Comment 29357

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted March 05, 2009 at 16:36:50

Be >> The worst economic conditions in history = Bob Rae's economic policies

Bob Rae had five years in office, in this period of time, "own source" tax revenues went from 35,861B to 38,432B, an increase of 7.2%. In the first five years of Mike Harris, the province saw own source revenues go up from 38,432B to 57,046B, an increase of 48.4%, almost SEVEN TIMES the amount as produced by the Rhodes scholar. Furthermore, under Bob Rae, the Feds increased their assistance to the Ontario government by 41.8% form 5,364B to 7,607B. Mike Harris on the other hand, had the Feds decrease their assistance by 22.6%, going from 7,607B to 5,885B.

So there we have it, both men had five years to work their magic. Mike Harris' increased revenue seven times as much as Bob Rae, even though he reduced tax rates, while Bob raised taxes and revenues stagnated. Furthermore, Bob Rae had more assistance from the feds and yet he still couldn't turn Ontario's economy around. Is five years not enough time to turn things around? Should we have given poor Bob more time? How long would have been fair, ten years, thirty years?

>> By your reasoning the past 1.5 years of poor econmic growth has been directly caused by Barack Obama's Stimulus package that was just past in congress a few weeks ago.

No, my reasoning goes like this, whoever is in office when the economy goes either up or down should get the credit or the blame. Therefore, the economic performance that has taken place from 2001 to 2008 goes to Bush II, not Obama.

If Obama can introduce policies that lead to better economic growth, whatever they may be, he will deserve the credit. Results are all that matter, so at least in the first 40 days or so, he is off to a bit of a rough start. He has 4 years to turn things around.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds