good news for liberals....

[CdnFox]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

No she’s actually known as being a pretty tough cookie as well as skilful negotiator.

Nope. Only hard core left wing liberal supporters see her like that. She blew the free trade deal with the us, she blew a bunch of other trade deals - and while she was able to hang SOME of that on justin, her budgets have been horrible and largely frowned on. She should never have taken the job as finance minister. Justin's policies force her to make horrible budgets that no one is impressed with.

And her Disney plus comments ruined her in the eyes of the 'average person'.  that was pretty much the end of her chances at pm.

And she's a terrible speaker.  And like i say - even the democracy-hating liberals will have to have a leadership race, and she'd be up against people who really can talk in public.

I mean freeland would be an automatic win for PP and probably a majority, so i wish it were true, but it's just not going to happen.

 

[ExFlyer]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Easiest thing in the world kiddo.

Here's your exchange with me:

 

Where you claim i made assumptions about who you voted for and your morality ( all i'd said to that point is LIBERALS )

 

And here's where you did it with him.  And my reply:

 

 

 

So there you go.

You're a liar. Plain and simple.

I'm sure you'll now attempt some species of justification  = "oh well it's not REALLY lying because today is opposite day" or some such stupidity.

But - sorry kiddo, you did it, you denied it, now you're shown to be dishonest.

But hey - go ahead and try to weasel out of it now, Show everyone what a dishonest poster you are.

 

Lie? About what?

All I ask is for you to prove yourself and your baseless accusation and assumptions.  If what you just posted is your defence, you lose LOL

Seems you cannot prove anything, so  much smoke, so little fire. Smouldering in your hearsay.LOL

Edited May 10, 2023 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Lie? About what?

About what you said.

You claimed you never said the very things i just posted you saying

Everyone can see it kiddo. It's right there.

So now that i've PROVEN you're a liar ...  what were you saying before about liberals and ethics?

Are you now claiming you didn't KNOW it was unethical to lie?

Is that why you get angry every time someone points out the libs are liars... because you feel that should be socially accepted ?

You lied - i posted the proof, now everyone can see

[BeaverFever]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Nope. Only hard core left wing liberal supporters see her like that. She blew the free trade deal with the us, she blew a bunch of other trade deals - and while she was able to hang SOME of that on justin, her budgets have been horrible and largely frowned on. She should never have taken the job as finance minister. Justin's policies force her to make horrible budgets that no one is impressed with.

And her Disney plus comments ruined her in the eyes of the 'average person'.  that was pretty much the end of her chances at pm.

And she's a terrible speaker.  And like i say - even the democracy-hating liberals will have to have a leadership race, and she'd be up against people who really can talk in public.

I mean freeland would be an automatic win for PP and probably a majority, so i wish it were true, but it's just not going to happen.

 

Meh that’s just your conservative propaganda I don’t believe any of that is true, except that the old “balanced budget” squawkers are doing their usual squawking that they’ve done every year for the past 4 decades  So far after 40 years the sky has not fallen from national debt or spending deficits despite constant dire predictions to the contrary.  

I don’t think the Disney plus comments really will be remembered in the ling term  True it’s something that a conservative would be more likely to say; the old “belt-tightening” speech during slash-and-burn budget cuts, or saying millennials could afford housing costs if they stop splurging on overpriced Starbucks drinks,  are time honoured staples of the right. And the famous republican sound bite from a few years ago that Americans could afford their healthcare if they would stop buying new iPhones. Anyway its not enough to sink an election this year let alone in the future.

I don’t think she’s a terrible speaker Which liberals are better speakers?

 

 

 

[ExFlyer]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

About what you said.

You claimed you never said the very things i just posted you saying

Everyone can see it kiddo. It's right there.

So now that i've PROVEN you're a liar ...  what were you saying before about liberals and ethics?

Are you now claiming you didn't KNOW it was unethical to lie?

Is that why you get angry every time someone points out the libs are liars... because you feel that should be socially accepted ?

You lied - i posted the proof, now everyone can see

I don't lie, that is your domain.

You have proven nothing. There was not a lie in the quotes you posted.

Unethical??  Huh??

I could not care less what you or others call any political party.

You posted proof of nothing dude LOL

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Meh that’s just your conservative propaganda

Well if that's what we're calling facts and truth these days, sure   sorry it didn't mesh with your echo chamber bias

Justin will probably lose the election and then he'll be forced to stand down. And then we'll see won't we

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I don't lie, that is your domain.

 

of course you do.  I just posted it.

You claimed you didn't say such things - i've proven you have.  It's all there for people to see.

You want a hankie now? You seem like you're pouting. 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

About what you said.

You claimed you never said the very things i just posted you saying

Everyone can see it kiddo. It's right there.

So now that i've PROVEN you're a liar ...  what were you saying before about liberals and ethics?

Are you now claiming you didn't KNOW it was unethical to lie?

Is that why you get angry every time someone points out the libs are liars... because you feel that should be socially accepted ?

You lied - i posted the proof, now everyone can see

Tsk tsk tsk.

You have to do much better than that. There were none and are no lies... in your mind perhaps but not in anyone elses. You just like to accuse.

You certainly have a perspective. Stick with it, it will further your reputation.

 

[CdnFox]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

Tsk tsk tsk.

 

Sorry kid. It's there in black and white. You claimed you didn't say something - you did.  People can read it.

I get why you're ashamed of what you said. You obvoiusly don't want to admit you support the libs and everytime someone says something negative about them you go into a big rant about how you never said you voted for them when nobody asked.  So you probably did and are feeling guilty.

But lying won't help. Just don't vote liberal in the future. they're bad people and you're bad for voting in favour of corruption.

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Its true that no matter who the Liberals name as a leader the right will scream with foam-mouthed bloody murder and attack viscously. The Liberals could name a potted plant as their leader and conservatives would scream that the plant is the most evil dictator in history “ the he plant waved its leaves in the wind just like a dictator!  The plant must he arrested for treason!”

 

“Aren’t big fans of democracy” lol   Just because the party YOU want to win the election didn’t win doesn’t mean its undemocratic. The right thinks “democracy” means absolute rule by their party no matter what

Why is it that persons on the left just can not "own" what the PM, liberal party has done or not done...Instead they feel a need to blame it on the right for for bringing it up... My question to all of you is if your willing to support a man such as Justin and his party, that have a long record of deceiving and lying to all Canadians, including you...what else are you willing to support. Unless you as a person think lying and deceiving voters are leadership qualities your looking for.

Is this what we call leadership here in Canada, or is this becasue there is a huge lack of leadership in any of the parties. 

This country was built on the foundations of democracy, right now 57 % of Canadians do not support Justin and the liberals, and they want change... And if Justin gets another term so be it, the people have spoken, but we don't have to be quite about it, just as i don't expect you to be quite if PP gets elected...

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Meh that’s just your conservative propaganda I don’t believe any of that is true, except that the old “balanced budget” squawkers are doing their usual squawking that they’ve done every year for the past 4 decades  So far after 40 years the sky has not fallen from national debt or spending deficits despite constant dire predictions to the contrary.  

 

True the sky has not fallen, but economic experts have already said over and over that this level of debt is not sustainable long term... I know Liberals do not like to listen to the experts, atleast this government ,but there is going to be a time that this level of debt is going to have consequences, all one has to do is read a little to find that out...But if this line of thinking was truly true, why are our streets not paved in gold, why is every major department starving for cash and resources, why do i have to wait close to 24 hours to see a doctor in the emergency department, or millions of homeless...i mean the sky is not going to fall... or maybe Cyprus example was all bull*hit as well..

 

[Moonbox]

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I vote conservative becasue it represents more of my values and morals and what i want to see in politics, and fits how i wished the country be run. ... I mean there is really only 2 parties to start with, with the other 2 parties being to far on the left for my liking... 

What I was getting at is that is your perspective.  You vote Conservative every single time because they apparently reflect your values, which are whatever, but the idea that other people have different values and priorities seems (at least from what you're saying) to mean that they have no morals, or don't care about them, or something?

The way you describe things is so black and white.  

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It's your vote and you can do with it what ever you want, and if you support him with your vote then own it,... Voting for Justin you already knew what you were getting, more lies and deceit, and the conservative candidates we barely knew anything about them, although i can understand not voting for Mr. flip flop... i did not vote that election becasue of it. 

Own what?  That I have different priorities than you when I vote for someone?  That I don't just vote for the same party every single time and actually consider the current issues and what the candidates are saying?  That I couldn't vote for a candidate who was playing footsie with the anti-vaxxers and outrage-mongers in the base during a pandemic shutdown?  Sure.  I own that.  

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

No i speaking my mind, and how i see it, and if you can prove to me,  he has not out right lied to Canadians to deceive them for one reason or anther, then i will stop criticizing him right now.. but it is the truth which makes me guilty of what exactly...Calling him bad...

Criticize him as much as you like.  You'll struggle to find me saying anything good about Trudeau, or even actually defending him.  Calling him bad or "immoral", however, is worthless criticism, with double-standards galore.  If you don't like deception and figure that makes politicians "immoral", it's pretty awkward that you like what you're hearing out of Pierre Poilievre as he echoes conspiracy theories and incoherent rage back at the most ignorant parts of the Conservative base.  

and still...I could see myself voting for him if that was just an act to rope the dumb-dumbs along, get the nomination and then he started being a reasonable human being.  He's been around for a long time, so I doubt it, but I can hope. 

 

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You'll struggle to find me saying anything good about Trudeau, or even actually defending him.

You voted for him. That's about as strong an endorsement as you can give.

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well if that's what we're calling facts and truth these days, sure   sorry it didn't mesh with your echo chamber bias

Nope it’s well established that conservatives can’t differentiate between opinions and facts. That’s why they think anyone who doesn’t share their opinions is EVIL.

“My opinions are undeniable facts!  Therefore if you disagree with them you must be liar!!!”   —-> pretty much how conservatives have spoken on every subject for the past couple of decades. 

[Moonbox]

49 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You voted for him. That's about as strong an endorsement as you can give.

Well that's ridiculous.  

Since politics is often about choosing the less-bad choice and making compromises, casting your vote is just as often a rejection of the alternatives than an endorsement of anyone in particular.  Thanks for your input again though, as always.  

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

True the sky has not fallen, but economic experts have already said over and over that this level of debt is not sustainable long term... I know Liberals do not like to listen to the experts, atleast this government ,but there is going to be a time that this level of debt is going to have consequences, all one has to do is read a little to find that out...But if this line of thinking was truly true, why are our streets not paved in gold, why is every major department starving for cash and resources, why do i have to wait close to 24 hours to see a doctor in the emergency department, or millions of homeless...i mean the sky is not going to fall... or maybe Cyprus example was all bull*hit as well..

 

Sure the whole austerity gospel has become conventional groupthink among the business schools amd business community since the start of Reaganomics but it wasn’t always so.
 

Keynseian economics, which brought about end of the Great Depression, ushered in the greatest period of economic growth in history,  and made the never before seen first world standard of living we know today, didn’t think so  In fact Keynes argued that during economic slowdowns government should be paying people to dig holes and fill th back in again to stimulate the economy  

 

Now the business lobby and the supposedly left wing mainstream media who thinks businesses leaders are the only people qualified to comment on society thinks that the way to prosperity is starve all public programs of money and hand everything over the the ultra rich showering them with even more wealth so they can trickle the wealth down to us some days  We’ve been living under this regime at one level of government or another for 40 years and it hasn’t done anything but make things worse 

The reason you have to wait so long at the hospital is because hospitals have been starved of money for decades. Suggesting that we could solve the problem by starving them even more is ridiculous. You see what austerity has done to our military, it’s done the same for every other public service also  
 

Government’s ability to spend deficits is not unlimited but it is quite substantial and balanced budgets are actually bad for economies. The economy only grows when money that didn’t exist before is created. Money is only created when someone borrows money  

You go to the bank and borrow half a million for a house. Where does the money come from?  The bank doesn’t rob someone else to get that money, they create it out of thin air by typing a number into a computer and just like that the economy grew by $500k. And the gov is the most reliable borrower and lender can have: the government never dies or loses its job or retires or gets too sick to work and it can raise its own income whenever it wants and it has monopoly rights to print as much money as it wishes. In the same way you don’t expect people to pay cash in full for a house (a”balanced budget”) you shouldn’t expect the government to pay cash in full for the vital services citizens amd businesses need on a daily basis  

 

Look at the ridiculous disaster of Liz Truss’s austerity measures that tanked the UK economy so badly she had to resign only 6 weeks into the job. Austerity kills. Literally. Its why as Pierre Pollievre say “everything is broken”. Well of course when you neglect everything and starve everything of money so that billionaires can have another tax break, things will become broken. 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Well that's ridiculous. 

Right - so in your mind voting for the guy to run the country and personally endorsing the party is a scathing indictment of them.  That must be some pretty fresh glue you've got going on today

 

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Since politics is often about choosing the less-bad choice and making compromises, casting your vote is just as often a rejection of the alternatives than an endorsement of anyone in particular.  Thanks for your input again though, as always.  

No, that's just an excuse people use to justify why they're supporting corruption.

People who GENUINELY don't feel there's a good choice just don't vote.

Like it or not voting for a party and it's leader  IS an endorsement. Thats why they say it's a 'Mandate'.

You gave him his mandate - you can't claim at this point you don't see value in him.  If you didn't then you would have abstained. That's how the system works.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Sure the whole austerity gospel has become conventional groupthink among the business schools amd business community since the start of Reaganomics but it wasn’t always so.
 

Keynseian economics, which brought about end of the Great Depression, ushered in the greatest period of economic growth in history,  and made the never before seen first world standard of living we know today, didn’t think so  In fact Keynes argued that during economic slowdowns government should be paying people to dig holes and fill th back in again to stimulate the economy  

 

Now the business lobby and the supposedly left wing mainstream media who thinks businesses leaders are the only people qualified to comment on society thinks that the way to prosperity is starve all public programs of money and hand everything over the the ultra rich showering them with even more wealth so they can trickle the wealth down to us some days  We’ve been living under this regime at one level of government or another for 40 years and it hasn’t done anything but make things worse 

The reason you have to wait so long at the hospital is because hospitals have been starved of money for decades. Suggesting that we could solve the problem by starving them even more is ridiculous. You see what austerity has done to our military, it’s done the same for every other public service also  
 

Government’s ability to spend deficits is not unlimited but it is quite substantial and balanced budgets are actually bad for economies. The economy only grows when money that didn’t exist before is created. Money is only created when someone borrows money  

You go to the bank and borrow half a million for a house. Where does the money come from?  The bank doesn’t rob someone else to get that money, they create it out of thin air by typing a number into a computer and just like that the economy grew by $500k. And the gov is the most reliable borrower and lender can have: the government never dies or loses its job or retires or gets too sick to work and it can raise its own income whenever it wants and it has monopoly rights to print as much money as it wishes. In the same way you don’t expect people to pay cash in full for a house (a”balanced budget”) you shouldn’t expect the government to pay cash in full for the vital services citizens amd businesses need on a daily basis  

 

Look at the ridiculous disaster of Liz Truss’s austerity measures that tanked the UK economy so badly she had to resign only 6 weeks into the job. Austerity kills. Literally. Its why as Pierre Pollievre say “everything is broken”. Well of course when you neglect everything and starve everything of money so that billionaires can have another tax break, things will become broken. 

Yeah - that's pretty much all bullshit.

Keynesian economics did NOT end the great depression WW2 ended the depression. And the "New Deal" is said to have deepened and lengthened it. It made things worse. As trying to 'spend your way out of a recession' always  does - ask bob rae about that.

And what you call 'austerity" is just spending what you earn.  And that has ALWAYS been a factor for gov'ts. Massive spending deficits are a new thing not an old thing.

And balanced budgets are just fine for economies - it's !diotc to say otherwise.  There are times when it's not wise to worry about it, but most of the time a balanced budget is exactly what you want.

Tell me you don't know a THING about finance or economics without telling me.

[BeaverFever]

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah - that's pretty much all bullshit.

Keynesian economics did NOT end the great depression WW2 ended the depression. And the "New Deal" is said to have deepened and lengthened it. It made things worse. As trying to 'spend your way out of a recession' always  does - ask bob rae about that.

And what you call 'austerity" is just spending what you earn.  And that has ALWAYS been a factor for gov'ts. Massive spending deficits are a new thing not an old thing.

And balanced budgets are just fine for economies - it's !diotc to say otherwise.  There are times when it's not wise to worry about it, but most of the time a balanced budget is exactly what you want.

Tell me you don't know a THING about finance or economics without telling me.

FALSE.  You know SFA except fake news fed to you by the right wing propaganda machine 

 

“The new deal lengthened the depression” is Republican made up nonsense - in fact only recently made up nonsense dating from when the economy tanked under Bush Jr - because FDR wasn’t one of theirs . By any measure the economy grew rapidly and steadily from the start of the new deal in 1932. There was a very brief pause in the growth in’37 the tiniest blip in years of massive sustained growth and Republicans have hilariously pointed to this to make the bogus claim 

 

Next lets tackle your brainless claim tha t government spending didn’t emd the Depression WW2did. Where do you think WW2 spending came from?  THE GOVERNMENT, GENIUS.  The New Deal was government paying massive numbers of people to build roads and bridges. WW2 was government paying massive numbers of people to serve in the military or in war production. Economically speaking WW2 was the New Deal on steroids.   This time instead of just building homes and public infrastructure government was investing in new technologies and manufacturing which caused our economy and standard of living to skyrocket Thanks for playing, dumkoff. Better luck next time. 
 

Anyone who buys a house or goes to university or starts a business doesn’t “spend what they earn”. They borrow money and pay it off over time, which grows the economy.
 

If what you say is true, that government ate supposed to balance budgets most of the time how come there’s no example in all of history of any government ever actually doing that on a sustained basis, especially not any of the great empires or countries that have emerged since the beginning of capitalism?  Not the British Empire, not USA, nobody. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

What I was getting at is that is your perspective.  You vote Conservative every single time because they apparently reflect your values, which are whatever, but the idea that other people have different values and priorities seems (at least from what you're saying) to mean that they have no morals, or don't care about them, or something?

The way you describe things is so black and white.  

Own what?  That I have different priorities than you when I vote for someone?  That I don't just vote for the same party every single time and actually consider the current issues and what the candidates are saying?  That I couldn't vote for a candidate who was playing footsie with the anti-vaxxers and outrage-mongers in the base during a pandemic shutdown?  Sure.  I own that.  

Criticize him as much as you like.  You'll struggle to find me saying anything good about Trudeau, or even actually defending him.  Calling him bad or "immoral", however, is worthless criticism, with double-standards galore.  If you don't like deception and figure that makes politicians "immoral", it's pretty awkward that you like what you're hearing out of Pierre Poilievre as he echoes conspiracy theories and incoherent rage back at the most ignorant parts of the Conservative base.  

and still...I could see myself voting for him if that was just an act to rope the dumb-dumbs along, get the nomination and then he started being a reasonable human being.  He's been around for a long time, so I doubt it, but I can hope. 

 

Well i think most Canadians share a common core of morals and values, That being said I'm sure if we polled Canadians we would find out that lying and being deceived is not one of those acceptable morals. And yet if we once again polled Canadians if it is acceptable for our nations leaders to do so...most would atleast say it is expected...or normal behavior so we shrug our shoulders and carry on with our day... and yet if our kids did the same thing we take it to another level, your grounded, go to your room, they know their is consequences in lying. except if you the PM or in government. why are we not holding both to the same standard. it is like we don't really care, they are going to do it anyways. not much trust in government or it's representatives. and yet it is something we look for in candidates for some reason.

I was brought up in a military's family we did not have much money back in the day, so my parents were strict, that and my chosen career was the military once again a strict environment, so yes black and white very little room for grey.

Not really, the whole time i have known you this is the first time that you have said you voted liberal, you have been adamant that your a conservative i would have guessed a centrist myself ...What i meant by owning it is you voted for the man that you knew his past performance which was not good, and despite that voted for him anyways...and not that it matters i find it hard to wrap my mind around the shift...while i took another route and refrained from voting becasue of all the flip flops, and i really liked the fact he had a military background and might have done something about our security apparatus.

PP was not my first choice, not even in the top 3, that being said, he is who we have now. Yes he has some crazy ideas, bitcoin, being one of them, but he is not running the country ..yet...and like any politician once they get into office reality will dictate what promises are kept, and what direction he takes his government. I've also spoken my mind about harpers policies, but i did not see the lying and deceit I've seen from this government in harpers...

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

FALSE.  You know SFA except fake news fed to you by the right wing propaganda machine 

Says the guy who already proved he doesn't understand this stuff   sorry to burst your bubble.

Side question, have you even read Keynes?

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

“The new deal lengthened the depression” is Republican made up nonsense -

Entirely true. And not surprising. As i noted spending like that often does. The ndp found that out in bc AND of course bob rae is the more famous example.

You have to have very specific targeted spending for it to work - if you create a 'false economy' by paying people for things that didn't REALLY need to happen you make it worse.

That's why harper insisted on 'shovel ready' projects only when he did it, and did it for a limited time.

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Next lets tackle your brainless claim tha t government spending didn’t emd the Depression WW2did. Where do you think WW2 spending came from?

Debt And they sold a SHIT TONNE of bonds.  But ww2 is what did it - the "new deal' did not. And ww2 was not just random infrastructure spending.  It also wasn't very healthy for the economy in the long run - massive debt, thousands of working men taken out of the economy (many permanently), it's not a great way to break a recession. But it is what did it.

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Anyone who buys a house or goes to university or starts a business doesn’t “spend what they earn”. They borrow money and pay it off over time, which grows the economy.

Well MANY university and people who started a business will tell you it did not pay for itself at all nor did it boost the economy (turns out those degrees in lesbian dance theory don't actually pay well). 

So its a risk.  People are in the business of taking risks from time to time. Gov'ts really shouldn't be.

As i did say there are occasionally times when you don't worry about the budget being balanced. Recessions for example, that kind of thing. But during normal or good times there's no need for it. IF you're spending more than taxes and income would allow for then you're either spending on things you shouldn't be or you're not taxing enough. In most cases its the former.

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

 

If what you say is true, that government ate supposed to balance budgets most of the time how come there’s no example in all of history of any government ever actually doing that on a sustained basis,

There are many examples.  Canada is one. For many many years we had balanced budgets most of the time, except for the wars.

Here - take a look

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/a-really-quick-history-of-canada-s-federal-debt

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

especially not any of the great empires or countries that have emerged since the beginning of capitalism?  Not the British Empire, not USA, nobody. 

we did. Sorry sparky - you kind of blew that one

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Sure the whole austerity gospel has become conventional groupthink among the business schools amd business community since the start of Reaganomics but it wasn’t always so.
 

Keynseian economics, which brought about end of the Great Depression, ushered in the greatest period of economic growth in history,  and made the never before seen first world standard of living we know today, didn’t think so  In fact Keynes argued that during economic slowdowns government should be paying people to dig holes and fill th back in again to stimulate the economy  

 

Now the business lobby and the supposedly left wing mainstream media who thinks businesses leaders are the only people qualified to comment on society thinks that the way to prosperity is starve all public programs of money and hand everything over the the ultra rich showering them with even more wealth so they can trickle the wealth down to us some days  We’ve been living under this regime at one level of government or another for 40 years and it hasn’t done anything but make things worse 

The reason you have to wait so long at the hospital is because hospitals have been starved of money for decades. Suggesting that we could solve the problem by starving them even more is ridiculous. You see what austerity has done to our military, it’s done the same for every other public service also  
 

Government’s ability to spend deficits is not unlimited but it is quite substantial and balanced budgets are actually bad for economies. The economy only grows when money that didn’t exist before is created. Money is only created when someone borrows money  

You go to the bank and borrow half a million for a house. Where does the money come from?  The bank doesn’t rob someone else to get that money, they create it out of thin air by typing a number into a computer and just like that the economy grew by $500k. And the gov is the most reliable borrower and lender can have: the government never dies or loses its job or retires or gets too sick to work and it can raise its own income whenever it wants and it has monopoly rights to print as much money as it wishes. In the same way you don’t expect people to pay cash in full for a house (a”balanced budget”) you shouldn’t expect the government to pay cash in full for the vital services citizens amd businesses need on a daily basis  

 

Look at the ridiculous disaster of Liz Truss’s austerity measures that tanked the UK economy so badly she had to resign only 6 weeks into the job. Austerity kills. Literally. Its why as Pierre Pollievre say “everything is broken”. Well of course when you neglect everything and starve everything of money so that billionaires can have another tax break, things will become broken. 

I don't think it is so much about being austere, but more about being wise with your money...investing it in the right areas...like areas that create wealth, jobs etc. something i think even most liberals will say has not happened with this liberal government. 

My opinion, what ended the great depression was the preparation for war and the war itself, With governments spending great mountains of cash, but also creating more tax payers, massive loans to companies to turn peace time production into war supplies...The governments were making huge mountains of money as well...

Lets be honest here the liberals have been in charge for the last 8 plus years, they could have changed this starving departments at any time, but thats not where they choose to spend money... Yes that pandemic kicked the shit out of our finances, but Pandemic spending only accounts for a little more than 1/2 all spending that took place...Instead we have takenm on more social programs that suck even more out of the coffers, instead of investing more into social programs we already had or departments that were starved. 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I don't think it is so much about being austere, but more about being wise with your money...investing it in the right areas...like areas that create wealth, jobs etc. something i think even most liberals will say has not happened with this liberal government. 

My opinion, what ended the great depression was the preparation for war and the war itself, With governments spending great mountains of cash, but also creating more tax payers, massive loans to companies to turn peace time production into war supplies...The governments were making huge mountains of money as well...

Lets be honest here the liberals have been in charge for the last 8 plus years, they could have changed this starving departments at any time, but thats not where they choose to spend money... Yes that pandemic kicked the shit out of our finances, but Pandemic spending only accounts for a little more than 1/2 all spending that took place...Instead we have takenm on more social programs that suck even more out of the coffers, instead of investing more into social programs we already had or departments that were starved. 

You're lucky they didn't try to confiscate your 'evil assault rifles'. 

"Austerity" is a word that the left loves to use because it sounds scary - but they use it inappropriately.  It just refers to attempting to balance a deficit budget with spending cuts primarily instead of other methods. Which may or may not be appropriate depending on the circumstance but having a balanced budget is not 'austerity'.

the fact is that budgets should be balanced the majority of the time.  When times are good you balance or even possibly put some into savings or debt reduction, and when times are bad you borrow if necessary to get through it and turn things around, keeping it to what's needed and not creating a false economy.

Trudeau racked up huge debts during our good times, insane never before seen debts during our bad times, and now we're likely going into a recession and guess what - more borrowing while at the same time spending which drives up inflation and drags out recessions.

 

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Well i think most Canadians share a common core of morals and values, That being said I'm sure if we polled Canadians we would find out that lying and being deceived is not one of those acceptable morals.

Right, and if every politician out there is lying to you (and they all are, I assure you) then how do you distinguish between them?

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I was brought up in a military's family we did not have much money back in the day, so my parents were strict, that and my chosen career was the military once again a strict environment, so yes black and white very little room for grey.

Black and white isn't a good thing.  ?‍♂️

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Not really, the whole time i have known you this is the first time that you have said you voted liberal, you have been adamant that your a conservative i would have guessed a centrist myself ...What i meant by owning it is you voted for the man that you knew his past performance which was not good, and despite that voted for him anyways...

I don't think I could have made it any clearer than I did.  I held my nose and voted for him because I'm absolutely 100% against the ignorance pandering and clueless outrage politics of the conservative base - Trumpism in one word if we need it.  For all of the effort spent complaining about wokeness and trannies etc, it's mind blowing to me that you don't recognize how much time and energy you spend being outraged about those subjects yourselves.  

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

and not that it matters i find it hard to wrap my mind around the shift...while i took another route and refrained from voting becasue of all the flip flops, and i really liked the fact he had a military background and might have done something about our security apparatus.

I don't believe that refraining from voting accomplishes anything.  It's certainly your choice, but choosing the "less bad" option is an improvement over the worse option.  It wasn't even O'Toole that I had a real problem with.  My "shift", whatever that means, was based on a firm rejection of normalizing aggressive stupidity and ignorance.  I am not falling in line with the wingnuts and the conspiracy clowns.  You can if you like, but I watch everything that's happened in the USA and the UK and if another term of vapid nothing-speak and clueless incompetence from Trudeau is what it takes to reject those slow-rolling train wrecks, I'll pay it.

The verdict is in for Trudeau already.  We know the careless buffoonery he's going to deliver.  Pierre Poilievre still has a choice of which way he goes.  He can stay his current course (in which case I still think he'll manage to lose), or he can be an adult and start talking realistically, in which case I think moderates could fall in line with him.  Trudeau's record is a shit-smear that should be impossible to lose against, but if there's any way to do it, it's going to be trying to convince moderate Canadians to come aboard with shitbrained conspiracy theories about the WEF, central banking, vaccines and the trucker convoy etc.  

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, that's just an excuse people use to justify why they're supporting corruption.

People who GENUINELY don't feel there's a good choice just don't vote.

Ridiculous again.  If both options are bad, but one is better than the other, not voting is dumb.  I'd prefer less bad than more bad.  It really isn't complicated, and arguing against this sort of basic logic is not a good look for you, though it is certainly not surprising.  ?