Justin Trudeau kicks all "Liberal" Senators out of Caucus.

[Argus]

Yes, exactly. Initially I responded to Argus who believes JT may jeopordise his votes if he moves too far to the left. I countered that it's not really about the person at this point, it's time for a change. Same thing happened in 2008 in the US, it was a Democrat year and pretty much everyone knew it.

I think there's a sentiment for that, but that doesn't mean the electorate will go for just anyone. Trudeau is pretty and has a good speaking voice but throw in some wildly expensive policies around climate change (remember what happened to Dion?) and this new, talked about multibilion dollar infrastructure project, and the voters could decide to stick with the tried and true.

[Argus]

I can see that. Though, as you alluded to, economics may be a big factor in the outcome of the next election, which means most people may want to stick with the Conservatives. Then again, I seriously wonder whether most voters are motivated by rational matters like economic policy or more by emotion. Justin does say a lot of nice things and his hair's nice, too.

If the tories bring in a balanced budget at last, and Trudeau leads with an $18 billion a year infrastructure program for which he would have to borrrow 100% of the money... that will have an effect.

Don't get me wrong, I think spending money on infrastructre is a great idea. But I'm definitely not comfortable with borrowing that much money to pay for it.

[Argus]

Trudeau Senior gets so much flak for spending like a drunken sailor but his spending was nothing compared to so-called 'fiscally responsible' governments of Mulroney and Harper.

Not true. You forget that Trudeau Sr took over a government with virtually no debt. He quadrupled spending and left it with a very large debt and stagflation. Mulroney inherited a government with $200 billion debt for which the service charges -- that is, just the cost of the interest payments was over $30 billion. That was on top of an existing deficit of $30 billion Trudeau left him, with high unemployment. Just having to borrow to pay the interest every year added $150 billion to our accumulated debt.

Harper is a different story in that he inherited pretty clean books. However, whent he financial crisis hit everyone insisted the government spend tens of billions on incentives. To suggest any of the other parties would have done any different is dishonest. They all demanded it. You could say the government would have had more money without the GST cuts but as I recall it Paul Martin had promised huge spending programs to get himself elected, which would have eaten away a lot of that money anyway. Still, I think cutting the GST was a mistake.

[BC_chick]

I can see that. Though, as you alluded to, economics may be a big factor in the outcome of the next election, which means most people may want to stick with the Conservatives. Then again, I seriously wonder whether most voters are motivated by rational matters like economic policy or more by emotion. Justin does say a lot of nice things and his hair's nice, too.

Harper's economy is not good, but if it makes you feel any better, yes, Justin has nice hair!

[BC_chick]

The promise to cut the GST predated the financial crisis and really not that different from the income tax cut policy which the Liberals had followed since 2000. By the time 2006 had rolled around Martin was spending like a drunken sailor trying to stay in power so if the Liberals had stayed in power the money lost from the GST cuts would have been lost increasing government spending and would have made the subsequent deficits even worse.

I am not blaming the LPC for anything - I am just saying that only a shameless hypocrite would suggest that the Liberals would have not run an equally large, if not larger deficit at the time. If the Liberals were in charge I seriously doubt we would be looking at a balanced budget now because they would be endlessly making excuses about why it is "too soon" for fiscal constraint.

If you go by JT positioning at the convention it is clear that he wants to spend spend spend while saying taxes won't be increased (because that would lose votes). At this point in time the CPC is the only party that even understands the words "fiscally responsible" which is unfortunate because from 1992-2004 the Liberals had an excellent record.

So, in your opinion, one of the best finance ministers we ever had was about to go on a spending spree that would pale in comparison with Harper's? Well, I'll let his history as finance minister speak for itself instead of your belief of something that didn't happen.

In any case, the point I'm making here is that the CPC platform does not resonate with the electorate when it comes to social and environmental issue so they posture and bring up the economy all the time, however, looking at the record, Liberal governments were more fiscally responsible.

The rest is scare-mongering.

[BC_chick]

Not true. You forget that Trudeau Sr took over a government with virtually no debt. He quadrupled spending and left it with a very large debt and stagflation. Mulroney inherited a government with $200 billion debt for which the service charges -- that is, just the cost of the interest payments was over $30 billion. That was on top of an existing deficit of $30 billion Trudeau left him, with high unemployment. Just having to borrow to pay the interest every year added $150 billion to our accumulated debt.

Harper is a different story in that he inherited pretty clean books. However, whent he financial crisis hit everyone insisted the government spend tens of billions on incentives. To suggest any of the other parties would have done any different is dishonest. They all demanded it. You could say the government would have had more money without the GST cuts but as I recall it Paul Martin had promised huge spending programs to get himself elected, which would have eaten away a lot of that money anyway. Still, I think cutting the GST was a mistake.

Sure, a lot could've happened if the Liberals were in power the last 10 years, but guess what? They weren't. Harper made this mess.

And the argument that "it's better than what a government that never existed would've done" is a bit silly. It's weak, it's moot, it's scare-mongering and it's used because there is no other way to defend a truly bad record.

If Justin really hammers in this point, Harper has nothing left.

[Keepitsimple]

Sure, a lot could've happened if the Liberals were in power the last 10 years, but guess what? They weren't. Harper made this mess.

And the argument that "it's better than what a government that never existed would've done" is a bit silly. It's weak, it's moot, it's scare-mongering and it's used because there is no other way to defend a truly bad record.

If Justin really hammers in this point, Harper has nothing left.

A lot of hot air. Our debt to GDP ratio is the envy of every country except like-minded Germany - the healthiest country by far and the engine of the EU.

[BC_chick]

A lot of hot air. Our debt to GDP ratio is the envy of every country except like-minded Germany - the healthiest country by far and the engine of the EU.

All paid for by money that doesn't exist while people overextend themselves in debt. That's an illusion of an economy and a very dangerous place to be.

[g_bambino]

Harper's economy is not good...

Mm. I shouldn't have assumed the Liberals wouldn't come up with an economic strategy better than the Conservatives' before the next election--or, at least, one that's more appealing to most voters, assuming most voters use such things to determine how to vote. Going by Trudeau Jr.'s most recent speech, I'm not sure how attractive the Liberal's plan is, but I doubt it'll sway those who want deficits paid down.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited February 24, 2014 by g_bambino

[BC_chick]

Mm. I shouldn't have assumed the Liberals wouldn't come up with an economic strategy better than the Conservatives' before the next election--or, at least, one that's more appealing to most voters, assuming most voters use such things to determine how to vote. Going by Trudeau Jr.'s most recent speech, I'm not sure how attractive the Liberal's plan is, but I doubt it'll sway those who want deficits paid down.

[ed.: c/e]

Who puts put an economic plan this far ahead of an election? Harper wasn't putting forth specifics either, he was talking general ideas of accountability and transparency the same way JT is so far just talking about the vision.

Funny how clairvoyant harper supporters are on this issue.

[g_bambino]

Who puts put an economic plan this far ahead of an election? Harper wasn't putting forth specifics either, he was talking general ideas of accountability and transparency the same way JT is so far just talking about the vision.

I don't know. Are we that far ahead? Regardless, I didn't say anyone had revealed the nuts and bolts of any plan, but plans have been spoken about, though in broad terms, as you say. Still, both party leaders seem to be saying enough on the subject to differentiate themselves from one another and entice reaction, from those who care. Still again, as I said, I don't know how many voters care.

[poliforthepeople]

At first I thought this was a good idea, but now I have changed my mind. I think he did it just to make a splash with the media. If you don't anayze it then it doesn't seem like a bad thing to do.

Edited February 25, 2014 by poliforthepeople

[Argus]

All paid for by money that doesn't exist while people overextend themselves in debt. That's an illusion of an economy and a very dangerous place to be.

So I take it you're opposed to Trudeau's idea of borrowing $18 billion a year for a five year infrastructure program then?

[BC_chick]

So I take it you're opposed to Trudeau's idea of borrowing $18 billion a year for a five year infrastructure program then?

That was one of many resolutions put forth, none of which are binding. In spite of all the clairvoyance on the right, fact remains: none of the 3 parties have yet put forth their economic plan.

[WWWTT]

I recall it being suggested that I was listening to the advice of my toaster whenever I talked about incorporating jury-like citizen's assemblies or councils of elders into our governance. Appointing senators along these lines would work just fine for me. My other appliances, like most Canadians, also seem to support the direction Trudeau is leading us towards.

I don't understand your debating platform here?

Either way, it is very weak.

WWWTT

[eyeball]

You don't recall speaking from the same damn platform? You even suggested it deserved it's own thread.

That's so weak it's lame.