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

ToadBrother · October 14, 2015

We'll be paying down this debt for many decades - assuming we ever start. Your short term interest rates are essentially meaningless unless you plan to be dead in five years.

The amount the Liberals are planning to add to the debt are peanuts. I'm not saying I agree with deficit spending at this point, but to act like it's going to monumentally screw us over in the long term is absurd. In fact, one of the reasons Trudeau's "infrastructure plan" is rather silly is because it really is too small to make that big a difference.

Argus · October 14, 2015

The amount the Liberals are planning to add to the debt are peanuts. I'm not saying I agree with deficit spending at this point, but to act like it's going to monumentally screw us over in the long term is absurd. In fact, one of the reasons Trudeau's "infrastructure plan" is rather silly is because it really is too small to make that big a difference.

First, I don't believe for a second it's going to be only $25 billion, but even if we go with that, the Conservatives have said they will have surpluses from now on. So it's $25b added to the debt, plus whatever the Tories would have subtracted during the next five years.

ToadBrother · October 14, 2015

First, I don't believe for a second it's going to be only $25 billion, but even if we go with that, the Conservatives have said they will have surpluses from now on. So it's $25b added to the debt, plus whatever the Tories would have subtracted during the next five years.

The Tories' claims are based upon revenue projections which not even they can hope to predict. The difference between the Liberals spending increases and the Tories theoretically balanced budgets, when compared to spending-to-GDP and Federal debt-to-GDP amounts to a rounding error.

ReeferMadness · October 14, 2015

A 20, 30 or 50 year bond you issued at 2% will have to be reissued at the going rate when it comes due. A five year "strategy" is not a strategy at all.

Periods of low interest rates are the time to pay down debt, not add to it because if rates go up, you will be lucky to even service it, let alone pay it off.

The debt never gets paid down because politicians pander to right wingers demanding tax cuts. Most, if not all, of the debt that Harper piled up was because of ineffective, ideologically motivated tax cuts for people who already had more than enough.

Wilber · October 15, 2015

Sure, and who knows what the interest rates will be when those bonds come due.

But the risk gets spread out - that's the whole point of breaking debt up into various tranches.

However, it also provides a benefit in that risk is minimized in the here and now while we enjoy interest rates.

This is also why it is better to have debt related to infrastructure rather than related to operations.

Infrastructure benefits us and the economy for many many decades so why not get the benefits today by borrowing the money when it is cheap?

The problem with conservatives is they are so panicked by the liability side and the expense side that they fail to see the asset side and income side.

It is the blindness of fear and the ignoring of opportunity that I do not like with this movement.

Risk is risk and unless you expect rates to go even lower over the next 20 years, it will probably cost you more. The one million dollar simple interest 20 year bond you issue at 2% will cost you $400,000 in interest. If you have to renew it at 5%, it will cost you a million dollars in interest. Borrowing money with no plan to pay it back and betting on interest rates to save your ass is as bad as going to a casino.

This country went from surplus budgets and almost no debt to the IMF threatening to pull the pin on us in about 15 years, so 20 years isn't even a strategy.

But times are good so let's go back to the practices that almost sewered us before.

You guys and your pollyanna economics give me the creeps.

msj · October 15, 2015

Risk is risk and unless you expect rates to go even lower over the next 20 years, it will probably cost you more. The one million dollar simple interest 20 year bond you issue at 2% will cost you $400,000 in interest. If you have to renew it at 5%, it will cost you a million dollars in interest. Borrowing money with no plan to pay it back and betting on interest rates to save your ass is as bad as going to a casino.

But times are good so let's go back to the practices that almost sewered us before.

You guys and your pollyanna economics give me the creeps.

Then I suppose no one should every borrow money if one were to use such "logic."

When I borrowed a few hundred grand to buy into my accounting practice, at 6% interest, I should not have taken the risk despite the reward being an income that is 3 times what I would be earning had I not otherwise made the investment.

When I have borrowed to buy a car at low interest rates, pay it off within 48 months, and then hold the car for 11 years - nope, shouldn't do that either.

Too much "risk."

And buy a house with borrowed money? No way!! Too "risky."

Lets add one more - not borrow money to pay for big ticket infrastructure projects where the cost of capital is low and the return will certainly exceed such a low rate?

Too "risky."

What a load of nonsense.

msj · October 15, 2015

The thing is, how would any capital projects every get built in Canada?

Hospitals, Universities, highways, waterways etc etc...

Throw in demographic factors and it makes sense, sometimes, to build something now and pay for over time.

But no, under the pay as you go system, as soon as a government tried to string surpluses together to actually build something some other conservative will complain that he is being overtaxed and should get a tax rebate and a tax reduction in future years.

Nothing would ever get built so thank gawd for Liberals and even those New Democrats for pushing for common sense.

Argus · October 15, 2015

The debt never gets paid down because politicians pander to right wingers demanding tax cuts. Most, if not all, of the debt that Harper piled up was because of ineffective, ideologically motivated tax cuts for people who already had more than enough.

This was one of your dumber posts. The recession was responsible for the Conservatives going into deficit.

Argus · October 15, 2015

Nothing would ever get built so thank gawd for Liberals and even those New Democrats for pushing for common sense.

The Liberals do not plan on borrowing money to build anything other than their own support. The vast majority of extra spending is for program spending, not for any sort of building campaign.

On Guard for Thee · October 15, 2015

This was one of your dumber posts. The recession was responsible for the Conservatives going into deficit.

You seem to forget/ignore that they were already in deficit before the recession. Largely to do with the gst reduction.

Edited October 15, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

Smallc · October 15, 2015

You seem to forget/ignore that they were already in deficit before the recession. Largely to do with the gst reduction.

You keep saying that but it's not any more true. The deficit happened after the election. The election was reported by the international media as the first recession election for 2008.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Smallc

Argus · October 15, 2015

You seem to forget/ignore that they were already in deficit before the recession. Largely to do with the gst reduction.

Congratulations! This was even dumber! Tax cuts don't cause recessions. In fact, they act as economic stimulus... you know, the kind the Liberals and NDP demanded?

Edited October 15, 2015 by Argus

On Guard for Thee · October 15, 2015

You keep saying that but it's not any more true. The deficit happened after the election. The election was reported by the international media as the first recession election for 2008.

Harper inherited a surplus of 13 billion and turned it into a 5.8 billion deficit in 2 years. That, and the rest, is history.

On Guard for Thee · October 15, 2015

Congratulations! This was even dumber! Tax cuts don't cause recessions. In fact, they act as economic stimulus... you know, the kind the Liberals and NDP demanded?

Naw, I think dumber is not understanding how those types of tax cuts disrupt predictable revenues. They don't cause recessions btw, but they do cause deficits. Keep tryin' though.

Smallc · October 15, 2015

Harper inherited a surplus of 13 billion and turned it into a 5.8 billion deficit in 2 years. That, and the rest, is history.

This kind of stuff is nothing but a misleading half truth. It ignores context and reality.

Smallc · October 15, 2015

Naw, I think dumber is not understanding how those types of tax cuts disrupt predictable revenues. They don't cause recessions btw, but they do cause deficits. Keep tryin' though.

The recession caused the deficit. You have a short memory.

On Guard for Thee · October 15, 2015

This kind of stuff is nothing but a misleading half truth. It ignores context and reality.

The numbers are a matter of public record.

poochy · October 15, 2015

The recession caused the deficit. You have a short memory.

He also thinks adding 3 to a number results in a reduction of more than 3. Go figure. But then, that is exactly what liberals do, tell outright falsehoods, but wrap them in nice cuddly language and get a good looking young guy to say them, problem solved, math be damned.

Edited October 15, 2015 by poochy

Argus · October 15, 2015

Naw, I think dumber is not understanding how those types of tax cuts disrupt predictable revenues. They don't cause recessions btw, but they do cause deficits. Keep tryin' though.

He said they caused the recession. Apparently reading is not high among your skill sets.

And the revenues were fine till the recession hit.

On Guard for Thee · October 15, 2015

He said they caused the recession. Apparently reading is not high among your skill sets.

And the revenues were fine till the recession hit.

No he didn't say that. Apparently you have the comprehension problem.

poochy · October 15, 2015

And we're not even talking that - we're talking a total of $25B over 3 years based on projections less optimistic than the government's.

Most of which, as has been proven, is not for infrastructure spending, and will not change the economy one bit, but will help get the liberals elected, while they completely lie about it, but do it nicely. So insignificant spending, that only a small fraction of which will actually be spent where people have been told it's going, sounds so evil, almost conservative like, but this time it's wrapped up in a Justin Trudeau shaped liberal red bow.

Smallc · October 15, 2015

The numbers are a matter of public record.

You should read it then.

Smallc · October 15, 2015

Most of which, as has been proven, is not for infrastructure spending, and will not change the economy one bit, but will help get the liberals elected, while they completely lie about it, but do it nicely. So insignificant spending, that only a small fraction of which will actually be spent where people have been told it's going, sounds so evil, almost conservative like, but this time it's wrapped up in a Justin Trudeau shaped liberal red bow.

$17B of the $25B is for infrastructure.