Trudeau's new taxes

[angrypenguin]

By your logic, if you had $500, you would have to give $125.

You think someone should pony up $125 instead of $5 because they worked harder to get ahead?

Look at her post. She used the word "deserve".

#entitlement

[drummindiver]

So nothing then ....

Dude, please be a little clearer.

"Oh, and if you were not proposing further tax increases, then what spending, on top of what they cut, were you proposing to cut?"

What are you asking here? This is the most convoluted attempt at a question.

[msj]

Dude, please be a little clearer.

"Oh, and if you were not proposing further tax increases, then what spending, on top of what they cut, were you proposing to cut?"

What are you asking here? This is the most convoluted attempt at a question.

Oh, so now my questions aren't clear enough for yet you had already sneeringly dismissed them before?

What taxes were you proposing to raise and what were you proposing to cut in order to slay the deficit?

Or would you have continued to run up debt?

This is in the context of the 1990's when debt was high and deficits were structural.

Edited October 25, 2015 by msj

[drummindiver]

Sneeringly? Sorry if it came across that way. I didn't understand the question.

No new taxes were needed. They had billions in surplus from over taxation.

I wouldn't have illegally taxed Canadians for EI then made it impossible for Canadians to get EI at a time they needed it most.

I wouldn't have cut health care.

I wouldn't have cut environmental and agricultural transfers by up to 60%

Clearly, they ran surpluses, so they over taxed. They had multi million dollar slush funds.

Again, no disrespect intended in my earlier reply. I found the question worded in a way I found to be confusing.

[msj]

In 1993 we did not know that interest rates would finally be reduced to a manageable amount, we did not know that inflation was going to turn into disinflation by the late aughts (2000's).

In fact, even today we still have many people fearful over high interest rates and high inflation even though that is a battle won long ago and such thinking prevents us from battling what confronts us today.

But that's for another thread.

The point is, Mulroney/Wilson did a good job of cutting spending and raising taxes. Chrétien/Martin took over in 1993 and had the choice of continuing to run deficits and increase the debt, or to cut spending and increase taxes.

They cut spending, increased taxes, just like Mulroney was doing.

Then, by 1999/2000, when the light at the end of the tunnel had been achieved, they cut taxes and started to restore funding.

I think they did a fine job considering the challenges.

In hindsight, people who were not there or just have no memory for the fiscal times of the 80's/90's, think it would have been so easy.

And yet, here you are, even with the benefit of hindsight, without any ideas on how the multibillion dollar structural deficit inherited in 1993 could have been eliminated by the late 90's to then provide you with the nonsense notion that "they had billions in surplus from overtaxation. "

Edited October 25, 2015 by msj

[BC_chick]

Look at her post. She used the word "deserve".

#entitlement

You're the one who thinks you 'deserve' a tax-loophole.

BTW, you never answered my last post (#113).

Edited October 25, 2015 by BC_chick

[dialamah]

Uhh no. I don't feel like I'm entitled to it because right up until the LPC was voted on, I WAS entitled to it as it was passed.

By your logic, then, the 'middle-class' is *entitled* to the tax break that is coming their way. So why is it so wrong to you that other people should feel "entitled" to tax breaks the government is giving them?

[Moonbox]

My parents paid $0 for my education. Because you chose to attack me Personally, that's all I'll answer to your question

You chose to offer a personal testimonial about your heroic struggle to get yourself through post-secondary and assumed everyone would automatically believe it. Nobody's obligated to, especially when it smells so badly of BS. Don't worry though, my questions were pretty much rhetorical. I asked with about 95% confidence that your story was balogna and your inability/unwillingness to explain it further only helps confirm it.

I've given up. I tried to engage in this again today, but I've decided to do what I decided to do, which is to give up.

That's a good idea, because you're embarrassing yourself.

And the audacity of some to ask members to post their T4 on a public forum? What am I, stupid?

You're thumping your chest and telling people you make lots of money on the internet - the anonymous space where everyone's a millionaire if they want to be. That's certainly not very smart!

I offered already for those that doubt it to have me send an email to the mods from my work address which will bring an end to the skepticism and not one person has taken me up on that offer...let alone ask me to post my T4?

That's because it's both an empty offer and a really dumb suggestion. What are we to expect is going to happen here? That the moderators are going to wade into the debate, check your email, verify it, and come back and tell everyone, "Guys, he's telling the truth. He's a real baller."

Holy crap man.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Moonbox

[dialamah]

You chose to offer a personal testimonial about your heroic struggle to get yourself through post-secondary and assumed everyone would automatically believe it. Nobody's obligated to, especially when it smells so badly of BS. Don't worry though, my questions were pretty much rhetorical. I asked with about 95% confidence that your story was balogna and your inability/unwillingness to explain it further only helps confirm it.

I suppose it's possible he earned $40,000 a year while attending university full-time, though one wonders how he did it. This article has some ideas on how it can be done, including getting as many scholarships as possible - though someone has to have some particular talent or smarts for scholarships, do they not? There's also illicit drug trade, or other illegal activities that can help someone make lots of money though generally those sorts of people tend to be more victims of their "careers" than success stories. But its hard to come up with a scenario where someone makes $40,000 a year by living frugally and working part-time at the kinds of jobs university students usually come up with. And given AP's complete unwillingness to provide any info, I'd have to call BS too. Especially as he's already demonstrated he's not above lying to "prove" his argument.

[angrypenguin]

I suppose it's possible he earned $40,000 a year while attending university full-time, though one wonders how he did it. This article has some ideas on how it can be done, including getting as many scholarships as possible - though someone has to have some particular talent or smarts for scholarships, do they not? There's also illicit drug trade, or other illegal activities that can help someone make lots of money though generally those sorts of people tend to be more victims of their "careers" than success stories. But its hard to come up with a scenario where someone makes $40,000 a year by living frugally and working part-time at the kinds of jobs university students usually come up with. And given AP's complete unwillingness to provide any info, I'd have to call BS too. Especially as he's already demonstrated he's not above lying to "prove" his argument.

Prove your real name and your t4. Also prove to an anonymous board who all your friends are and if you've done any drugs.

You're also assuming I had a regular job when in fact I did not have a traditional job. (office type job).

Making 40k a year is easy.

[Moonbox]

But its hard to come up with a scenario where someone makes $40,000 a year by living frugally and working part-time at the kinds of jobs university students usually come up with. And given AP's complete unwillingness to provide any info, I'd have to call BS too. Especially as he's already demonstrated he's not above lying to "prove" his argument.

When your argument is based on nothing but hyperbole and straw man, the next predictable step is to provide a biased, self-ingratiating testimonial. I mean, you don't have to provide any facts, citations, analysis or anything. It's really easy! You just make stuff up and PRESTO! Your point is "proven"!

You're also assuming I had a regular job when in fact I did not have a traditional job. (office type job).

Making 40k a year is easy.

No all we're assuming is that you're making stuff up. BTW, didn't you say you were giving up on this thread, or was that just more cheap words?

Making 40k a year is easy.

Yeah especially when you're taking a full course load at university! Easy! That's why so many of the nearly 1,000,000 university students in Canada do it every year (by so many I mean virtually none). Don't let facts or the truth get in the way of your argument though!

Edited October 25, 2015 by Moonbox

[nerve]

government loves spending other peoples money.

Smart rich people will find ways to legally avoid taxes through moving some income offshore to tax havens. Depending on how they are making their money. Ex. an importer can invest upstream on his purchases creating a foreign holding agent, or other structures, creating foreign corporate entities that are taxed at lower rates. It often cost less than 1000 dollars to set up a foreign corporation.

None the less things need to be done to alleviate poverty. This buttress the middle class stuff is just essentially vote buying though.

I think what money we really need to look at is money that collects for multiple years and is unspent - that is not invested and kept as liquid capital. Those people need to be more involved in the federal government finance department, imo.

If this was seen as punitive I am sure it will lead to come capital flight, however good business people will be able to find creative usages for their employment costs, hiring family, or otherwise.

200,000 isn't a lot of money but it can be all that is required for a modest life. I think that its really people making millions each year is pretty much just execs and business owners including big name doctors. These people can set up anywhere, so there is a real danger in taxing too high, they could decide to move the HQ anywhere, or set up a shop in any major city. I am guessing the effect will be light but I can't say I agree with blanket taxation based on income, Canada is geographically too diverse economcially with stratification in costs from east to west and north to south. These should be better taken into consideration in the tax scheme with a more regional approach. Likewise taxes need to represent the need of government - and government should be mindful of the need of the public. There is way too much bloat in government, but we can't expect that to change. Canada is going only one way on the fiscal policy and that is a steady road of weakening fiscal competence.

For too long it has been tax and spend, or borrow and tax and spend. Government needs to be brought down to a managable level. We also need to let those with money pay for their services, and make services a realistic level of service. Taking on debt does not benefit the long term for Canada especially when all levels of government are doing it, we don't need Canada to be the next detroit, with esential public services sold off to private corporations or to private holders, as we are starting to see in Ontario, and as was proposed at the federal level, and did occur at the federal level. Borrow money build a corporation and sell it at rock bottom prices is just reaking of collapse economics. OR EMBEZZLEMENT

I do not suspect these issues will be addressed in the Trudeau administration, but my position should be fairly clear on the tax stream.

Sure they have the money but it will just have residual effects. Saying people earn 200,000 when in fact they keep perhaps 125000 and after their costs they have little more than someone living with a lower costing house etc.. is just a matter of lifestyle. Disposable income is totally different from net income -- fact is if they are spending money it just goes somewhere else in the system, so why the hell tax them on money they would spend anyway? This should be about how much money people hold onto at the end of the year, and if government has people pay for non essential services a lot more of that money will show up to pay for government services. Taxes really don't need to be as high if the government actually provided services people wanted and would pay for, rather than forcing unpopular services on the masses in the name of partisan objectives.

Real Estate values really need to be taken into consideration - unless localized cost of living and personal circumstance is taken into consideration people living in high tax provicnes, or municipalities with high property values, mortgages etc.. will be unfairly taxed. Its essentially punishing people for living in a nice home, and it is creating imbalances with taxation at higher levels because their real cost of living is much higher, and of that disposable income more is going into maintenance and upkeep of their property. This isn't just an issue for the "rich" per se but people living in places like vancouver or toronto where property values are 20 to 50 times the cost of some northern communities. Meanwhile places with surge economics, such as happened in oil sands saw income go up in all areas due to demand for labour. Cost of goods however also increased in remote areas due to supply shortages. These issues are not addressed in the current tax scheme adequately to insure any type of blanket fareness across the federation.

Edited October 25, 2015 by nerve

[drummindiver]

In 1993 we did not know that interest rates would finally be reduced to a manageable amount, we did not know that inflation was going to turn into disinflation by the late aughts (2000's).

In fact, even today we still have many people fearful over high interest rates and high inflation even though that is a battle won long ago and such thinking prevents us from battling what confronts us today.

But that's for another thread.

The point is, Mulroney/Wilson did a good job of cutting spending and raising taxes. Chrétien/Martin took over in 1993 and had the choice of continuing to run deficits and increase the debt, or to cut spending and increase taxes.

They cut spending, increased taxes, just like Mulroney was doing.

Then, by 1999/2000, when the light at the end of the tunnel had been achieved, they cut taxes and started to restore funding.

I think they did a fine job considering the challenges.

In hindsight, people who were not there or just have no memory for the fiscal times of the 80's/90's, think it would have been so easy.

And yet, here you are, even with the benefit of hindsight, without any ideas on how the multibillion dollar structural deficit inherited in 1993 could have been eliminated by the late 90's to then provide you with the nonsense notion that "they had billions in surplus from overtaxation. "

You say they reinstated the cuts

Nope. Not one cent to social assistance.

Unemployment? Nope. Under the Liberals tightened rules, less than 40% of ppl applying were eligible.

Health care?Cut to transfers for health care.

Education? Cut to transfers for education.

Tax credits for the middle class though!! Hurray!!

No tax credits for unemployed or ppl on welfare. You know, the ppl who need them.

This is the 1999 budget, to be clear, not the 1995 budget for which he so infamously cut every social benefit Canadians used to enjoy.

You may find it commendable to illegally overtax Canadians, then make it almost impossible to reap the benefits of being taxed when they are unemployed and need it most. I find it reprehensible.

But, you are a CPA, right, so you probably love Martin, the man who claimed the businesses he owned did $137,000 worth of business when he was finance minister, when really he did $161,000,000 worth.

Oops, right, but no worries, his accountants said it was a mistake, and Martin did no jail time.

I personally think they were the worst of the worst.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/02/can-f19.html

http://www.hintonparklander.com/2003/12/03/paul-martin-is-the-cause-not-the-cure

Edited October 26, 2015 by drummindiver

[hitops]

Upon reading most of this thread I have concluded that some people are just unwilling to help anybody that is not as fortunate as they are.

Opposing increased taxation does not = unwilling to help others. Every well-off person I know contributes more in charity every year than these increased taxes will render. There is no link between opposing increased taxation for programs which may or may not do anything, and wanting to help the less fortunate. Most data shows that increased taxes just means reduced charitable donations. Charities use money far more efficient than gov does, if for no other reason than drastically lower (often volunteer) labor costs.

It has been proven time and again that by raising up the poor and middle class the entire society benefits.

Certainly false. There are as many examples of attempts to do this which destroy societies, as improve them. The entire cold war period is filled with examples of ideals to equalize people being implemented, whose results were widespread human suffering and social collapse.

The instinct to want to give to those who don't have is well-intended, but the execution doesn't always work out well.

Unfortunately way too many of the people in a position to help don't simply because they are greedy

Or maybe they are just smart enough to know that more government money, more government control does not necessarily 'help' at all, and often is counter-productive. I know that NGO X will use money in a certain way that I can see is helpful to people. Conversely, I have no clue whether gov will use my money in any way better than just flushing it down the toilet.

Yeah especially when you're taking a full course load at university! Easy! That's why so many of the nearly 1,000,000 university students in Canada do it every year (by so many I mean virtually none). Don't let facts or the truth get in the way of your argument though!

This type of thinking is exactly the problem. I make expensive choices, therefore somebody else should pay for me. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and said they had to go to university. They could get a less expensive degree. They could go to trade school. They could start a business. They could just work. They could simply work for a few years and save up before going, etc, etc.

Edited October 26, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

....when it smells so badly of BS. Don't worry though, my questions were pretty much rhetorical. I asked with about 95% confidence that your story was balogna and your inability/unwillingness to explain it further only helps confirm it.

That's a good idea, because you're embarrassing yourself.

That's because it's both an empty offer and a really dumb suggestion.....

Your style of posting is toxic and abusive. The above is a sample. You spend half your posts just insulting people. I would suggest you take a walk outside, some deep breaths, and think about how to communicate with others like an adult. It is quite easy to make your points without the bile. Thanks in advance.

Edited October 26, 2015 by hitops

[dialamah]

government loves spending other peoples money.

Who's money should they be spending?

Although when you think about it, they are spending *their* money, since it's money they collected through taxation. We do have to contribute, so it's not exactly 'our' money - without taxation, I suppose we'd be a lot worse off.

Edited October 26, 2015 by dialamah

[dialamah]

Opposing increased taxation does not = unwilling to help others. Every well-off person I know contributes more in charity every year than these increased taxes will render. There is no link between opposing increased taxation for programs which may or may not do anything, and wanting to help the less fortunate. Most data shows that increased taxes just means reduced charitable donations. Charities use money far more efficient than gov does, if for no other reason than drastically lower (often volunteer) labor costs.

Can you provide sources for the claim that increasing taxes results in lower charitable donations? I looked, and couldn't find anything.

Certainly false. There are as many examples of attempts to do this which destroy societies, as improve them. The entire cold war period is filled with examples of ideals to equalize people being implemented, whose results were widespread human suffering and social collapse.

Again, can you provide sources proving that decreasing/eliminating poverty destroys society? This doesn't mean "equalization" of all segments of society; it merely means that people are not living in poverty - ie: homeless, or living in substandard housing, without heat/water/plumbing, struggling to find enough to eat, eating mostly junk food because real food is too expensive. No other economic class would be eliminated.

I make expensive choices, therefore somebody else should pay for me. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and said they had to go to university. They could get a less expensive degree. They could go to trade school. They could start a business. They could just work. They could simply work for a few years and save up before going, etc, etc.

This type of thinking dismisses the reality of life for many people. You are so full of good advice, without apparently any real concept that sometimes real life just isn't that accommodating. I've known really hard workers, reliable and dedicated employees who have been injured early in their career, and now live in constant pain -- on $906 per month here in BC. I've known people who've trained for an up and coming trade - and then discovered that actually, all the forecasts were wrong and there's no market for their skills - so now they've wasted time/money, and are still among the working poor. A woman who was married, had kids - and then hubby emptied the bank account and left, she's been left high and dry - she's been trying for three years to get a job and get off welfare, but so far nobody has been interested in hiring her.

In your dismissive attitude, you blame people who do try to be self-supporting, who work hard when they can, who don't waste money - because they have none to waste - and are still not getting ahead. You seem to want to punish them because you were successful and you think they should be too.

[hitops]

Can you provide sources for the claim that increasing taxes results in lower charitable donations? I looked, and couldn't find anything.

Here are some stats in general:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012001/article/11637-eng.pdf

Check chart 2. It is ranked in order of giving. It also happens to be, roughly, in order of tax burden. I contend this is not a coincidence. Those awful, selfish, oil-soaked, money-grubbing uneducated hicks in AB and SK are the most generous. The progressive, enlightened, nearly-free university Quebecois? By far the least.

Again, can you provide sources proving that decreasing/eliminating poverty destroys society?

I think you missed my point. I am not challenging the idea the less poverty is good. I am challenging the idea that government intervention to reduce poverty necessarily does so.

This type of thinking dismisses the reality of life for many people. You are so full of good advice, without apparently any real concept that sometimes real life just isn't that accommodating. I've known really hard workers, reliable and dedicated employees who have been injured early in their career, and now live in constant pain -- on $906 per month here in BC. I've known people who've trained for an up and coming trade - and then discovered that actually, all the forecasts were wrong and there's no market for their skills - so now they've wasted time/money, and are still among the working poor. A woman who was married, had kids - and then hubby emptied the bank account and left, she's been left high and dry - she's been trying for three years to get a job and get off welfare, but so far nobody has been interested in hiring her.

You just made my point - you know those people. You and I would both like to help people like that. But that is not the solution you are defending. You are defending a solution to take more money from everyone based on income, to give to everyone, based on income. That has nothing necessarily in common with wanting to help the types of people you are describing above.

I would also contest the specific example of hubby leaving with the money. There are ample court remedies for that. Very few people can get away without support and child payments. And please realize that under the blunt instrument of tax increased on the wealthy, the type of person who would do that is just as likely to get extra cash as the women he left behind. Is that the person you want to reward? I would hope not. That's exactly why if you feel for the types of people you describe above, then it is more sensible to leave taxes low, and then you and I can give of our own free will to those types of people we rightly see deserve the help.

So here is a better solution: We already have a mechanism of charitable deductions to encourage donation. Instead of blindly trying to soak the rich (who can normally figure out how to avoid it anyway, and for whom the money does not necessarily even solve the the problem), just double or triple the tax rebate for donations. That allows people like you are me to make a difference FAR more efficiently that just taking a few extra dollars from us forcibly to be used for God knows what, would ever do.

Edited October 26, 2015 by hitops

[nerve]

Who's money should they be spending?

Although when you think about it, they are spending *their* money, since it's money they collected through taxation. We do have to contribute, so it's not exactly 'our' money - without taxation, I suppose we'd be a lot worse off.

Dialamah, the issue is that "government" has become synonymous with "the people", when in fact it is a corproation which has a legal monopoly on the use of force. It uses that monopoly to get people to comply with their demands, not out of consensus but out of threat of use of force. That really isn't good government, that is very very bad government. The extortion and extraction of taxes/levies fees from people has in the past been readily backed with use of force, which has lead to various revolts, which at times have been quite historic such as the radical reformation, the tea party/revolutionary war, and many others. The success of long term reign has resulted in socialized acceptable, and control of the socializing institutions - largely in the education system. there are still grey and black market economies actually very large ones, including the well known "criminal" organizations, however we have to understand that "WE are not subject to government" We are seperate from government as "individual humans". We also have a duality as "citizens" (either by choice or forced by extortion of legal frameworks that "government recognizes citizenship, it does not subscribe to someones view of their own citizenship), it is a unilateral position which in fact is not legally correct, and they are in gross negligence of that point, as everyone has freedom of association as a fundamental freedom.

None the less I do mean "their money" is money they raise from processes that are not backed by the use of force, a theif or brigand can get a whole bunch of money as can viking raiders, but they are in fact "taking" peoples money and using it, from the view of the person that the money is taken from non-consensually, or through extortion, or violence or threat of violence, that money "morally- and ethically" is not their own money.

If money that is given by people to "charity" (indebt government) is spent in ways that are expected performance, people feel "their money" the tax payers money is well spent - however if people have their wealth expropriated and spent on unpopular wars, partisan interests, and government luxuries, then perhaps they will feel their money is not well spent and they will feel raped by government.

This is the notion, as they are spending "other peoples money".

if government wants to "raise monies" much like parliament they must raise it themselves through providing services that they exhcange for revenue - or at very least generating their own dilution of "goodwill" through control of the monetary system.

Hopefully this clarifies the point, that government through crown corporations, public resources, and public infrastructure, could raise income and spend that income to manage itself. You know " subscibe fees to users of resources and infrastructure" instead of giving it away on arbitrary grounds, for example free access to nonessential services, eg. roadways, waterways, etc.. you know at one point before WWI, government earned its incomes this way in large part, and it was not until after WWI that income taxes were introduced to pay for the war. Of course social programs and an the welfare state came after WWII with Keynesian Economics firmly entrenched and the death of Breton-Woods.

Its not that things cannot go back, but the reality of a seperation of Church and State like a separation of the State and the People needs to be realized (versa). The peoples pocket books should not be seen as the governments, we are suppose to be free and independent, capable of our own contract and not subject to the governments, we are not owned, we are free.

They should be raising money for their programs where possible from the users of those programs.

You want to equalize for the poor then raise the minimum wage, however at the end of the day, all the government really needs to do is pay the poor by employing them, everything else serves a partisan interest not related to human welfare that should be the governments primary interest.

its a pitty that peoples constitutional rights are being deprived and inturn being sold commercially, it is horrible really. What is going on is a total violation of the concepts of a free people in an equal society. The government is way violating our human rights. A free people should not be treated like cattle.

Edited October 26, 2015 by nerve

[overthere]

Trudeau Jr should revisit the greatest economic achievements of Trudeau Sr.

I look forward to a round of Wage and Price Controls.

[poochy]

You're the one who thinks you 'deserve' a tax-loophole.

BTW, you never answered my last post (#113).

It just keeps getting better, let me see if i can explain how taxes work, the government takes your money, no matter how much of your money you can manage to keep, it is in fact your money, money you worked for, the government takes money from you and uses it for things we need, and sometimes gives it to people who don't work for it. There is no circumstance under which it is wrong for the person working for the money to keep as much of it as they can, it is however wrong to have it taken from you for some no good reason, which the government does all of the time.

[angrypenguin]

Trudeau Jr should revisit the greatest economic achievements of Trudeau Sr.

I look forward to a round of Wage and Price Controls.

21% inflation, very high unemployment and a big F you to the West by way of the NEP?

Oh boy. Parts of me = want Trudeau Junior to mess up the country that badly, just so I can say to the Liberal supporters, I told you so.

Please oh please another huge scandal please to wipe the grim smiles off of Justin supporters.

[On Guard for Thee]

21% inflation, very high unemployment and a big F you to the West by way of the NEP?

Oh boy. Parts of me = want Trudeau Junior to mess up the country that badly, just so I can say to the Liberal supporters, I told you so.

Please oh please another huge scandal please to wipe the grim smiles off of Justin supporters.

Naw, we don't need any more scandals. Harper created plenty,and along the way he laid on a string of deficits and 150 billion or so to our debt. I don't think you really want any more of that. That's why most Canadians are now smiling.

[angrypenguin]

Naw, we don't need any more scandals. Harper created plenty,and along the way he laid on a string of deficits and 150 billion or so to our debt. I don't think you really want any more of that. That's why most Canadians are now smiling.

Sigh. Why does the left keep on harping about a senate scandal which cost the taxpayers nothing, and the string of deficits was to get us out of the 2008 recession, which the Liberals and the NDP wanted. The Conservatives didn't want it, which any economist will tell you was the wrong decision, but ultimately Canada led the G7.

Oh well, elections are over. I can't wait to ram that back into the Liberals faces come the next election. Well Trudeau ran 4 (yes 4 is what I bet on) years of deficits when he promised to balance the budget.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sigh. Why does the left keep on harping about a senate scandal which cost the taxpayers nothing, and the string of deficits was to get us out of the 2008 recession, which the Liberals and the NDP wanted. The Conservatives didn't want it, which any economist will tell you was the wrong decision, but ultimately Canada led the G7.

Oh well, elections are over. I can't wait to ram that back into the Liberals faces come the next election. Well Trudeau ran 4 (yes 4 is what I bet on) years of deficits when he promised to balance the budget.

Funny you seem to think the senate scandal is the only one that reared it's ugly head during Harper's time. Oh well, I hope the sand you have your head buried in is warm, what with winter coming on.