Duh, obviously Metallica. ?
With TPP looming, I'm gonna say the big corporations pull the strings.
Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
federal election - who are you voting for
- Thread starter LiNK666
- Start date
With TPP looming, I'm gonna say the big corporations pull the strings.
Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
Get outta town that's not democracy.
You do realize that Pearson and Trudeau senior were the "fathers" of that debt, don't you;
it never went away, not in all of this time, Liberal or Conservative.
Running a deficit has been standard practice since that time. Harper has been reducing his since 2009.
Buy now, pay later. Listen to what people are promising you and start doing the calculations, you can be sure that they aren't.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/
I wanted to vote conservative for that reason. The other guys are promising too much. I don't want debt or deficits. I'm worried about Ontario. I really do believe we will declare bankruptcy in next 15 years if things go the way they have been. We will be the Michigan of Canada.
That's not fair. The Great recession caused all governments around the world to spend more than they were taking in, and rightly so.
Not saying the Conservatives are better at managing the economy, just saying that the years since the recession aren't a valid indicator of any government's abilities in that regards.
You did look at that graph in the link you posted didn't you? Liberals ran a surplus 10 years straight (97-07) I'm not debating who the father's of the debt were, but as stated above, Harper's policies account for a full quarter of our national debt. That's hardly fiscally responsible, which is why I pointed out the irony of conservative voters claiming fiscal responsibility as their reason for voting conservative.
$55 Billion in 2009.. Highest deficit in Canadian history. Yeah, there was a recession, but again, my point is the irony of hearing fiscal responsibility when the "why I vote conservative" argument is being made. It's a fallacy. At least with the Harper conservatives. I have voted conservative my whole life, I won't be this time around.
ding ding ding.... we have a winner!
daught
Well-known member
REPTILLIANS get informed, read some memes.
David Icke?
daught
Well-known member
I dont trust any mainstream writer. He's tainted.
Got to pander to the ignorance of your audience, on both sides. It's why the Harper campaign put focus on the extra $1000 dollars a year the average family might pay in income tax under somebody else, as if that's the only economic policy that will have any impact on one's disposable income. Or why so much attention was brought to the niqab debate. It's the kind of stuff that resonates with the average, uninformed, politically switched off citizen.
Listening to them talk at campaign stops kinda reminds me of a Jim Jefferies quote
Yes I read it, and pulled it from Liberal leaning sources, so there wouldn't be dispute.
Trudeau seniors adjusted is higher $65 billion or something. Junior is saying that Harper's isn't enough.
Sure I'd vote for Preston if he was around. If we'd done it before, we wouldn't be in this mess.
edit: don't forget this is deficit & surplus and not debt & savings.
Last edited:
Good thing I'm not voting for Junior or Harper
... And If we're going to be so fair as to adjust for inflation, you should also note, that the year of that adjusted figure also marked the end of Tredeau's tenure as leader... As it should have.So glad I voted Liberals...just found out that they're going to mandate brothels! I just hope it's NIMBY...
http://www.thestar.com/news/federal...say-liberal-party-would-mandate-brothels.html
Important note: I didn't actually read the story. Just the headline.
http://www.thestar.com/news/federal...say-liberal-party-would-mandate-brothels.html
Important note: I didn't actually read the story. Just the headline.
See the video I posted above for context .....ah what the hell, I'll post it again. It's that good :lmao:
https://youtu.be/hxXUb4hazTw?t=2h19m40s
And for the cries of recession... there was a big one in the early 90s that the Liberals steered us through, getting us to surpluses quickly. There was also one in the early 2000s that the Liberals steered us through with very little impact to Canada. The CPC dogma is just not supported with data.
On top of that everyone forgets that Harper wanted to deregulate our banks (so they could "compete" with the US banks) prior to the 2008 banking crisis but he did not have the majority he needed. IF he did we would have crashed just like the USA in 2008! Then he takes credit for our banks not crashing which was in-spite of him not because of him...
One surplus and the Harperistas think he is an economic god. Ten Liberal surpluses during two recessions and they think it is some sort coincident.
Last edited:
You guys talk about debt as if it's ebola. It's more like food, it's healthy in moderate amounts. Debt helps drive growth at a faster pace, but too much presents a risk to lenders which makes it too expensive to borrow. Very simple.
The question isn't how to eliminate debt, because that's equivalent to starvation. The question is what level of debt is healthiest?
There's also a simple answer for that question; the right amount of debt is the amount that drives the most growth for the least cost. But actually putting figures to that answer is incredibly hard and very heavily biased in guesses and opinions. Luckily there's a lot of room to maneuver when it comes to debt levels without venturing into the danger zones on either side, and the evidence is that the country has remained firmly within that window since forever.
Debt-to-GDP is the real index of what's safe and what's risky when it comes to debt.
We went from around 10% debt-to-GDP under Trudeau to nearly 70% under Chretien. The trend is very stable regardless of party lines. We get the amount of debt we need, when we need it. I don't blame Harper for his debt, I don't blame or credit other leaders for their debt level either. It made sense to spend more in the 70s following the oil crisis, and to incur even more debt into the 80s when interest rates everywhere were sky-high and high risk was the norm. It was the economic recipe of the time around the world. Then our belt started tightening in the 90s and into 2000, just like it needed to.
I know everybody wants to find easy labels to apply to each party so they don't have to think about it too hard, but the reality is whoever we elect will do whatever it takes to extract the best value from our debt. It's not a partisan issue, it's plain economics.
But we, the electorate, make it a partisan issue to such an extent that even as the Ontario NDP were borrowing heavily at the same time as the Conservative federal government was doing the exact same thing, we criticize and mock the NDP for being wasteful and careless with the pocketbook while praising the Conservatives for being prudent and responsible! In fact, they both simply did exactly what was needed for the times. Same goes for Harris and McGuinty provincially.
The economy should not take up nearly as much mind space as it does during elections, but that's the way people think. Every generation it's the same thing; our economy is on shaky ground and the future is uncertain and we should cut back on debt so we can feel less scared about our future.
For me, the economy is not the main priority. It's not that the "budget balances itself" but that all parties are mature enough to understand the importance of fiscal management and they all (well, top 3 anyways) have the expertise to manage it properly. Our main priority should be our values. Our values shouldn't be negotiable anyways, regardless of how great or how terribly our economy might perform!
I suggest that everyone figures out what's important to them and matches it up with a party that has shaped those priorities into their plan of action for the country. If you value cheap trinkets, then a party that supports trade deals might be for you. If you want to be able to talk to everyone in English (or French) then a party that has very strict tests for admission into the country might be your ticket.
Other than that I think everyone needs to relax. The economy will be OK (to the extent that the global economy allows) regardless of who you vote for.
The question isn't how to eliminate debt, because that's equivalent to starvation. The question is what level of debt is healthiest?
There's also a simple answer for that question; the right amount of debt is the amount that drives the most growth for the least cost. But actually putting figures to that answer is incredibly hard and very heavily biased in guesses and opinions. Luckily there's a lot of room to maneuver when it comes to debt levels without venturing into the danger zones on either side, and the evidence is that the country has remained firmly within that window since forever.
Debt-to-GDP is the real index of what's safe and what's risky when it comes to debt.
We went from around 10% debt-to-GDP under Trudeau to nearly 70% under Chretien. The trend is very stable regardless of party lines. We get the amount of debt we need, when we need it. I don't blame Harper for his debt, I don't blame or credit other leaders for their debt level either. It made sense to spend more in the 70s following the oil crisis, and to incur even more debt into the 80s when interest rates everywhere were sky-high and high risk was the norm. It was the economic recipe of the time around the world. Then our belt started tightening in the 90s and into 2000, just like it needed to.
I know everybody wants to find easy labels to apply to each party so they don't have to think about it too hard, but the reality is whoever we elect will do whatever it takes to extract the best value from our debt. It's not a partisan issue, it's plain economics.
But we, the electorate, make it a partisan issue to such an extent that even as the Ontario NDP were borrowing heavily at the same time as the Conservative federal government was doing the exact same thing, we criticize and mock the NDP for being wasteful and careless with the pocketbook while praising the Conservatives for being prudent and responsible! In fact, they both simply did exactly what was needed for the times. Same goes for Harris and McGuinty provincially.
The economy should not take up nearly as much mind space as it does during elections, but that's the way people think. Every generation it's the same thing; our economy is on shaky ground and the future is uncertain and we should cut back on debt so we can feel less scared about our future.
For me, the economy is not the main priority. It's not that the "budget balances itself" but that all parties are mature enough to understand the importance of fiscal management and they all (well, top 3 anyways) have the expertise to manage it properly. Our main priority should be our values. Our values shouldn't be negotiable anyways, regardless of how great or how terribly our economy might perform!
I suggest that everyone figures out what's important to them and matches it up with a party that has shaped those priorities into their plan of action for the country. If you value cheap trinkets, then a party that supports trade deals might be for you. If you want to be able to talk to everyone in English (or French) then a party that has very strict tests for admission into the country might be your ticket.
Other than that I think everyone needs to relax. The economy will be OK (to the extent that the global economy allows) regardless of who you vote for.
Last edited:
