If you consider this a distortion of reality, I'm sorry, you can not be helped.
I'm not outraged, appauled yes, outraged, no. What I'm appauled at is the fact that you're defending a 500% increase during a period that saw a sub 2% inflation rate. There were 12,000 public sector jobs in Ontario that earned 6 figures in 2003, in 2008 it was over 63,000. Do you believe employees in the public sector were starving prior to McGuinty's rule? Why does the average public sector employee in Ontario, earn 13% more than their private sector counterpart?
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/research/publications/Comparing-Public-and-Private-Sector-Compensation-in-Ontario/
That doesn't include non-taxable benefits or monetary value for job security.
Again you're either putting words in my mouth, or chosing to not read what I wrote. I said that I support spending to stimulate a stangnant economy, if savings are had to spend. You're concerned with the 2009 crisis, which started in 2009. However, he had been in power for 6 years by that point and didn't save a dime. It was under McGuinty's regime that Ontario, for the first time in Canadian history was the recipient of equalization payments. This was not the result of previous governments as it occured 6 years after his first election win, he did this. Furthermore, why did the 2009 crisis seemingly only hit Ontario? Why did we go from being equalization contributors, to receivers? Even a chipmunk is smart enough to know that in the summer it needs to collect nuts for winter. McGuinty had six years of summer, and only 3 years of winter before he resigned. He's dumber than a chipmunk.
Please read:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/12/21/teachers_protest_mcguinty_reminds_unions_that_liberals_have_been_good_to_educators.html
And take special note to:
"Teacher pay has gone up about 24 per cent. But if you were a first-time teacher, on our watch, you started at about $42,000. Your pay today is at about $75,000. That’s been an 80-per-cent increase in pay during a course of eight years out of the McGuinty government," he said.[McGuinty]
So he raised their pay, and then back peddled with bill 115. My statement stands, although I misspelled back peddled the first time, sorry.
And he did run, he wasn't forced out of office.
Red_Liner740
Well-known member
Pfft, even with AA2, all it means is that you're the healthiest horse in the glue factory...All ships are sinking, people are just shuffling money from one sinking ship to the other trying to keep the music going for as long as possible.
Average Canadian income is less than 1/2 of sunshine starter kit. Many sunshiners make way more than that. These are people working within an existing system. It's low risk. These are not high risk, self starting business people. Their wages, benefits and pensions are funded by those making less than 1/2. Let's not be so cavalier while getting ****ed right to our faces.
Red_Liner740
Well-known member
It's never enough. The more you make, the more you spend.
Just gotta find that balance where you live within your means and try to put some on the side.
tangent
What's worked for me is to take the money away from myself before i spend it. I.e. paycheck hits on the 31st of the month, 1st day of the month all the bills come off (insurance, mortgage, visa's, utilities, other bills, etc), then i automatically transfer money to rrsp, resp and tfsa accounts. by the 2nd my account looks like a tattered mess of transactions, but whatever is left, i can do what i want with and still be ok, knowing I've satisfied my obligations.
All i know about making more and making less is 2 things. People with money have the same problems that everyone else has, it's just that their problems have more zero's attached; and second, try and be in the group that worries 'where' to put their money, because then you have choice. No money = no choice and i'll never go back to that again.
/tangent
Let's keep this simple. Give me an explicit and specific example of a problem you have with McGuinty. Just one will do. I've read your rant, I've googled as you asked me, I followed those links you put up, and there is still no credible criticism of McGuinty that I can discern in any of it.
Regarding the debt (the subject of this thread), what is the metric you are using to judge him? Net debt? Debt relative to tax rate? The only metric that is widely accepted is the debt-to-GDP ratio. Google it yourself! If you want to use another metric then you have an uphill battle to convince me that it is a relevant. If you persist on using an irrelevant metric, then my accusation of distorting reality remains valid.
Regarding eHealth, ORNGE, and the gas plants, the worst conclusion I can draw from them is slimy politics from McGuinty, no scandal. Again, your outrage is not an argument.
Regarding the sunshine list, the 500% increase is not a useful indicator of anything. Perhaps there were 600% of sunshine listers who were within 90% of the $100,000 mark in 2003. That means that a 500% increase by 2008 is a REDUCTION when factored against inflation, which was 11.4% in that same time period. I don't expect you to understand this.
Regarding teachers salaries, he did exactly what you asked; he invested in education when times were good and cut back when times got tough. If a salary increase is what you meant by "promising the world", then it applies to all politicians, making it an irrelevant insult (and certainly not a criticism)! If getting tough with bill 115 is what you meant by "he realised he f'ed everything up" then it applies to a whole lot of politicians, again, an irrelevant insult. If quitting his job is what you mean by "backpedaled and ran away" then, I dunno, you have a fetish for insults.
Here's an alternative explanation: He quit to take some heat off all the good things the party was doing that he was getting from the corporate shills in the right-wing media. They called him a liar, I have yet to see any evidence of a lie. They claimed he greased the palms of his political buddies and campaign contributors, also without evidence. I'm asking you to support the accusations you are parroting about him straight out of that rag with the bikini babe on the back page, but since they don't support their own accusations, you are left hanging with no argument at all.
I've tried playing your diversionary game and got nothing out of it. Either put up evidence or admit you don't actually know what you are talking about. It's either one or the other.
imkruzen
Well-known member
You won't be a friend of Gary's:
Quote from "coming to a bank near you" thread #56
I can't stand people like that. They (in his case $1M) make their fortunes in (what he refers to, as a 'safe') countries, and retire elsewhere & take their loot with them.
Much like Ruski (and other foreign) hockey (or any sport) players. Mother ****ers make $10M / yr, and as soon as a knee blows out, away they go - taking gobs of Cdn & US cash out of said country.
I have ZERO pity for him & his like.
Leave but don't take your money, okay. I offered to take his if he decides to leave the country and I can help you as well in that respect. I'll spend it wisely, you can count on it.
So I give you a list of some of the McGuinty government 'accomplishments', and then you simply chalk them up as right-wing propaganda, insult me directly, and give no proof of any kind in your defense? You're right, convincing you would be an uphill battle. Something I read and will never forget, Do not argue with people that are dumber than you, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Out of curiosity, what government sponsored job, or McGuinty issued untendered contracts do you hold?
This is why we decided to not have children.
Except you didn't as I pointed out.
Except I didn't, I asked you to offer evidence rather than catch phrases. If that makes you feel insulted, then I'm sorry for you
I'm not the one making any claim! You are, so you need to back it up.
Now how is that not an insult? I'm presently in school FWIW, but I have no moral issue with working for the government. What do you figure, it should be staffed by volunteers?
Here are just a couple since I am in a hurry:
-While people may have wanted "investment in education" this should not mean massive wage increases. Investing in education logically should be more teachers and better schools not necessarily more money for the existing teachers. When one looks at the number of un and under employed teachers supply and demand is broken so wage increases on the scale they did were unjustified, while little was actually accomplished on class size etc.. But I do not want to single out the teachers, this has been seen across the board in the public sector in Ontario (teachers are just one example), he bought union votes and union peace via big union wage increases and the expense of the tax payers. Ontario public sector
-You were pretty dismissive of the hydro plants/ORNGE/EHealth but on his watch all of these things happen, and this is waste and with maybe corruption as the median. Just on the Hydro plants, proroguing the legislature had a lot to do with covering this up and protecting the his energy guy from possible jail time as it did anything else. If he did not prorogue when he did the Energy Minister would have faced contempt of the legislature charges OR he would have had to come clean. Lose - Lose for the Liberals so prorogue it was to save their own.
-Brings us to proroguing the legislature, quickly covered the hydro plant deal above. How can anyone call his actions anything other than what it was, a coverup, and with his government about to fall, prorogue to save the party. Not like they are the only ones to do it (fed cons), but we are talking about the Ontario Liberals...
-Full Day Kindergarten, now this one was a great example of unintended consequences (and more money waste). His idea was instead of investing in childcare lets just take part of it over. Now the teachers said this was a bad idea and the curriculum was more than lacking, but in his mind what do they know HE is the education premier... What has happened, they mostly targeted low income areas first. This took the 4 and 5 year old out of daycare and into full day "care" at the school. These kids were the bread and butter of the daycares, based on age the number of daycare workers decreases (by law) as the kids get older. So this took the money makers out of the hands of the daycares leaving them with only the operationally more expensive younger kids. This has actually closed daycares and in general made daycare harder to get for low income families! Yet he just kept plowing forward...
the list goes on but this post is long enough
-While people may have wanted "investment in education" this should not mean massive wage increases. Investing in education logically should be more teachers and better schools not necessarily more money for the existing teachers. When one looks at the number of un and under employed teachers supply and demand is broken so wage increases on the scale they did were unjustified, while little was actually accomplished on class size etc.. But I do not want to single out the teachers, this has been seen across the board in the public sector in Ontario (teachers are just one example), he bought union votes and union peace via big union wage increases and the expense of the tax payers. Ontario public sector
-You were pretty dismissive of the hydro plants/ORNGE/EHealth but on his watch all of these things happen, and this is waste and with maybe corruption as the median. Just on the Hydro plants, proroguing the legislature had a lot to do with covering this up and protecting the his energy guy from possible jail time as it did anything else. If he did not prorogue when he did the Energy Minister would have faced contempt of the legislature charges OR he would have had to come clean. Lose - Lose for the Liberals so prorogue it was to save their own.
-Brings us to proroguing the legislature, quickly covered the hydro plant deal above. How can anyone call his actions anything other than what it was, a coverup, and with his government about to fall, prorogue to save the party. Not like they are the only ones to do it (fed cons), but we are talking about the Ontario Liberals...
-Full Day Kindergarten, now this one was a great example of unintended consequences (and more money waste). His idea was instead of investing in childcare lets just take part of it over. Now the teachers said this was a bad idea and the curriculum was more than lacking, but in his mind what do they know HE is the education premier... What has happened, they mostly targeted low income areas first. This took the 4 and 5 year old out of daycare and into full day "care" at the school. These kids were the bread and butter of the daycares, based on age the number of daycare workers decreases (by law) as the kids get older. So this took the money makers out of the hands of the daycares leaving them with only the operationally more expensive younger kids. This has actually closed daycares and in general made daycare harder to get for low income families! Yet he just kept plowing forward...
the list goes on but this post is long enough
