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

[msj]

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.

Of course interest rates helped out. They were the primary cause of the deficit/debt spiral so no wonder they stopped being a problem when interest rates came back down towards historic levels (the late 70's to early 90's were an aberration but you can look up that fact for yourself).

But Harper has helped lead us into this indebtedness by allowing 40, then, 35 and now 30 mortgage amortization terms so I'm not exactly sympathetic to the indebted Canadian.

The government control the rules for financing and have chosen to not only keep their foot off the brake but have encouraged it with various tax subsisidies brought in over the years.

The Feds may be forced to deficit finance to pick up the slack when Vancouver and Toronto implode.

If they don't then Canada will have a similar recovery that people keep complaining about in the US (although considering how bad it could have been that recovery has turned out pretty good in the past 3 or so years).

But of course, this disaster is still years off (hopefully).

[poochy]

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.

So it's an insignificant amount to borrow, but a not insignificant amount to spend? It is exactly as Argus described it, feel good, the liberals are gonna 'help you' money that only a small fraction of which will be spent on actual infrastructure, desinged purely to make the liberals seem like the nice, helpful party in constrast to those dastardly conservatives only helping the 'rich', which i am apparently one of. They are playing it on all sides and lying to everyone, but he's cute cuddly, grow the economy from the heart out Justin, so it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how much bullshit their platform is, they get a free pass.

[poochy]

But Harper has helped lead us into this indebtedness by allowing 40, then, 35 and now 30 mortgage amortization terms so I'm not exactly sympathetic to the indebted Canadian.

So Harper made it easier to buy a home before then making it more difficult? Didnt know that, i did know that they changed the rules to make it more difficult, but not that they were responsible for making it easier in the first place.

[ToadBrother]

So it's an insignificant amount to borrow, but a not insignificant amount to spend? It is exactly as Argus described it, feel good, the liberals are gonna 'help you' money that only a small fraction of which will be spent on actual infrastructure, desinged purely to make the liberals seem like the nice, helpful party in constrast to those dastardly conservatives only helping the 'rich', which i am apparently one of. They are playing it on all sides and lying to everyone, but he's cute cuddly, grow the economy from the heart out Justin, so it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how much bullshit their platform is, they get a free pass.

Here's a hint. They all lie and distort. It's what politicians do. If you think, somehow, that the Tories are paragons of virtue then all I can say is how did you manage to walk through the last decade with your eyes closed?

Be real for a second. This election isn't about platforms and policy. In fact, I'd say most elections are not won or lost on policy. Elections are, in the simplest terms, referendums on the governing party. So you can sit here and complain about the holes at the center of any particular party's platform, or indeed all the platforms, but then you're missing what's happening.

[Smallc]

So it's an insignificant amount to borrow, but a not insignificant amount to spend?

Both are significant. The difference is, the total investment will be enough to cut Canada's infrastructure deficit by 25%. It won't affect us in terms of debt or borrowing in any meaningful way.

It is exactly as Argus described it, feel good, the liberals are gonna 'help you' money that only a small fraction of which will be spent on actual infrastructure, desinged purely to make the liberals seem like the nice, helpful party in constrast to those dastardly conservatives only helping the 'rich', which i am apparently one of.

I live in a town of 180. Really, not going to benefit much from transit infrastructure, but I can see how its important.

[WestCanMan]

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-how-i-came-to-admire-justin-trudeau

I enjoyed this article, and it does a good job of summing up Trudeau, the liberals and their campaign, how they can promise so much, while never actually telling the truth about anything, never being pressed to answer a question beyond the cuddly platitudes, the opinions of the followers here greatly reflect this open emptiness. Anything for power, no lie to great, no truth too small.

The easiest thing in the world to do is to make promises as the leader of the opposition. No one can hold you accountable for all the things that you're not going to do in the future.

Harper ran the country through some very difficult times and he's being held accountable for what? Basically getting us through unscathed.

[ToadBrother]

The easiest thing in the world to do is to make promises as the leader of the opposition. No one can hold you accountable for all the things that you're not going to do in the future.

Harper ran the country through some very difficult times and he's being held accountable for what? Basically getting us through unscathed.

He threw out lots of goodies in his time. This time around, he's targeting the goodies at groups he thinks can deliver him the vote.

As to "getting through unscathed", I think that has a lot more to do with the banking regulations put in place by his predecessors. The infrastructure spending helped, to be sure, but that was imposed on the Tories in 2009 as a condition of them not losing power to the Coalition, so can we really call it a Tory initiative.

You have a pretty inflated sense of what the Tories have accomplished.

[Argus]

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.

Altogether, I calculate annual spending under the Liberals would be about $15-billion higher, on average, than under the budget plan. Of that total, little more than a quarter — about $4.2-billion a year — would be for infrastructure. And of that, two thirds is infrastructure only in the sense that easier EI payments are an investment: the party calls these “social infrastructure” (e.g., daycare centres) and “green infrastructure” (e.g., water filtration plants).

Whatever other benefits these may bring, they will do nothing to raise national output. We are not going to get rich looking after each other’s children.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-liberal-fiscal-plan-thats-all-for-show

In contrast to the $25-billion a year for families, the Liberals would be spending about $5-billion on “infrastructure,” more than pledged by the Conservatives. The gap between the two would hardly be enough to kick-start the economy “now,” as the Liberals claim.

Whatever the impact of the $5-billion, it represents only about 15 per cent of the Liberals’ planned additional spending, although listening to Leader Justin Trudeau and his candidates, the unwary might suppose the share to be much higher.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/liberals-platform-promises-much-but-how-much-can-they-deliver/article26690262/

[ToadBrother]

Altogether, I calculate annual spending under the Liberals would be about $15-billion higher, on average, than under the budget plan. Of that total, little more than a quarter — about $4.2-billion a year — would be for infrastructure. And of that, two thirds is infrastructure only in the sense that easier EI payments are an investment: the party calls these “social infrastructure” (e.g., daycare centres) and “green infrastructure” (e.g., water filtration plants).

Whatever other benefits these may bring, they will do nothing to raise national output. We are not going to get rich looking after each other’s children.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-liberal-fiscal-plan-thats-all-for-show

In contrast to the $25-billion a year for families, the Liberals would be spending about $5-billion on “infrastructure,” more than pledged by the Conservatives. The gap between the two would hardly be enough to kick-start the economy “now,” as the Liberals claim.

Whatever the impact of the $5-billion, it represents only about 15 per cent of the Liberals’ planned additional spending, although listening to Leader Justin Trudeau and his candidates, the unwary might suppose the share to be much higher.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/liberals-platform-promises-much-but-how-much-can-they-deliver/article26690262/

In other words, the Liberals aren't that different from the Tories, even if they've managed to make themselves sound differ. Plus ça change.

It makes for a compelling argument that voting Liberal won't bring the moon crashing down into the ocean.

[Argus]

In other words, the Liberals aren't that different from the Tories, even if they've managed to make themselves sound differ. Plus ça change.

It makes for a compelling argument that voting Liberal won't bring the moon crashing down into the ocean.

I think you will agree the Tories had little alternative but to go into deficit during that recession. Certainly the other parties agreed - though they won't admit it now. But we are not in a recession. The economy is expanding, albeit slowly. This is a time to be paying down debt, not continuing to build it up higher. Now if all his extra spending was actually for fixing roads, highways and bridges he might be able to make a case that this is an investment. And certainly he's tried to give that impression. But the truth is far different.

[ToadBrother]

I think you will agree the Tories had little alternative but to go into deficit during that recession. Certainly the other parties agreed - though they won't admit it now. But we are not in a recession. The economy is expanding, albeit slowly. This is a time to be paying down debt, not continuing to build it up higher. Now if all his extra spending was actually for fixing roads, highways and bridges he might be able to make a case that this is an investment. And certainly he's tried to give that impression. But the truth is far different.

The deficit spending will be so minor that it won't warrant any actual economic concern (which is why, of course, it's smoke and mirrors). What we have here is not really a policy conflict; since mathematically the Tories and Liberals actually vary only in the smallest degree on spending (it's not like the Tories can expect massive budget surpluses for balancing the books). It's a philosophical divide, which is a debate with some merit. But Tories are trying to make it sound like the Liberals are going to put Canada into the poor house, which is ludicrous.

If you don't like even small deficits, then by all means vote Tory. If you don't mind them, then maybe the Liberals are for you, but both parties are basically playing a bait and switch game, when in fact the difference between their spending plans, on a GDP basis, could be called a rounding error.

[Wilber]

Of course interest rates helped out. They were the primary cause of the deficit/debt spiral so no wonder they stopped being a problem when interest rates came back down towards historic levels (the late 70's to early 90's were an aberration but you can look up that fact for yourself).

But Harper has helped lead us into this indebtedness by allowing 40, then, 35 and now 30 mortgage amortization terms so I'm not exactly sympathetic to the indebted Canadian.

The government control the rules for financing and have chosen to not only keep their foot off the brake but have encouraged it with various tax subsisidies brought in over the years.

The Feds may be forced to deficit finance to pick up the slack when Vancouver and Toronto implode.

If they don't then Canada will have a similar recovery that people keep complaining about in the US (although considering how bad it could have been that recovery has turned out pretty good in the past 3 or so years).

But of course, this disaster is still years off (hopefully).

Life is full of aberrations, when people don't learn from them, they stop being aberrations and become habitual.

You may not have sympathy for the average indebted Canadian but don't think you won't be affected if they all get into trouble at once.

Well, at least they had the sense to reverse their policy when they realized their mistake.

The Vancouver market has been supposedly imploding for at least ten years. It hasn't happened and it won't as long as rates stay low. If there is an implosion and government has to deficit finance in order to pick up the slack, it will be borrowing at the same high rates that caused the implosion in the first place and it will be starting that borrowing with an already higher existing debt which it will also have to service at those higher rates.

But what the heck, the government that has to clean it up the mess isn't usually the one that made it.

[ToadBrother]

Life is full of aberrations, when people don't learn from them, they stop being aberrations and become habitual.

You may not have sympathy for the average indebted Canadian but don't think you won't be affected if they all get into trouble at once.

Well, at least they had the sense to reverse their policy when they realized their mistake.

The Vancouver market has been supposedly imploding for at least ten years. It hasn't happened and it won't as long as rates stay low. If there is an implosion and government has to deficit finance in order to pick up the slack, it will be borrowing at the same high rates that caused the implosion in the first place and it will be starting that borrowing with an already higher existing debt which it will also have to service at those higher rates.

But what the heck, the government that has to clean it up the mess isn't usually the one that made it.

I honestly do not see rates in the US, Canada, or most industrialized countries getting anywhere near that high. Obviously even a one point jump is going to cause those heavily over-leveraged to lose their shirts, but I think we'll see low rates for a long time.

The down side being that savers are screwed. Those closing in on retirement better be faced with low returns even from somewhat riskier investments.

[Smallc]

Altogether, I calculate annual spending under the Liberals would be about $15-billion higher,

He didn't count very well then. The read book shows $17 - 18B more in spending over 4 years, most of that front loaded.

In contrast to the $25-billion a year for families,

That's a misunderstanding. Most of that is not new money - rather the amalgamation and transformation of 3 separate programs (the UCCB and CTB being two of them) into 1 new means tested program.

Whatever the impact of the $5-billion, it represents only about 15 per cent of the Liberals’ planned additional spending

That's based on a misunderstanding.

[Wilber]

I honestly do not see rates in the US, Canada, or most industrialized countries getting anywhere near that high. Obviously even a one point jump is going to cause those heavily over-leveraged to lose their shirts, but I think we'll see low rates for a long time.

The down side being that savers are screwed. Those closing in on retirement better be faced with low returns even from somewhat riskier investments.

I don't think people saw 20% rates coming during the mid seventies. I don't see 20% either but even four or five percent would crater the economy and play hell with government budgets.

Somehow there is a disconnect between government and consumer spending when it comes to interest rates and inflation. Like only consumer spending needs to be controlled by higher interest rates and only consumer spending is a cause of inflation. That makes no sense.

[ToadBrother]

I don't think people saw 20% rates coming during the mid seventies. I don't see 20% either but even four or five percent would crater the economy and play hell with government budgets.

The central banks of most industrialized countries simply will not let rates rise that high, at least in the medium term, and if they do start pushing in that direction, it's not going to happen overnight.

We are stuck in a low interest rate low inflation environment, save for a few sectors. Even real estate bubbles are largely limited to a few areas like Toronto and Vancouver. I can tell you that, at least as far as the property assessment goes, my property lost about 20% of its value over the last two years.

[Wilber]

Do you think central banks wanted 20% interest rates? Central banks react to what is going on in the economy and their control over it is very limited.

[ToadBrother]

Do you think central banks wanted 20% interest rates? Central banks react to what is going on in the economy and their control over it is very limited.

A lot of how central banks now function is related to the inflation and interest rates of that period.

[Wilber]

A lot of how central banks now function is related to the inflation and interest rates of that period.

Maybe so but central banks can only react to what is going on in the economy, including the influence government fiscal policy has on that economy.

Because we are part of a global economy, our central bank has very little real influence and it is capable of doing very little other than reacting to world events, so we need to try and stay in a position to deal with what the rest of the world hands us.

[Canada_First]

I've actually read the Liberal platform and it is full of everything for everybody. Goodies for everyone. it's insane. If history has taught us anything it's that the Liberals federally don't live up to all of their promises. To me it seems naive to think that they will this time around.

It looks as though Trudeau is going to get a majority and with such I guess we can hold his feet to the fire if he doesn't do everything he's said he's going to do. Today he's said that he will lift 315,000 children out of poverty. I am going to monitor this and see if actually does. He hasn't said how he will accomplish this. Also which benefits will be cut? he won't say. he isn't directly answering any questions posed to him by the media. he dances around every question and says nothing. Typical. I want some real answers.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe so but central banks can only react to what is going on in the economy, including the influence government fiscal policy has on that economy.

Because we are part of a global economy, our central bank has very little real influence and it is capable of doing very little other than reacting to world events, so we need to try and stay in a position to deal with what the rest of the world hands us.

And it has reacted by keeping rates low. Even the Federal Reserve is backing off of talk of a rate hike. Low rates are here for a while.

[dialamah]

. If history has taught us anything it's that the Liberals federally don't live up to all of their promises. To me it seems naive to think that they will this time around.

Find me a political party of any stripe that's lived up to all its election promises.

[Canada_First]

Find me a political party of any stripe that's lived up to all its election promises.

Oh, I hear you at least Harper had 5 promises and fulfilled them all. That was clarity.

Trudeau is making everything his priority. So I don't know what will change and what will stay the same. I'm not against everything he's said. he has some good ideas that I like. The post secondary grants, the F35 and I'm sure others but those two off the top of my head I like.

What worries me is that he plans to let in 150,000 Syrian refugees this year and next. he also plans to double the amount of family immigrants too as well as raise the age of dependents to 22 from 18. This will add a lot of unemployed and elderly people to our already stressed healthcare and social systems.

What taxes and/or fees will be raised? What benefits will be cut? How will he raise revenue? All valid questions that we deserve answers to before the vote.

[ToadBrother]

What worries me is that he plans to let in 150,000 Syrian refugees this year and next. he also plans to double the amount of family immigrants too as well as raise the age of dependents to 22 from 18. This will add a lot of unemployed and elderly people to our already stressed healthcare and social systems.

If we don't increase immigration, we will hit a brick wall on economic growth in the next 10 to 15 years. Canada's birth rate is below the replacement rate right now. Unless you have a plan to increase Canadian birthrates, and force grow the babies to adults in half the time, immigration is going to increase.

[dialamah]

Oh, I hear you at least Harper had 5 promises and fulfilled them all. That was clarity.

Trudeau is making everything his priority. So I don't know what will change and what will stay the same. I'm not against everything he's said. he has some good ideas that I like. The post secondary grants, the F35 and I'm sure others but those two off the top of my head I like.

What worries me is that he plans to let in 150,000 Syrian refugees this year and next. he also plans to double the amount of family immigrants too as well as raise the age of dependents to 22 from 18. This will add a lot of unemployed and elderly people to our already stressed healthcare and social systems.

What taxes and/or fees will be raised? What benefits will be cut? How will he raise revenue? All valid questions that we deserve answers to before the vote.

And what promises did Harper fail to keep?

Open Government; child care funding; no senate appointees. Three, and that's just off the top of my head.

Can hardly accuse Trudeau of failing to keep promises until after he's elected.

Every single government I can recall who's taken power has said "Oh, gee, the last government really fucked things up. We have to fix their mess before we can full fill all our promises". I expect no less of Trudeau, or Mulcair if he was to form government, or May.