Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BEEF JERKEY who wrote (3596)	2/15/2004 11:24:15 AM
From: Stephen O	Respond to of 37182

Harper is NOT Mulroney. In fact one of the main reasons that the Reform party was started, and I was an early joiner, is precisely that huge Conservative spending under Mulroney. He was not being a conservative, so a new party was formed. You can rest assured that the gun registry would be scrapped under the conservatives and there's one big saving. In fact under the conservatives I see the loon reaching parity with the bushbuck within a few years, 5?

To: BEEF JERKEY who wrote (3596)	2/15/2004 12:16:24 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37182

If you want to recite only the easy-to-remember details, you can certainly make the Mulroney years look like an unmitigated disaster. However, significant things were accomplished, and the contribution to Canada's financial burden was in no small amount aided by the previous Liberal government. Regardless, I'm not a tax and spender and I think you'll find that is the prevailing theme among many conservative Canadians. What I am saying is that Martin had no choice. Had the PC's managed to land in power again, they'd have followed the same path as Martin. To believe otherwise is to believe that Canadians could somehow thumb their nose at the world banking and finance community. We'd have a debt rating lower than Cuba's within a week of doing so. I'm not in the habit of making people heroes simply because they did the obvious. And, by the time public scrutiny is done with Martin, you'll realize that he was not the prudent money manager you thought him to be. Those of us who really have looked critically, and objectively, at the Chretien/Martin years know there is a lot more under the surface - I am not just talking about the recent news... stay tuned.