Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
You are looking at outcomes, which we know are far more influenced by global events and the global economy than domestic policy. When you look at the things he actually did(as I laid out) you can see how they weren't great policy and left costs for us today.
And again, you give Harper credit for surviving the economic crisis, and I just don't see how you can do that when the policies he wanted for years, pushed for, and got some passed, would have left us far worse off. Just because Harper was captain of the ship he was riding on at the time, doesn't mean he wasn't also actively trying to punch holes in it. Fortunately it turned out to be a fairly well built ship for that purpose. Canada survived it in spite of Harper, not because of him.
What good economic policies did Harper have that did what you say they did for Canada?
|
Few points here. To address your last question first, there are multiple economic policies that I think did good things for Canada:
- I am in favour of reducing regulations (within reason). It's clear to me that Canada has become a country that is uncompetitive and the red tape and bureaucracy we have in place is a huge part of that. It has become worse and worse over Trudeau's reign, and I think it's the single largest reason there is no investment thesis for Canada anymore
- I think the income and corporate tax cuts under Harper helped fuel Canada to be at least slightly more competitive and spurn some investment in the country
- I also think that his focus on balanced budgets and reduced government spending are things that I believe strongly help the country
This last bullet segways nicely into my next point - something that I've heard countless times on this board is people downplay the successes of the economy under Harper ("Canada survived it in spite of Harper, not because of him"), and also downplay the failures of the economy and the trends we've seen under Trudeau. So what I've heard is that the Prime Minister has very little effect on the economy and that you can in no way put the blame on Trudeau because the macro environment is what actually effects the economy.
Let's accept the premise that that's the case, the Prime Minister has very minimal effect on the economy, and we can put no praise or blame on them for how the economy performs. If that's true, then how can you possibly continue to support the level of spending, the level of government bloat, taxation, and the waste that happens in the government? If the government has little effect on what happens, why do we need 40% more government workers over the last 10 years? Why do we need deficits that blow through anything we've seen in Canada's history, if government spending has little effect on the performance of the economy?
Have you gotten the impression that any social services have improved since we've increased all of the above? I haven't gotten that impression. It all boils down to the fact that Canadians ARE NOT getting what they are paying for. At least under Harper that came with a balanced budget and reduced taxes putting money back into Canadian pockets, which has not been the case recently.
In any case, my argument was with your statement that "Conservative times are tough times". I think even you'd agree that that statement doesn't hold true when you look at Harper's time in power, even if you think that happened in spite of him and not because of him, because by your own admission, the Prime Minister is at the behest of the macro environment, so he can't do that much damage.