Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by Jacks

The Liberals are proposing to add 146.5 billion dollars in new spending over 4 years. That means more taxes and debt to pay for it, you're not going to pay that bill with growth.

I like how the Harper government is attacking Trudeau on his plan to have a few deficits to spend money to grow the economy, where until this year (and in my opinion a fake "surplus") only knew how to run deficits.

Keep this in mind, in Harper's 10 years in government, Harper has contributed over $150 billion to the national debt. Even if Trudeau is in power for 10 years, and runs a deficit of 10 billion each year, that's less than what Harper has done to the debt.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Jacks

That's fine right now but when does that debt get paid off? 5 years? 10 years? ever?
Interest rates can't stay this low forever.
The Liberals are proposing to add 146.5 billion dollars in new spending over 4 years. That means more taxes and debt to pay for it, you're not going to pay that bill with growth.

Well see that's a bit of the misundering. Debt doesn't HAVE to be paid off as long as its under control. What large western country doesn't have debt of some sort? Carrying debt isn't necessarily bad.

Also. 146 billion over four years isn't that much compared to the overall budget.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Daradon

On that note, anyone seen the new NDP ad that spoofs the conservative ad? Harper, time to let him go. I loled.

I did see it and couldn't help but think that in typical Dipper fashion, they spent money on actors instead of asking passersby to appear in the ad like the Conservatives do.

And I laughed. It was good.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

I like how the Harper government is attacking Trudeau on his plan to have a few deficits to spend money to grow the economy, where until this year (and in my opinion a fake "surplus") only knew how to run deficits.

I like how up until a couple of months ago Liberals were complaining about deficit spending (while simultaneously saying they should spend more). Now suddently debt is a good thing and we'd be a lot better off if we had more of it.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well see that's a bit of the misundering. Debt doesn't HAVE to be paid off as long as its under control. What large western country doesn't have debt of some sort? Carrying debt isn't necessarily bad.

Also. 146 billion over four years isn't that much compared to the overall budget.

We'll just have to disagree on all of those points. Very short term debt can be beneficial in the right circumstances.

e.g. You take a loan out to buy inventory, sell the inventory, pay back the loan and keep the profit.

Long term debt is not a good thing ever. If we didn't have servicing costs on all of the accumulated debt from over the years we would have boatload of extra cash to pay for new spending or tax reductions or infrastructure or whatever.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I like how up until a couple of months ago Liberals were complaining about deficit spending (while simultaneously saying they should spend more). Now suddently debt is a good thing and we'd be a lot better off if we had more of it.


We'll just have to disagree on all of those points. Very short term debt can be beneficial in the right circumstances.

e.g. You take a loan out to buy inventory, sell the inventory, pay back the loan and keep the profit.

Long term debt is not a good thing ever. If we didn't have servicing costs on all of the accumulated debt from over the years we would have boatload of extra cash to pay for new spending or tax reductions or infrastructure or whatever.

On the scale of nations' economies, the short-term is much longer than it is for a small business or even a large business. The effects of running deficits for an economic boost aren't felt for years or possibly decades later, and depend on a large list of factors, many of which are out of the governments control.

In theory, it's a sound move. But you will never know the outcome unless it's put into practice.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I like how up until a couple of months ago Liberals were complaining about deficit spending (while simultaneously saying they should spend more). Now suddently debt is a good thing and we'd be a lot better off if we had more of it.


We'll just have to disagree on all of those points. Very short term debt can be beneficial in the right circumstances.

e.g. You take a loan out to buy inventory, sell the inventory, pay back the loan and keep the profit.

Long term debt is not a good thing ever. If we didn't have servicing costs on all of the accumulated debt from over the years we would have boatload of extra cash to pay for new spending or tax reductions or infrastructure or whatever.

Yeah see, your comparing running a country to running a small business. Their not the same thing. At all.

Ideally, would operating on zero debt be the best? Of course. Is it possible in a modern society with trade blocs and the World Bank and responsibilities at home and to the world, and the current economic climate. Not even close.

You have to find the balance. There will always be debt. And there will sometimes be deficits. Sometimes they are good. If you can increase GDP, trade, even quality of life (without getting in trouble) deficits can be good.

Operating from a first priority of eliminating debt would not only significantly lower quality of life in Canada, but it would harm the economy. What good is being debt free if the ecomomy is boned. We'd have to borrow more anyway.

It's about balance, and taking opportunities when you have them. Interest rates say we should spend a little now. If you recall, Calgary started building infrstructure during the last boom. Costs skyrocketted! Cause goods and labour are in high demand.

Balance it out. Spend a little more now, and a little less next boom.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah see, your comparing running a country to running a small business. Their not the same thing. At all.

Ideally, would operating on zero debt be the best? Of course. Is it possible in a modern society with trade blocs and the World Bank and responsibilities at home and to the world, and the current economic climate. Not even close.

You have to find the balance. There will always be debt. And there will sometimes be deficits. Sometimes they are good. If you can increase GDP, trade, even quality of life (without getting in trouble) deficits can be good.

Operating from a first priority of eliminating debt would not only significantly lower quality of life in Canada, but it would harm the economy. What good is being debt free if the ecomomy is boned. We'd have to borrow more anyway.

It's about balance, and taking opportunities when you have them. Interest rates say we should spend a little now. If you recall, Calgary started building infrstructure during the last boom. Costs skyrocketted! Cause goods and labour are in high demand.

Balance it out. Spend a little more now, and a little less next boom.

I don't think it's fair that my children or grandchildren are going to be in all this government debt. How did it ever get to this? It's like a ponzi scheme on future generations.

Citizens expect the moon but can't or refuse to pay for it through increased taxes. Governments have new expenditures every year that precious debt riddled government didn't even have to contemplate.

Will governments everywhere everntually walk away from these massive debts someday? Will we all turn into Greece?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

I don't think it's fair that my children or grandchildren are going to be in all this government debt. How did it ever get to this? It's like a ponzi scheme on future generations.

Citizens expect the moon but can't or refuse to pay for it through increased taxes. Governments have new expenditures every year that precious debt riddled government didn't even have to contemplate.

Will governments everywhere everntually walk away from these massive debts someday? Will we all turn into Greece?

There is a bit of that, but it's gotten to a point where there is no real alternative. Is it possible to be debt free? No. Name a nation that is.

Some will have to do serious austerity measures, sure. But Canada isn't one of them. As I mentioned a few posts back, in the 90's we were paying 35 cents on dollar to interest. Now we're paying 15. So it's actually better for the generation after me than it was for me. We're moving in the right direction. And no, that's not all because of the Conservative path. Martin has his fingerprints on the recovery too.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Daradon

There is a bit of that, but it's gotten to a point where there is no real alternative. Is it possible to be debt free? No. Name a nation that is.

Some will have to do serious austerity measures, sure. But Canada isn't one of them. As I mentioned a few posts back, in the 90's we were paying 35 cents on dollar to interest. Now we're paying 15. So it's actually better for the generation after me than it was for me. We're moving in the right direction. And no, that's not all because of the Conservative path. Martin has his fingerprints on the recovery too.

This system just blows my mind. Keep piling on the debt and hope future generations figure something out. We are collectively so selfish.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

This system just blows my mind. Keep piling on the debt and hope future generations figure something out. We are collectively so selfish.

The way I understand it the government spends money to kick start the economy and the resulting growth makes up for the debt. So we aren't just piling on the debt, we are spending money to make money.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The way I understand it the government spends money to kick start the economy and the resulting growth makes up for the debt. So we aren't just piling on the debt, we are spending money to make money.

Spending money to make money isn't going to cause oil prices to rise.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

This system just blows my mind. Keep piling on the debt and hope future generations figure something out. We are collectively so selfish.

I don't disagree with the sentiment of this statement, and I live my life by it. But how would you fix the global debt problem? Also, for the kinda change your talking about, the Conservatives are no better. They're not fixing the overall debt problem home or abroad.

Lastly, and probaly most importantly, I notice the thanks come from people who want to do nothing about climate change. If you want to be all high and mighty on future generations, start there. It's a far bigger threat than debt load. And the Conservatives made it worse.

Everyone who thanked that post is a massive hypocrite.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Dion

Spending money to make money isn't going to cause oil prices to rise.

Oil is done. Get over it. Adapt or die. We had a 100 year run. Stop beibg selfish. You care about future generations you said right? It's killing us environmentally and stagnating us econonically.

Time to grow up as a economy.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I don't disagree with the sentiment of this statement, and I live my life by it. But how would you fix the global debt problem? Also, for the kinda change your talking about, the Conservatives are no better. They're not fixing the overall debt problem home or abroad.

Lastly, and probaly most importantly, I notice the thanks come from people who want to do nothing about climate change. If you want to be all high and mighty on future generations, start there. It's a far bigger threat than debt load. And the Conservatives made it worse.

Everyone who thanked that post is a massive hypocrite.

The global debt problem isn't so much my concern as the Canadian debt problem. I place no preference or blame on any political party over the other in this country.

I just wish that government had evolved differently, or that there was a collective awakening to the moral bankruptcy of shouldering future generations of debt in this country.

My only solution would be to try and actually tackle the debt problem, but I know that will never work as most voters would rather have more social programs and government infrastructure than less, regardless of future implications.

[Dion]

Moderator asks Harper, Trudeau, Mulcair to skip talking points in upcoming foreign policy debate

OTTAWA—In a turbulent world with new troubles at every turn, the moderator of Monday night’s foreign policy debate has a simple message for the three main federal leaders: forget the talking points, and go deep.

Rudyard Griffiths, the chair of the Munk Debates, knows politicians like to keep things tightly scripted, but he says the world is at a pivotal moment — from new challenges posed by a more assertive China and Russia, to the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War with the Middle East exodus.


So it’s time, says Griffiths, for Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau to explain their rationale for how Canada can navigate all of that turmoil and make a concrete — and practical — contribution, especially at a time when the country has limited resources.

The format is designed to force the leaders to go deep, said Griffiths, who has had the input of an advisory board of leading Canadian foreign policy experts.

The debate will be divided into six segments in which two of the three leaders will go toe-to-toe for seven minutes. The third leader will be added for five more minutes.


Forcing the leaders into a series of long exchanges — including a series of one-on-one bouts — will hopefully exhaust the talking points after four or five minutes, if not sooner, he said. Staying on point may be an effective skill for a politician giving a stump speech or a press conference.


“But frankly, in a debate, it makes for a pretty insubstantial and unsatisfying conversation,” said Griffiths.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...cy-debate.html

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

The global debt problem isn't so much my concern as the Canadian debt problem. I place no preference or blame on any political party over the other in this country.

I just wish that government had evolved differently, or that there was a collective awakening to the moral bankruptcy of shouldering future generations of debt in this country.

My only solution would be to try and actually tackle the debt problem, but I know that will never work as most voters would rather have more social programs and government infrastructure than less, regardless of future implications.

See, your proving your misunderstanding on the situation. They are one of the same. Every Western nation (and nations in general) have the same problem. Again, what westen nation above say 1 million people, does not have debt?

Your living in an old world and fools paradise. What we can do is manage our debt. Put it to good uses.

I do not disagree that to a certain point, its a house of cards. But that's the new nature of money.

Macro Economics = tough. Appealing to people who do not understand world finance = easy

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Oil is done. Get over it. Adapt or die. We had a 100 year run. Stop beibg selfish. You care about future generations you said right? It's killing us environmentally and stagnating us econonically.

Time to grow up as a economy.

I care about future generations that we don't saddle them with enourmous debt, similar to what has happened in Ontario.

So it’s not that any great calamity would befall the country if the Liberals were to carry out their plan. The debt would rise, it is true, but not enough to prevent the debt-to-GDP ratio from falling. It’s just that it’s all so pointless and ill-conceived: unnecessary, at best, and likely to involve considerable waste of public funds.

There is a legitimate and long-standing debate over the efficacy of fiscal stimulus as a means of pulling economies out of recession. A skeptic would point to the signal absence of real-world examples of the success of this approach, versus the long string of failures where it has been tried — the U.S .in the 1960s, the U.K. in the 1970s, France in the 1980s, Japan in the 1990s, and so on.

Let us have a look at what Trudeau is offering in his deficit spending...

For starters, the Liberals are rather loose about their definition of infrastructure. The word came into use as a more impressive-sounding name for what used to be called public works: roads, bridges, transit, hard assets with an obvious connection to output and efficiency. But look in the Liberal plan, and you find much of it is to be spent on “social infrastructure” — for example, day-care centres — and “green infrastructure,” like water treatment centres.

But if you can charge for them, they aren’t really public goods: the sorts of things that can only be paid for by taxes. Private investors should be willing to finance and build them, in return for the revenue stream they would yield. And if governments needn’t fund them, they probably shouldn’t: taxes, being finite, should be reserved for those things that cannot be paid for in other ways.

Probably there are some things that only government can pay for that are not at present being adequately funded. But it would be nice to see those identified and listed in order of priority, with a sum attached below, rather than, as one suspects in this case, picking a number first, then finding the projects to justify it after.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...hy-and-on-what

[Daradon]

Opinion articles are great, but they are hardly studies.

[Jacks]

Wow, condescending much?

[OMG!WTF!]

This is pretty funny. Mulcair found a legitimate guy to run and probably become finance minister...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ex-s...ence-1.3191165

"The NDP's Andrew Thomson offers the people of Eglinton-Lawrence something that Joe Oliver hasn't — a record of balanced budgets," Mulcair said.

Then you read a bit about the guy and his time as NDP finance minister in Saskatchewan ...

In this portfolio, he proposed the reduction of oil and gas royalties to stimulate drilling in the Souris Basin that was being effected by low oil prices,

Lowered royalties to stimulate investment? There's hope. Not very NDPish but smart.

introduced several large tax cuts.[6] These cuts included cutting the corporate form 17% to 14% and cutting the 0.6% capital gains tax in half, while promising the further lower the former to 12% and eliminate the latter all together

Cutting corporate tax? When Mulcair finds this out he's going to blow a gasket.

This budget was balanced by taking just over $500 million from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the province's emergency contingency fund,

if Saskatchewan had used the same accounting standards as the federal government and all other Canadian provinces, nine out of ten, including both of Thomson's budgets would have been in deficit, not surplus

Just a minor detail Mulcair over looked while bragging about his new guy. I don't know if Mulcair realizes who he's just hired. They'll be an interesting couple if it all works out.