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

[Smallc]

Oh please. Do you really think he was really suggesting that Justin Trudeau himself would personally open up brothels and pot shops

Has he even talked about brothels (I wish he would)?

[CITIZEN_2015]

Oh please. Do you really think he was really suggesting that Justin Trudeau himself would personally open up brothels and pot shops? Come on.

Come on now. I didn't mean to say that he suggested Trudeau himself would open those brothels. He was fear mongering that Trudeau may decriminalize prostitution laws and as a result in every corner there will be brothels opening amd madams running in your neighborhood bring down your home prices. Can you not see the lie and fear mongering? You want to scare conservative supporters into staying with them then tell them that they would lose money lol (or worse home prices).

[Smallc]

Come on now. I didn't mean to say that he suggested Trudeau himself would open those brothels. He was fear mongering that Trudeau may decriminalize prostitution laws and as a result in every corner there will be brothels opening

Mandated ones even...I don't know how my fiancee will feel about that.

[Wilber]

We're talking about a total debt for the 3 years of less than 2% of GDP. I don't blame Harper for the current stream of deficits, but it's 1/6 as much.

That's not what I asked.

[Moonlight Graham]

The Liberals are taking a page out of the 2008 Obama playbook. Talk about "change", make the appearance that you're a populist alternative vs your corrupt governing conservative opponents, and be as vague as possible so that voters project whatever "change" they want onto you without you even having to say it.

It's cowardly and unprincipled, but I guess it works.

[Argus]

We're talking about a total debt for the 3 years of less than 2% of GDP. I don't blame Harper for the current stream of deficits, but it's 1/6 as much.

We're talking about, presuming he's accurate, which I'm virtually certain he isn't, adding yet another $30 billion to our debt when we ought to be paying down the debt.

And the purpose of adding that $30 billion is to get Trudeau elected. There's nothing in this extra money which is going to help Canada.

[Wilber]

We're talking about a total debt for the 3 years of less than 2% of GDP. I don't blame Harper for the current stream of deficits, but it's 1/6 as much.

That's not what I asked.

[Smallc]

We're talking about, presuming he's accurate, which I'm virtually certain he isn't, adding yet another $30 billion to our debt

To be completely accurate we're talking about $25B.

[msj]

To be completely accurate we're talking about $25B.

Which will be used, somewhat, against an infrastructure deficit estimated to be $400+ billion.

I'm actually excited at the thought of a politician talking about actual investment in such things.

Meanwhile, our debt to GDP ratio likely won't change at all - well, unless Harper's technical recession turns into a real one.

[Argus]

Which will be used, somewhat, against an infrastructure deficit estimated to be $400+ billion.

I'm actually excited at the thought of a politician talking about actual investment in such things.

It's good that you get excited so easily, especially given the number of national columnists who have looked at the Liberal's proposals and pointed out that almost none of it is actually destined for infrastructure. I believe Jeffrey Simpson said about 15% of it was for actual infrastructure.

[Smallc]

Meanwhile, our debt to GDP ratio likely won't change at all - well, unless Harper's technical recession turns into a real one.

Actually, it's set to decline at a rate of about 1% a year, given growth and deficit projections by the Liberals.

[msj]

It's good that you get excited so easily, especially given the number of national columnists who have looked at the Liberal's proposals and pointed out that almost none of it is actually destined for infrastructure. I believe Jeffrey Simpson said about 15% of it was for actual infrastructure.

Funny thing, when I go to their platform the next 4 years indicates over $18 billion for infrastructure (and even more over 10 years ).

[msj]

Actually, it's set to decline at a rate of about 1% a year, given growth and deficit projections by the Liberals.

Yes fair point.

Which is why deficit funding can simply mean treading water.

[Smallc]

I believe Jeffrey Simpson said about 15% of it was for actual infrastructure.

About $17B over the next 4 years (of additional money) - not an insignificant amount of money, accounting for 2/3 of the projected deficit accumulation over that time.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Hmm. I can remember hearing the same rational in a Toronto bar discussion in the early 80's when his father started us down the deficit road.

[msj]

Hmm. I can remember hearing the same rational in a Toronto bar discussion in the early 80's when his father started us down the deficit road.

Sure, and if interest rates hit 20% then we can have other discussions too.

[Wilber]

Sure, and if interest rates hit 20% then we can have other discussions too.

They weren't 20% then, Mulroney got saddled with that.

[msj]

They weren't 20% then, Mulroney got saddled with that.

Check your facts: 5 year http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/selected_historical_v122540.pdf

3 month bonds: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/selected_historical_v122541.pdf

6 month: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/selected_historical_v122552.pdf

Mulroney was PM from Sep 1984 through to June, 1993.

PET got to deal with high interest rates and a nasty recession before Mulroney got in.

[Wilber]

I bought a house in 79 with a 7% mortgage. I renewed in 84 at 18 % and thought I got a deal because they went to 20%:shortly after. Rates may have gone up while PET was PM but Mulroney got stuck with them. Back then, deficit spending was the prime driver of inflation and interest rates.

[Smallc]

We're talking about 3 years totalling $25B. That's far less that what we've just put on. I'd feel different if he weren't planning to balance the budget at all.

[msj]

I bought a house in 79 with a 7% mortgage. I renewed in 84 at 18 % and thought I got a deal because they went to 20%:shortly after. Rates may have gone up while PET was PM but Mulroney got stuck with them. Back then, deficit spending was the prime driver of inflation and interest rates.

Hmmm, who to believe, your memory or facts: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/remember-when-what-have-we-learned-from-80s-interest-rates/article24398735/

Note the sentence about peaking just over 21% in the second half of 1981.

Facts.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Just a few days ago another conservative candidate Greg Goodyear accused Trudeau of supporting genital mutilation!!![/size]

http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news-story/5952081-niqab-debate-offers-heated-moments-during-cambridge-candidates-forum/

He was booed by the crowd.

The Conservative candidate in Ottawa's Kanata-Carleton riding was photographed taking down election signs in his riding on Sunday,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/canada-election-2015-ottawa-illegal-sign-removal-1.3267714

It was also broadcast on CTV.

And more lies and secrecy and hypocrisy

!!!.

The FGM link just goes to the website, not to the article.

The Ottawa candidate is taking down a vote strategically sign which is funny.

On the Saudis, we are all hypocrites. We want their money although we know full well what they are like. Fair journos would point to their own party's failings first in this matter, which not be hard.

[Wilber]

Hmmm, who to believe, your memory or facts: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/housing/remember-when-what-have-we-learned-from-80s-interest-rates/article24398735/

Note the sentence about peaking just over 21% in the second half of 1981.

Facts.

When it is coming out of my pocket I remember it. Do you think I am so senile that I don't remember when I moved from Toronto back to Vancouver and when I would renew a 5 year renewable mortgage? But I get it. Liberal deficits good, Conservative deficits bad, that's all you need to know.

[msj]

When it is coming out of my pocket I remember it. Do you think I am so senile that I don't remember when I moved from Toronto back to Vancouver and when I would renew a 5 year renewable mortgage? But I get it. Liberal deficits good, Conservative deficits bad, that's all you need to know.

Didn't say any of that about good or bad deficits.

But I did put up mortgage rates showing they peaked in September, 1981.

Sure, maybe you weren't prime back then, or the timing was such that you carried a high rate because you locked it in whenever. Who knows.

That was 35 years ago so let's agree to the facts rather than the memories.

[Wilber]

OK, let's look at your graph. Rates gradually declined between 84 and 93. The Liberals ability to balance the budget was as much due to lower interest rates as it was fiscal management. High debt is an unexploded bomb and you can't control when it might go off. People were walking away from mortgages and the housing market collapsed in 81 . Our consumer debt is now at a record high, we don't need governments that imitate it.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Wilber