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.