there's no causal connection between the size of a deficit and the ability to spend. past deficits and existing debt to not imply the need for austerity. the government is not a household, it's a money creator. the deficit is not a debt that needs to be repaid, it's a measure of wealth in the economy. eliminating the debt would mean collecting and destroying all money in the economy and going back to a barter system of exchange.

the terms "deficit" and "debt" should not be used, in context. rather, we should speak of "money created" and "total existing dollars".

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-features-aug12-1.3188476

longtime_in
The debt can be a significant problem depending where we are in the economic cycle. We have been in a long term period of no growth to slow growth. If and when interest rates start to move deficits and the resulting accumulate debt matter.

But to support your point debt financing last year was actually $3 billion less than it was 10 years ago even after we borrowed over $150 billion.

Jessica Murray
to whom? it only matters to people that want to increase the value of the currency. there's no such thing as "debt financing" in the context of a sovereign government. rather, there's "money destruction". the only value that destroying money has is to increase the value of the currency. this is the reason you see conservatives pushing these programs - they're financed by people that want to see the value of the dollar increase, which happens to be bad for exports which is bad for jobs. but, that's not your concern when you're an investor playing the money markets.

regular, working, voting canadians ought to have no interest in debt reduction; in fact, it's in their interest to keep the value of the dollar relatively low.

iamjustme
Sounds like you went to the same stupid school of economics that Harper did!

Jessica Murray
that's probably the most ignorant statement that i've yet to see this election cycle. in fact, it's a position that can be tied rather strongly to the era of pierre trudeau. it's a liberal party position. or, at least it's the position of the only liberal party i'd ever vote for.

liberals don't care about deficits. they never have.

i'm not interested in re-electing joe clark.

fwiw, nobody should expect a tax cut for small businesses to create jobs, either. that does not increase demand for businesses. all empirical evidence suggests that giving businesses more money has no effect on job creation.

however, combined with an increase in corporate tax rates, it should be a fair shift in taxation and should at least be revenue neutral - if it's costed correctly.

so, why do this? because small businesses are good places to put campaign signs, and good people to have on your side in an election.

as economic policy, it's essentially meaningless - but he's covered it by promising to return corporate tax rates to where they should be. but, it's smart politics. and, mulcair is a smart politician.

the way i'm reading the results right now is that if that if the conservatives can get to 32 in this current regional break down, and the liberals can stay above 28, then that will force the ndp to around 30 and we'll likely see results that look something like this:

conservative: 170
ndp: 150
liberals: 20

...based on the conservatives sweeping the prairies and ontario, and the ndp sweeping bc and quebec.

i may be exaggerating. but only by a tad.

i would hope that, with results like that, even the conservatives would agree that we need electoral reform.

yes.

32%--->170 seats. you don't need much for a plurality in a three-way tossup.
30%--->150 seats.
28%---> 20 seats.

of course, if the ndp can get that boost, and i still think they can, then it's over - for the same reasons. they stabilize over 35%, and we start wondering if they get 200 or 300, as they sweep the country outside the prairies.

if the ndp get a mild, across the board boost from the liberals then they can sweep ontario while losing the popular vote for the same reason that the conservatives can sweep it without breaking 33%.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-poll-tracker-debate-1.3188431

hobabby
Too bad the FBI didn't grab her server on day 1. It was just reported that her server that the FBI picked up 2 days ago was SCRUBBED CLEAN. Clintons thumbing their noses at the law and the taxpayers again. You would think that after all these years, they'd get tired of the lying and cover-ups and for once in their life, be honest. 

After 30-some years, you would think SOMEONE in law enforcement would be on top of their tactics. Oh, that's right...most of those who had inside info have died in an accident, suicide, and/or even murdered. 

There has to be SOMEBODY who cares enough about this country who could finally have her arrested and convicted besides Trey Gowdy and the rest of the members of these committees. He can't do it alone although he's trying his best to do so.

Beryl Gray
Hmmmmm. I have had some peripheral contact with computer security issues. If something was written on a hard drive, there are people working in the intelligence community that can recover it. (Unless it was erased with a hammer or .45-caliber round.)

deathtokoalas
that was true up to a few years ago, under the assumption that the person formatting the drive didn't know what they were doing. nowadays, you can zero out a drive with software as simple as a commercial windows dvd, if you know the right switch. funny ideas regarding things like recovering traces of magnetic interference are entirely theoretical, and would be essentially impossible to actually carry out. setting everything to zero gets rid of it.

again: the establishment hates clinton. she is not anti-establishment. she desperately wants in. they don't want her. she's "too liberal".

they *will* run somebody to beat her. and she will lose to that person.

it's consequently very hard to figure this out. if there's one person in the american spectrum that you can be pretty sure is not for sale, it's ralph nader. but sanders is pretty close. given that it is certain that wall street will run a candidate against hillary, the question needs to be asked: is that candidate bernie sanders?

i've seen a lot of signs. strange youtube channels that seem to be run by professional propagandists. apparent jumps in fundraising. it's all quite ominous.

...but it's bernie sanders. he couldn't be...?

he needs to be vetted. this requires investigation. where's he getting the money from?

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/12/new-poll-bernie-sanders-ahead-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire#comments

the chinese are kind of defensive about that river. strikes me more as military infrastructure.