Standing for everything, and nothing, lying about it all.

[blueblood]

The problem is that if those short term bonds and their low yields are for

---SNIP---

You forgot to add:

And this is when the bond vultures say game over!

Edited October 15, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[Argus]

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/A-new-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf

Pg 77 and Pg 85.

What he's doing is ignoring the spending in the 4th year whilst also not counting the surplus (which I forgot to do). That results in $17B out of a $24B cumulative deficit over 4 years being for infrastructure.

Don't forget this part.

And of that, two thirds is infrastructure only in the sense that easier EI payments are an investment: the party calls these “social infrastructure”

"Social infrastructure" is not highways and bridges.

[Wilber]

Don't forget this part.

And of that, two thirds is infrastructure only in the sense that easier EI payments are an investment: the party calls these “social infrastructure”

"Social infrastructure" is not highways and bridges.

No, it is open ended spending on social programs.

[msj]

So you post an opinion on the need for building highways, roads, bridges, hospitals, et al, and when it's pointed out the great majority of this money isn't even for any of that you say I'm being hypocritical? Seriously? Why don't you just admit you don't care what he spends the money on as long as it helps him get elected?

1) The great majority of the infrastructure funding is for infrastructure.

2) I am pointing out that all politicians spend our money whether it is on stuff you want or stuff I want.

3) Let's complain about what choices Trudeau or Harper are making - that's fine.

4) But cut this crap that Harper is some noble politician who is honestly standing for principles while Trudeau will say and do everything to get elected.

[msj]

The problem is that if those short term bonds and their low yields are for

---SNIP---

Meanwhile you ignore the costs associated with having a $400 billion infrastructure deficit.

How much more productive would our economy be if even $100 billion was prioritized and built/maintained?

Probably would more than pay for any associated interest charges.

Especially when interest rates are this low.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[---SNIP---]

[poochy]

Lol, the new, lilly white liberals trot out Chretien on the day the 'old' liberal party reappeared. Now its being said they knew for months about this, lol, of course its all about how well it was handled now, same old liars.

[Argus]

Meanwhile you ignore the costs associated with having a $400 billion infrastructure deficit.

Infrastructure has very little to do with this conversation. As has been pointed out to you very little of the Liberals' spending programs are for infrastructure.

[msj]

Infrastructure has very little to do with this conversation. As has been pointed out to you very little of the Liberals' spending programs are for infrastructure.

Still more than the CPC.

[Smallc]

Still more than the CPC.

$17B more over 4 years.

[poochy]

$17B more over 4 years.

Can't drive on 'social infrastructure', it's a farce, another liberal lie, designed to convince people less smart than you. You can completely buy in to the liberals if you like, but don't pretend they are spending 17B on what most people consider to be infrastructure, it's a lie.

[Smallc]

Social infrastructure can be hospitals, schools, and low income housing. Those are all functions of government.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Smallc

[Wilber]

[quopost=1105237" timestamp="1445002818]Social infrastructure can be hospitals, schools, and low income housing, all functions of government.

Well if you want to put it that way, so are prisons

Edited October 16, 2015 by Wilber

[Smallc]

Well if you want to put it that way, so are prisons.

...and?

[Wilber]

...and?

So infrastructure now includes all government functions. Thought so.

[ToadBrother]

Social infrastructure can be hospitals, schools, and low income housing, all functions of government.

Well if you want to put it that way, so are prisons

I think you misread his post, possibly because he used a comma instead of a semicolon. The way I read it, Smallc wrote:

Social infrastructure can be hospitals, schools, and low income housing; all functions of government.

Edited October 16, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Wilber]

I think you misread his post, possibly because he used a comma instead of a semicolon. The way I read it, Smallc wrote:

Social infrastructure can be hospitals, schools, and low income housing; all functions of government.

I still think we will be surprised at what gets included as "infrastructure".

[Smallc]

I think you misread his post, possibly because he used a comma instead of a semicolon. The way I read it, Smallc wrote:

Social infrastructure can be hospitals, schools, and low income housing; all functions of government.

That's what I meant, yes. It's far too early in the morning.

[Argus]

$17B more over 4 years.

Or not, given the highly elastic way they're using the word 'infrastructure'.

[ToadBrother]

Or not, given the highly elastic way they're using the word 'infrastructure'.

Well yes. They could spend millions on gazebos, I suppose.

[Argus]

Well yes. They could spend millions on gazebos, I suppose.

And will. The Liberal governments I have seen, federally and provincially, have regarded the public purse as an appendage to their party bank account, and have never hesitated to use it to ensure the loyalty of various districts and provinces. Look at the money poured into Shawinigan when Chretien was PM, and poured into numerous other local endeavors, like tens of millions to refurbish a small airport near Paul Martin's father in law's country residence. I think the feds spent more on that than in all of Alberta that year.

[ToadBrother]

And will. The Liberal governments I have seen, federally and provincially, have regarded the public purse as an appendage to their party bank account, and have never hesitated to use it to ensure the loyalty of various districts and provinces. Look at the money poured into Shawinigan when Chretien was PM, and poured into numerous other local endeavors, like tens of millions to refurbish a small airport near Paul Martin's father in law's country residence. I think the feds spent more on that than in all of Alberta that year.

And the Tories didn't. They went so far as to all but brand the 2009 infrastructure program as a Tory program.

[gddub]

What bothers me the most are the tactics the Liberals are using to win votes. On the large front it is over-simplified rhetoric pertaining to either the "Fear of Mr. Harper" (yes the Liberals are using fear too) or the Utopian dream of "Real Change."

It reminds me of American Politics which is nothing to be proud of. I wanna hear about the actual policies that are actually going to happen. I don't want to be sold a used car or pandered to like a child that will soon get Ice Cream.

The only positive of the Liberal campaign is that Justin is a ripe character for impersonation.

For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qQqsnpmmw

[msj]

What bothers me the most are the tactics the Liberals are using to win votes. On the large front it is over-simplified rhetoric pertaining to either ....

It reminds me of American Politics which is nothing to be proud of. I wanna hear about the actual policies that are actually going to happen.

Then do what I do, cut the cable, ignore most media, don't listen to or watch any political ads and focus on the platforms which are available at each party's website.

[Argus]

And the Tories didn't. They went so far as to all but brand the 2009 infrastructure program as a Tory program.

They did. But on the other hand, I have heard almost no complaints that government money was being specifically directed into huge projects in Tory ridings, compared to all the reports of that I saw under the last several governments.

[dialamah]

They did. But on the other hand, I have heard almost no complaints that government money was being specifically directed into huge projects in Tory ridings, compared to all the reports of that I saw under the last several governments.

Yet, here they are ... and here Guess the Tories are as likely as any other Government to direct money into their ridings, after all.