Liberal economic policy agenda becomes less amorphous

Trudeau’s video offers a few clues, but raises even more questions

by Stephen Gordon

(Adrian Wyld, The Canadian Press)

(Adrian Wyld, The Canadian Press)

There’s not been a lot to say about the Liberal Party of Canada’s policy proposals, because, to a rough approximation, there aren’t any. The policy front had has to make do with some inchoate talking points while the party’s energies were directed on choosing a leader and getting ready for the next election. This weekend’s conference is supposed to be the next step towards an election-ready platform.

The release of Justin Trudeau’s video on the economy is an interesting exercise. Even though its focus is on presenting context and not policy, it does offer some insight into what the Liberal leadership is thinking going into the conference.

For example, the video offers a definition for what means to be middle class in all those Liberal talking points:

the people who live off their incomes, not their assets

This is a bit of a head-scratcher: everyone lives off their incomes. The people who live off their assets have incomes – it’s just that their incomes are generated by their investments and not by working. If Trudeau is referring to people who depend on their earned income, then he’s including most of the one-percenters: the surge in income at the top has been driven by earned income, not their asset holdings. He’s also excluding retirees: their incomes are generated by their asset holdings. (Raising this point gives me an excuse to point people to the CBC Radio series The Invisible Hand, and especially the “Your Grandmother is a Capitalist” episode.) Trudeau probably does not want to include one-percenters in the middle class and almost certainly doesn’t want to ignore retirees, but his definition appears to do just that.

As I said, it’s a head-scratcher.

Later on, Trudeau brings up a compelling point, one that has been raised by many others (including myself):

I worry that at some point, Canadians will say: “Why should we support a growth agenda if it doesn’t help my family?”

I don’t know how the Liberals intend to answer this challenge, but this is a good and constructive way of framing the problem. It is far more likely to generate a useful answer than putting it in terms of terms of class warfare.

Trudeau offers some statistics about how the middle class has fared. I’ve gone over why I think these data trends are being misinterpreted several times, so I’ll just point to here and move on.

After going through some debt numbers, Trudeau concludes that

while the middle class is tapped out, the federal government has room to invest

This is not a promising train of thought. In terms of short- and medium-term business cycle analysis, it looks a bit like the Bank of Canada’s outlook: consumer spending cannot be counted on to drive the recovery any longer. But the Bank also identifies investment spending and exports as growth drivers. There is a case to be made for fiscal stimulus in the depths of a recession, but we’re nowhere near that situation now.

The most puzzling bit is the part about ‘fiscal responsibility’. After what looks like a case for increased federal spending, how is this new spending to be financed?

The answer is growth

This isn’t an answer; it’s wishful thinking. New measures to increase spending without new measures to increase revenues are how we got ourselves into the deficit-debt spiral in the 1970s and 1980s. Faster growth will increase government revenues, but they will also increase the costs of running the programs that are already in place. (See here for more on this point.) The case for new spending has to be matched with a case for new taxes. If you’re going to keep Stephen Harper’s tax structure in place, you’re pretty much obliged to live with Stephen Harper’s level of spending.




Browse

Liberal economic policy agenda becomes less amorphous

  1. Trudeau definitely has a lot of explaining to do. He’s suggested the deficit shouldn’t be eliminated through cuts, but through growth (growth leading to increased tax revenue). Yet he doesn’t support incentives for growth like tax relief. I’m not sure what incentive he thinks will be provided to cause the economy to grow. I know this, infrastructure spending might provide a temporary surge in economic activity, but the Government will inevitably spend more than it takes in.

    I’m very confused by his statements. Maybe he plans to use Japan’s abe-nomics. Print money to dump into the economy. This would silently rob “the savers” (who he may define as those who don’t live off income) through currency devaluation.

    Of course, many of those savers are the same demographics listed in the article: Seniors who live off the assets in their pension annuities and such.

    • I love how you just say “the Government will inevitably spend more than it takes in”, as if it’s undisputed fact.

      In reality, it’s only a fact if we have a Conservative government.

      In case you don’t remember, the last time we had a Liberal government, at least for the last portion of it, they were spending less than they took in.. and the CRAP was outraged about it.

      • Trudeau is saying that it will not be the case under his government.

        • Isn’t the first time a Liberal lied.

          In fact, I can’t remember a Liberal telling the truth after they were voted in.

          • Nobody goes into politics because they are brimming with integrity.

      • The Liberal Party of Canada is responsible for 95% of this countries debt. Yet you try to paint them as some kind of economic geniuses because the bond markets forced them to balance their budget in the 90s, using the GST implemented by the Conservative’s, and by slashing transfers to the provinces.

        History paints a very different picture than the one you’re painting.

        • 76% of statistics in the comments sections are made up out of thin air. The remaining 24% are nearly as tendentious.

          • Statistics means never having to say you’re certain.

          • Well, 100% of stupie’s are fictitious so the skews the numbers a bit.

          • A lot of times the statistics are right, just that the context in which they are collected and presents are flawed because of corrupted political influences.

            I could say there is 0 unemployment but not disclose I am only talking about full tie retired folks. Context and presentation often are the real culprets.

            Take StatsCan inflation, they say it is 1.2%. Yet our home is seeing 7-12% on all major expenses. There is a reason StatsCan does not disclose how they get their inlfation numbers….as they exclude big items like property, utility taxes, excluded devalued money driving food inflation, they exclude home/auto insurances, they exclude anything that doesn’t give then numbers politicians want.

            But I am sure a few small items like bananas may only be 1.2% as they had some good crop yields keeping prices low. But bananas don’t keep my house warm and pipes from freezing, and that is up 18% this month.

          • This is so true. How can you accurately measure inflation when you exclude all the prices that are increasing?? Gas in my car, water bills, natural gas, electricity, groceries, Internet, local phone, cell phone… all my bills are going up. Double-digits UP! Guess what, income tax rate that I am paying, also UP. The last thing we need is some terminally brain-dead Liberal coming to power on a “growth” (in other words, “spend”) agenda, introducing new taxes and taking us back into deficit (which is deferred taxation).

            Someone I know showed me a letter that they got from the city, where they basically informed him that they were going to tack on $1000/year for the next 10 years so they can redo the roads in front of his house. So now we pay property tax to the city AND are billed for the costs as they are incurred.

            We don’t need deficit spending and we don’t need to invent new taxes; what we need is a bloody tax revolt.

        • SH thought they didn’t go far enough at the time…what does that make him then, and you now? By the way, when you have the puck for 75% of that last century or so it’s quite likely you will do most of the bad things as you so graciously point out[ minus Mulroney's contribution to the debt of course] and most of the good things also. Which for some reason you fail to point out.

          • While Mulroney was a crook in the Mulroney-Airbus scam, he actually wasn’t as bad of a debt spender as Trudeau, Chretien and Harper. But he did shaft us with GST tax greed and Liberals failed to keep their promise to get rid of it.

            As in the end, all the parties are statism government bloat parties. None of them represent the main stream productive keeping more of their money and less for waste and corruption. None of the parties profess that adding debt to our kids, grand kids and unborn is immoral.

            NDP pander to unions.
            Liberals pander to Liberal criminals and FN.
            Conservative pander to corporate and union bailouts alike.

            But no one represents the workers who make this country work. The only candiates on our rigged ballots are consumers of our money with low to no value to us for it.

            We do need better choices on the ballot. Given 20% of this country is able, working for government or dependent on government at one level or another….getting less government wasteful consumption is a uphill battle.

        • Not really. Trudeau Sr. did $200 billion, other governments did another $225 billion, but the last $200 billion+++ is all on Harper, a former Young Liberal of Canada Conservative PM/leader.

          Its better summed up as Ottawa bloat and waste as all parties are into spend-spend-spend other peoples money. Not one party is for less government, more efficiency/effectiveness/economy….no waste reduction, not one is opposed to adding generational debt to the grand kids and cut the government bloat. Only government can immorally add debt to new born.

          The true definition of a Canadian politician is to provide the illusion to the people to get more of their money and do as little as possible for it. Its why billions are spent on media to manage us, feed propaganda and pandering….just to get more of our money for the back room corruption and bloated government waste.

          We have the best politicians back room money and media can buy, and we pay for.

      • They balanced the budget because of the Reform opposition under Preston Manning. No Liberal government prior had ever had an opposition like them.

        • Obvious solution – Liberal government, reform back in opposition.

          • Liberals have lied to me for 37 voting years, I am very cynical of Liberal BS, unless of course they will put some skin in the game.

            Trudeau could make 5 promises, and if he doesn’t deliver he will donate a million of his own money to a non-political charity and that is what I mean by skin in the game.

            Politics in Canada is about providing the illusion that big fat blaoted governemtn has all the answers if you give them more and mor eof your money. Then with some pandering lies, deception, look like you believe the crap you spew, buy some votes and you get elected.

            Fact is government manages us. Our MPs do NOT manage government for us. MPs answer tot he MP the back room bought.

        • Yet another person who believes Preston Manning invented the concept of spending less than you take in as a means to slay the deficit.

          Gee, Paul Martin, the CEO of a very successful company, probably never thought of that himself.

          • Its easy to run a successful business when you have the inside track on government bureaucracy and access to the treasury. Power Corp, CSL and the Government of Canada had quite the cozy relationship.

            I’d like to see Paul Martin build a business from the ground up without bags of cash being passed around under tables.

          • Not to mention that Paul Martin’s ships flew a foreign flag to avoid paying Canadian tax rates. It’s a myth that he ran a successful company, he just cheated the system.

          • Don’t forget that Martin Jr. also had Martin Sr. money, influence and connections in the Liberal party and top Liberal UN bag man Maurice Strong on the CSL board of directors.

            Oh and that little fact that he was appointed President of CSL without ever really having to work for it.

          • You mean like it is easy to (eventually) balance the budget and escape the worst of a world wide recession when you inherit a surplus and a highly regulated banking system set up by the previous government?

            Anyway, even I know if you want to balance a budget you have to spend less than you take in, and I have never run any company at all.

            But you keep on desperately clinging to the notion that Paul Martin was so stupid that he needed Preston Manning to tell him how to do this. The rest of us will stand back and laugh at you.

          • I feel it is important to point out that the Conservatives are trying to take credit for Canada’s performance during the downturn, even while it is the banking regulations that they were trying to get the Liberals to relax that mostly saved us. Let’s take off the partisan glasses and help Mr. Harper write his note to Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Martin:

            We were wrong. Thank you for not listening to us. The banking regulations that you refused to remove were instrumental in avoiding a complete economic melt-down, as seen south of the border.

            Sincerely, etc., etc.

      • The previous Liberal Government ruled when the world’s economies were in the greatest period of prosperity in history, especially the USA. They taxed the s**t out of us. The CPC ran into 2008-9, a near depression that the world has not recovered from. Don’t compare apples to cabbages.

        • That may be your view, but they also squandered our sizable surplus with vote-buying tactics before the downturn hit. They also insisted that no downturn was imminent. These are historical facts, not opinion. So which is it, was Mr. Harper dishonest or incompetent?

      • Most of that debt came from the Trudeau Liberal years. So, give them credit, they cleaned up their mess… at a big social cost and rancorous federal-provincial relations, a second Quebec referendum, etc. Still, Chretien, imho, was twice the man PET was, and probably a much higher multiple than the junior Trudeau.

        • Yes and no. Subsequent governments increased it from Trudeaus $200 billion to $675 billion in Ottawa alone. And Trudeau didn’t borrow for the provincial debt bloat.

          Harper has added over $250 billion to date.

          Reality is they are all immoral in putting debt on us, our kids, our grand kids and unborn. Nothing moral or ethical about generation debt-tax slavery via the CRA tax man.

          Government doesn’t care as long as they get your money and your grand kids debt.

      • No they were not! It was an accounting illusion. With interest rates plummeting as they were and the resultant growth in the private sector of the economy the deficit should have plummeted even faster. As it happened, those crooks wiggle room to waste even more of our money on things such as the long gun registry.
        Not to say that Flaherty hasn’t wasted money as well.

      • Yep, Martian pushed health care costs to the provinces while keeping GST and high hidden and real taxation high as it gets. That is, Ottawa saved by high taxes and doing less for it, and provinces did the tax hikes.

        Yep, we earn $100, $40 for income/employment taxes, $10 for city property/utility taxes, $23 for carbon taxes to one governemtn or another for $27 of gasoline so to go to work to pay more taxes. Governments get $73 and you get $27 of product.

        Isn’t just gas, Mozzarella cheese has a 283% tariff on it so if Ottawa doesn’t get the tariffs, they get the income tax from inflated prices and billionaire profits. Same goes with beef, up to 234% tariff….$11 kg ($5 lb) for rib-eye on a Montana cow that used to look at a Alberta cow, but the Alberta cow is price inflated to $22 kg and up….

        Yep, we tax food and clothing…gotta get the poor people in basic living.

        We are a tax inflated economy of debt fraud. Doesn’t mater who we vote for, they all want more debt for the grand kids and unborn. Its all about political corruption and tax greed. Media, politicians, professional civil servants, G1-12 has well conditioned us not to question the most expensive item in our lives, government.

    • You could actually cut taxes and get more taxes. The concept is elasticity of taxation. If you tax too little, sewers, roads make for a bad economy. If you tax to much to bailout buddies and don’t add vale back to the people who pay for it, you then become parasitic to growth.

      Say I tax you 80%, would you go to work? I wouldn’t unless you paid me so much more to compensate. But then I would not be wage competitive with the real world.

      Canada is clearly taxing us in hidden and real taxes so much more than is productive. Ottawa wastes more on buddy inflated contracts, bailouts, bloat waste that does not add back to society. They foster dependencies to able FN and no productivity, they foster provincial welfare and problems never get fixed, then buddy bailouts… NONE OF IT ADDS VALUE AND WEALTH. Only thing growing is consumption and waste.

      Our current course is doomed to fall. For young people without jobs, its because the older people have no money for each others jobs, they are too busy supporting governments bloats on city, provincial and the big Ottawa other peoples money for nothing bloat machine.

      Want jobs? Leave people with more money of value, less hidden taxes inflating Canadian living, and we will spend it on each others jobs for a better life.

      • Canadians want services and infrastructure investment from their government. Your solution is to have very few for them.
        Conservatives are really bad at running our government as they are ideologically opposed to it. They hate government but Canadians still gave them the keys. Go figure.

  2. “This is a bit of a head-scratcher: everyone lives off their incomes”

    It’s only a headscratcher if you’re a pedant. You clearly knew what he meant, as you go on to explain exactly that. Similarly, the people he’s talking to will also know what he means.

    With respect to growth being the way that the budget will balance itself out, meh, that’s not news at all, after all, it’s the same thing Flaherty’s been promising since 2007, yet for him, you’ve been cheering on the sidelines that he’s probably going to be able to do it.

      • Great. Now go through an see how many times he talks about the government being likely to make its predictions. One outlier is not a trend.

        • I can’t find what isn’t there. Can you?

        • The 2% deduction in the GST that Flaherty and Harper used to get elected was the start of the structural deficit in this country, it just took this long for people to finally take notice. Our structural deficit was in a decline well before the recession hit. It was a big hit for Canada to take, to elect this government today, and it took 160 billion to keep these guys in there jobs over the last 8 years. As far as balancing the budget, I wouldn’t let this bunch of carpetbaggers run a SH#T house. And Mr Wells has to get over his man crush for Jimbo. Flaherty is the worst financial minister in the history of Canada, the most expensive to this point.

          • There’s a strong case for that point, but I am not sure it serves as a reply to Mr. Wells point. (Which may or may not be a good one. It DOES seem kinda like the thing the author would say…)

          • Yes, but hidden taxes went up. It was a net cash grab. People forgot to look at tax table slide, increased EI and the growth to $45 billion in hidden taxes and more in protectionism costs we endure.

            Like most things political, don’t listen to the words designed for the illusions and PR, look deep at how they move and see the truth.

        • Well’s point notwithstanding, i’m still waiting for SG’s post criticizing the rationale[ or even defending ] for the starve the beast strategy. Perhaps i missed that one, but my feeling is[fr what that's worth] that SG approves…but where’s the evidence Mr G?

      • Inkless is just upset that he didn’t get the assignment so he could wax eloquent on the Younger. Well go ahead anyway.

  3. “New measures to increase spending without new measures to increase revenues is how we got ourselves into the deficit-debt spiral in the 1970s and 1980s. ”

    This is an outright falsehood. The deficit-debt spiral among many Western countries began in the 1980s and is still continuing on today. (For example, Pierre Trudeau left office in 1984 with the same level of debt/GDP that he entered with in 1968.)

    The three main causes of the real deficit-debt spiral were: a) high-interest inflation fighting policies of central banks which manufactured recessions in the early 1980s and early 1990s; b) reckless tax cuts predicated on flaky ideology that they “pay for themselves”; c) the 2008 economic meltdown caused by more flaky free-market tripe: this time banking deregulation.

    Fact is after WW2, countries like Canada and the US had more debt (debt/GDP) than we do today. But instead of engaging in self-defeating austerity measures we increased spending on infrastructure and social spending. This produced phenomenal GDP growth allowing us to pay down most of our debts by the 1970s: in Canada, 100% to 17% (now 85%); in the US, 135% to 35% (now 103%.)

    Back then we had progressive taxation which allowed us to pay the bills. Over the past 30 years, continuous tax cuts have produced a regressive tax system. This is why both debt and inequality soared and the economy collapsed: like weeds in an untended garden, the rich hogged up all the benefits of GDP and productivity growth. In the centrist post-war era, we managed economic resources much more efficiently and effectively.

    • And this was all brought to you by Liberal and Conservative govts in Canada. Time for real change and not musical chairs.

      • Agreed. We need anarchy, now.

        • I’m in!! :)

          • That’s that Lil’ Evil streak.

          • I was just going to provide back up…. honest! ;P

        • Anarchy isn’t the answer, but agree, out of the ashes often gets better governance

          The real problem is our democracy is a ruse. We elect from a limited statism friendly ballot, a MP/MLA/Counsel persons, that really don’t answer to us. And in fact become term dictators as we have no referendum, no recall, no direct control over our governments at all, no recourse….

          Popular voters say no to corrupt bailouts, inflated contracts, corporate welfare, we get the taxes for it anyways. No taxes on Trusts, we get (double) taxed anyways.

          Given the majority of people vote with myopic “party puppet” mentality, fear and greed, also makes them easy to lead. Not many voters research the ability of a politician to manage government for them. They are quite content having government manage them like hen chickens.

          • If you look, you will find no matter which government you examine, they’ll disappoint in various ways. But always severely. They will all prove the truth of words written long ago:
            “I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jer. 10:23)
            I am interested to read about politics generally, but i do not vote for the reason that it would always lead to disappointment and frustration.
            Thank you for your time sir.

          • I wish I could vote you up more times, but I have no sock-puppet accounts.

      • Emma Goldman – If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal

        • One of my favourite anarchists, and a contemporary of our resident troll.

          • Not in league with top class theorists or anything but I have been enjoying Douglas Carswell recently. Carswell is British MP who is very right wing, he’s not going to make Cabinet, and he writes terrific blog posts for Daily Telegraph.

            Worth your time, if you are interested, because he writes from belly of beast. He wrote interesting article yesterday on how technocracy flourishing and representative democracy is dead.

            http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/douglascarswellmp/

          • Interesting.
            I am all for a total reset, but I am probably alone in that.

        • Thats a good one. Another is who is watching the watchers?

          I really like that, “if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal” is a priceless quip.

      • The NDP are going to have to do more than offer change. Their problem is that they come across weak on economic issues. They don’t appear to have a coherent economic vision, although there are many centrist economists they can draw from: Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, etc.

        They need to become experts on the economy to re-brand themselves. Like Gordon points out above, “If you’re going to keep Stephen Harper’s tax structure in place, you’re pretty much obliged to live with Stephen Harper’s level of spending.” So how is the NDP going to change the tax structure? Fact is a myriad of economists are critical of Harper’s boutique tax cuts that target votes instead of economic performance. The NDP should be all over that and offer a better way of allocating the resources.

        • What if the problem is bigger than that? What if they DO have reasonable economic policy but nobody will ever believe them? Like the Greens and any issue except the environment?

          • They have to sell it in order for people to buy it. Look at Ronald Reagan. He was scorned for his economic ideas, but he stood up for himself and turned the tables on his detractors.

            His ideas turned out to be terrible ones that caused all the economic problems America is facing today. But it just goes to show the people will listen if you reach out to them.

          • What if the problem is so big, they never even release any kind of economic platform or revised tax structure to Canadians, but instead just keep waggling their fingers at the traditional parties of power and saying, “Baaaad party?” What if they keep trying to win votes from other parties by telling those voters they are stupid for traditionally supporting those other parties?

            I typically vote NDP, even though I’m Liberal, because of the region I live in, but I have sworn that I will indeed toss my vote to LPC next time around no matter what. Not because I don’t like the NDP candidate, but because I am sick and tired of being told I’m an arsehole by those who want my vote.

          • it’s possible a significant # of seats where the NDP was the traditional second place contender will be going to the LPC this time. Maybe not a huge amount, but significant.

      • NDP have done worse provincially. No reason to believe they would be any different federally.

      • I agree but most people are stuck in “party” brainwashing. Take Mulroney-Airbus Conservative scandal, Liberals bought the Air Canada planes with NDP union support and taxpayers money.

        Ottawa is about presenting the illusion that they are beneficial to us, but the reality is they are about getting our money for their back room buddies and do as little as possible for it.

        None of these parties represent the people who really make this country work. To them, we are just ATMs to fleece.

        And with back room money and media, there are no other options on the statism rigged ballot we get. We have the ruse of democracy.

    • No. You’re wrong, Ron. What produced growth in the 1960s after an inauspicious start with the lingering late 1950s recession came with the Kennedy tax cuts in 1962 which supercharged the American economy. Infrastructure such as the American Interstate highway system and Ontario’s Windsor to Montreal Hwy 401 were key investments and the social programs to end elderly poverty and prevent a recurrence of the 1930s despair were valuable investments, but the tax cuts freed up growth and made the 1960s explode.

      Tax cuts let markets work and add flexibility to the economy. They can be cut too much, obviously, but if done incrementally the resulting growth will indeed make up for the revenue shortfall. Political congestion hurt Canada in the 1960s just as it did between 2004 and 2011. Minority govts between 1962 and 1968 led to crisis after crisis. PET’s efforts from 1968 to 1970 didn’t endear him, either, and 1972 would have been a quick exit if it hadn’t been for the resolve he showed during the October Crisis in 1970 which brought conservative votes to him.

      PET stumbled through the 1970s, was a disaster in the 1980s, and even before his fireside chats in the disastrous fall of 1982 put it all in the hands of Donald McDonald’s Royal Commission and devoted himself to the Constitution. The mess he left was structurally far worse than the one he inherited in 1968. He brought in program after program that would grow and demand more resources. We’re still literally paying for his mistakes.

      • What a ridiculously biased and idiosyncratic interpretation of events. There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest Kennedy’s “1962″ tax cuts — which were passed in posthumously in 1964, BTW — “super-charged” the economy or caused it to “explode.” Pure nonsense. There is no explosion of US GDP growth from 1964 on. In fact, GDP growth fell to near-recession levels by 1967.

        I take it you learned to interpret economic data from the Reinhart-Rogoff School of Culinary Accounting.

        What programs, exactly, did Trudeau bring in that we are still paying for today? I’d love to hear what you come up with. Universal health care? Brought in by Lester Pearson. Unemployment Insurance expanded by Trudeau Sr.? It was run up to a $54B surplus by 2008 which Harper looted by emptying the account.

        No doubt old conservatives are still ranting and raving over Trudeau Sr, ridiculously 30 years after he stepped down. But the economic facts stand for themselves. Trudeau had the highest real GDP growth of any prime minister that came after him. It had nothing to do with any nonsense like 1964 US tax cuts. It was because living standards were much higher back then. They have been continuously eroded over the past 30 years due to opportunistic disinflation, corporate downsizing, cuts to social spending, etc.

          • Why on Earth would some people give a thumbs down to a link on GDP data? Clearly they have an aversion to evidence-based points of view…

    • Actually it is true. In the Trudeau 70s Ottawa massively overspent, printed money for debt to devalue money and to stop hyper-stagflation 70s required 18-21% interest rates and major cutbacks in government. But in a few years we got a more normal economy.

      One advantage about WW II is elasticity of taxation, because taxation was so relatively low, a small rise in taxes without money print inflation allowed the debt to be lowered, and it was a a lot less debt than today. Today the debt is larger, interest rates are fraud low, currency devaling and taxes so high there is no wiggle room but to depress the economy and keep the ruse going until it blows up.

      Canada is going to be Greece like in 4 years. Unless someone slashed governemtn by 60%, balances the budget, raises interest rates to fair values, balances up every governemtn budget in the land….we are destined to failure and can only argue when and not if.

      Every economist I know that isn’t a governemtn puppet says the same thing. US, Canada, UK, Europe are no longer sustainable economies in the long term and are going to be significantly devalued like Japan….Japanese have seen a 45% standard of living drop in just 10 years….

      http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=JPY&to=CNY&view=2Y

  4. Larry Summers, one of the four horsemen of the global economic apocalypse, who pushed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, and the non-regulation of derivatives and structured finance (and bullied Brooksley Born out of the Clinton Administration when she objected to Summers’ Wall Street schemes).

    Summers’ latest idea (which he propose at Davos) to help the banksters and the 1% is to allow the banks to charge negative interest rates on your money.

    Yes…this is the guy, Trudeau and Freeland are bringing to town.

  5. “…the people who live off their incomes, not their assets…”

    The Dauphin is dim bulb, there is a reason why he studied nothing more challenging than French Lit, but I was wondering if he meant mortgages and how some people use their value in home as $$$ to spend now. Upper middle classes use the value of their homes as way to buy speed boats or they keep selling up to make more and more money.

    Also, The Dauphin has a trust fund that gives him an income. Maybe The Dauphin thinks many of us are born into the 1% with million dollar trust funds. And Trudeau’s name is his major asset, The Dauphin uses his asset to take money from public schools and the like so at least The Dauphin is not trying to pass himself off as middle class.

    • That was all really weird, kinds racist too.

      • You forgot sexist and homophobic.

        • He forgot pathetic.

    • If Conservatives don’t come up with any serious criticisms of Trudeau — or serious ideas of their own — they are going to lose by default. I think the gravy train is coming to an end: getting a free ride off of mudslinging…

      • Gravy train is still in motion, look at the General with the million dollar home collecting $70,000 in expenses because he can’t be bothered to pack his own boxes.

        I think Con statements of fact about the Liberal General are very effective, that’s why our non-partisan msm are getting their knickers in a twist and defending the Liberal General, saying he slept on a cot for 4 days in 2010 and so he deserves every penny he can loot from treasury.

        • Keep telling yourself that…

          • Hester/Tony is a wind-up. He just keeps tipping over.

          • I will.

    • have you checked steve harpers bank account lately ? you hypocrite.

  6. Who was in power during the spending spree of the 70′s and 80′s? PET. ‘nough said

    • He invested in the future….and it’s paid off.

      • Just raise the GDP.

      • The countries debt is paid off? What country are you living in?

    • There was no spending spree. Deficits grew because of stagflation and the high interest rates of the early 1980s which central banks used to break the back of inflation (“Volcker Shock”) which reached a height of 22% (they are now 1%.)

      In fact, real GDP growth was stronger under Trudeau than any prime minister who came after him. (Weakest under Harper.)

      The economic problems the world had back then (stagflation) are nothing compared to what we are facing now. Fact is Japan has been stuck in the same economic quagmire we are stuck in — with near-zero interest rates — for 20 years. We ain’t seen nothing yet.

  7. Finally a definition of middle class: “People who live off their incomes and not assets.”

    Clearly includes 1% ers but excludes retirees who live off their investments.

    • A clear cut definition of middle class that Cons are having trouble coping with apparently.

      Seniors live off their savings plus govt help….that doesn’t suddenly make seniors upper class

      • That’s why defining class based on whether people live off of investment returns or earned income is daft.

        • C”mon SG is bored with the video and is basically resorting to splitting hairs. His only serious point is his last – which I happen to agree with. Trudeau needs to bite the bullet on raising the GST. He likely won’t because SH has poisoned that well, just like he has every other reasonable avenue of collecting additional revenue, particularly as the economy improves.
          What I find objectionable about SG’s posts is how he has no trouble mocking a call for a growth agenda, but has great difficulty truly condemning Harper’s utterly cynical starve the beast strategy even when there is no compelling evidence federal spending as a % of GDP need go any lower. I can only conclude SG agrees with a position based solely on unsupported ideology. (Oddly he has less difficulty criticizing JT for similar wishful thinking) just wish he had the courage to say so explicitly.

          • It doesn’t change the fact that using the premise that the 1% live on investment returns and the middle class on wages is a recipe for bad policy-making. You won’t achieve improved income inequality by attacking investment returns, which is the logical extension of that premise.

            I think you are misread SG. He is just as critical of SH. SH hasn’t really been proposing any major new fiscal policies for years, so it’s unsurprising that he is assessing the serious contenders for the PM’s job.

          • Now you’re needlessly stretching the context and the meaning of logical extension. I missed the bit where JT actually attacked the 1%.
            The point is pretty clearly made however that the bulk of Canadians live pay cheque to PC…the 1% certainly don’t .
            I realize SG has offered some criticism of Harper’s policies and handicapping potential successors is perfectly fine and necessary. I get that ok.

          • I think it’s fine (even good) to criticize sloppy framing of debates. I’m a natural Liberal supporter, and that is mostly because my preference for non-ideological evidence-based policy making. It alarms me when I see the ‘context’ for the policy convention lays out a bunch of questionable premises.

          • You don’t have to defend yourself to me Andrew. I get what you’re saying, i just don’t think you’re right in this instance.
            What premise is questionable? The video makes a case for the great bulk of the M/C not doing so well. While making the point the 1% are just fine. Sure you can parse that and find holes in the rationale. A good many 1%ers live off income from investments and earned income. But i suspect as a class of economic citizen these folks are doing just fine.
            Don’t fall for the idiotic spin of the Omen crowd that this “targets” the investors or entrepreneurs…SG did not say that at all, to his credit. I just don’t know what he really wanted to say. As an economist i imagine he doesn’t like fuzzy concepts. Polticians as a group do.
            What’s so laughable about the conbots spinning here is SH predictably puts out the very same over simplified message all the time.

          • Did anyone ever find the passage in Right Side Up which, according to SG, explains how Harper arrived at his specific starve the beast goal by percentage? RSU is sitting on my bookshelf, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.

          • Got it for xmas but still haven’t got around to it yet either.

  8. The video was extremely simplistic, brought to you by a person who is very shallow.

    • If you can’t understand it, then apparently it wasn’t simplistic enough.

    • I get the feeling you guys might have been happier if the Cookie Monster had shown up.

      • Absolutely. The Cookie Monster could have probably taught Trudeau a thing or two about economics.

        • And maybe given your Baby sitter a nice break.

          • What the hell are you talking about? I don’t even have kids.

          • I could touch that but i wont. Maybe it is possible it went over even your head.

          • Heh

  9. amorphous policy vs. the hidden cuts, then…

  10. the people who live off their incomes, not their assets

    This is the problem when your party leader is a guy who spent decades living off his million dollar trust fund. He thinks there are wide swaths of Canadian society that grew up the same way he did, where money wasn’t an issue.

    This makes it pretty clear to me that the Liberals will be targeting the investors in the country, as they’re the only people who live off of the income from their investment in assets. I see a strong theme here that Trudeau will want to take a bigger piece from investors just so that the federal government can “invest” in the economy instead of the private sector. Seems like a pretty obvious recipe for disaster.

    • He couldn’t access that trust fund until he was of majority. I think he still doesn’t have unfettered access yet even. That’s one of the reasons he became a teacher.

      When you knowingly hang your premise on a lie that has been pointed out to you before, that makes you what? A troll maybe!

      • So JT’s old man didn’t trust JT enough to manage his own money into his 40′s? If what you say is true, that’s not a ringing endorsement from PET is it?
        Zing.

        • yawn

          • That’s it? ZING!

          • Oh, you wanted more. I can’t add anything to that dazzling insight…some zinger. I’ve farted better ones.

          • Fart jokes. Awesome. Empty headed vessels.

          • That squeaker sound is the air rushing out of his ears.

  11. Obama has destroyed America’s future with $7 trillion in additional debt with little to show for it. Trudeau will do the same to Canada.

    • The same group of people will make sure of it.

    • Sorry Harper already did. 160B and nothing to show for it.

  12. “…one-percenters: the surge in income at the top has been driven by earned income, not their asset holdings”

    Well head scratching does tend to go with nit picking. Really I wonder if you were laughing your head off as you wrote the verb “earned” in the same sentence as 1%. No doubt some[edit:many] do. Many don’t. Many[edit:some] also just live off asset generated income.
    Your last point is relevant. Although as you say this was designed to provide context rather than specifics. Trudeau has been talking a lot about needing social license to advance a growth agenda. Or did you think the sun and the wind stuff was there merely to amuse the short pansters in the PMO?
    At some point JT will need to finesse the conversation on the matter of the gst. Maybe mr G could provide a couple of scenarios in which this might happen, rather than sniffing from the mountain tops that economists love to pretend makes them invulnerable from their critique of other lesser mortals?

    • Many also just live off asset generated income

      “Asset generated income” is also known as Return on Investment. Why do the Liberals feel it’s necessary to attack entrepreneurs and the people who invest in Canada as if they somehow shouldn’t be entitled to a return on their investments?

      Retired people and small business owners all live off of “asset generated income”, are these people somehow not the right kind of middle class for Trudeau? Every job in the private sector is created because of somebody else investing in a business (an asset).

      • Really I wonder if you were laughing your head off as you wrote the verb
        “earned” in the same sentence as 1%. No doubt some do. Many don’t. Many
        also just live off asset generated income.

        Reading comprehension just isn’t your thing is it? Here’s the context you missed…see the words many and also, they have meaning too y’know!

        It’s the 1% we’re talking about here, not the mom and pop investors which are obviously part of the m/c, very few if any of which live off their assets.

        Stop muddying the waters.Where does JT attack the entrepreneurial class? I blame SG for splitting that hair first. It’s like a red rag to a BS artist like you; he should know better.

        It’s perfectly obvious what Trudeau is driving at – the great mass of the M/C many of whom still live pay cheque to pay cheque or just one or two missed mortgage payments or a bump in interest rates away from big financial trouble.

        • Stop whining just because somebody points out that boy-genius maybe not that bright after all.

          Trudeau never said he would target the 1%, he said he’d target people who live off of their assets, which is every retiree and every small business owner. As Gordon pointed out, it doesn’t even include a lot of the 1%, who are typically doctors, lawyers, or public service executives.

          You continually are denying that Trudeau says what he’s clearly said. You really should stop that. You’re not doing him any favours.

          • “Trudeau never said he would target the 1%, he said he’d target people who live off of their assets,”

            Watch the video again genius. Find the quote that “targets” anyone other than the m/C? Neither did SG say he targeted anyone.

            You just make sh*t up as you go along don’t ya!

        • JT is a 1%er by the way.

          • Um, so! He’s never denied it. Irrelevant.

          • The difference between JT and the entrepreneurial class is they earned their investments. JT was born in the fukin lucky club. According to you because JT is in the FLC that gives him license to tell everyone else how to live off their money.

          • Apart from the fact he isn’t telling anyone” how to live off their money” you mean?

            According to you only those within the stratum of society you approve of get to have a say about it then? Geez i’m not an economist like our PM, i better just shut up then.
            Does everyone need your approval, or get your blessing to before they comment or run for office?

          • And does he live off his pay cheque week to week…no sir! Which makes his point about the 1%, no?

          • So Harper so what’s your point?

          • My point is that Harper isn’t a greedy trust fund kid who wants to usurp power and rob everyone of their financial security to fund his socialist wet dreams.

          • Excuse you? You’re accusing Trudeau of wanting to “usurp power”? This from a Harper supporter, the man who first wanted to “get in bed with the separatists”, to use his own words, to gain power, then resorted to things like in-and-out, robo-calls, illegitimate senate appointments and re-writing election laws to get elected and remain in power? How do you not see something wrong with that line of thinking?

    • how much of JTs trust fund did he ‘verb “earned” ‘

      • Would you care to rephrase that? This time in basic English.

        • sorry i forgot your a liberal, basic English is a necessity.

          JT is a man boy child who did not earn his daddy’s wittle gift

          • If you insist on doing this…perhaps you might want to start by punctuating “your” pronouns correctly? Nothing to do with being a Liberal. But it might denote a generally poor education.
            Love the lisp. Suits your phonetic spelling and general lack of punctuation and good grammar.
            Just remember who began this bud. I’m not a grammar nazi by choice or inclination. I really don’t like snobs either.

          • but i like dun posting stupiidlez when i commentz on da postz

          • + i for having some fun with it. It’s a free country.

  13. I live in a country where a former PM’s mistress contested his son for the leadership of a national political party – and it’s not Italy.

    • Zing!

    • French politics.

    • Sure, if by “mistress” you mean, “woman he had a relationship with”.
      Maybe I’ll start referring to the mother of my kids as my “mistress”. It might spiced things up.

    • I live in a country where scum bags like you still have the right to make such comments. Guaranteed at least in part by the man you’re pi**ing all over.

      • Such a clever, clever come back. Do you want a gold star for your intellect?

        • Nope…just a little more respect for the dead. Particularly those who served this country to the best of their ability.

          • You show “respect” for the dead by calling someone a scum bag for pointing out a well known historical fact? I don’t think you know the meaning of the word “respect” at all.

          • What “well known historical fact” would that be, stupie?

          • Follow the thread, you witless troll. Or can’t you read?

          • I don’t see any historical facts in the original comment in question. I have no idea what the rest of the thread has to do with it.

          • “I live in a country where a former PM’s mistress contested his son for the leadership of a national political party” is a historical fact.

          • And what was she inferring by that idiot…that it was ok with her or you? Christ your a moron at bottom.

          • She wasn’t inferring anything. She was simply stating an easily verifiable fact. Is there anything that you don’t find personally offensive?

          • An easily verifiable fiction.

          • Were you not just giving someone crap for the wrong usage of “your” in another post on this page?

          • Sorry stupie, in contemporary usage, “mistress” refers to the illicit lover of a married man, making your quote a historic fiction.

          • That’s a particularly asinine comment even for you.

          • Once again “good riddance to bad rubbish”!

          • What ares the quotation marks for? Do you imagine it makes your appear literate?

          • Respect for the dead, how about moving to Chicago. Your Democrat friends still give them the vote there.

          • It may have escaped your attention but a Canadian like myself is unable to vote for anyone in a US election, Democrat or not moron.

      • The truth hurts.

        • It might, if i knew what truth you were referring to?

          • Deborah Coyne, that’s who he is referring too. Coyne ran against JT for leadership of the Liberal Party. She had a daughter with PET

    • I guess we should have another look at Laureen H. etc.

    • It is comments like these that make me certain Trudeau is on the right path.

      Conservatives are soooooo desperate.

    • It’s a great country isn’t it – even Dief managed to get a little action.

      • Power causes tingles in the bathing suit area.
        I prefer horsepower, but to each their own.

  14. It will be interesting to see if JT’s policies are any clearer after this convention. I suspect they won’t. The idea is to appeal to everyone in order to get elected and you can’t appeal to everyone by taking positions on issues.

    • it’s possible. And the PMO will be even less likely to tell Canadians exactly what they’ve cut.

      • zing!

  15. Most of what he says is wishful thinking by a person who is a trust fund baby and had the luxury of ‘finding himself’ for 20 plus years. Most middle class Canadians needed to hit the road running by the time they were 23 years old. And it meant that we had to make choices that sometimes didn’t turn out well but you learned from them. JT has learned NOTHING. Seems the whole LPC has learned nothing in the 8 years they have been out of power. Sad, but I see nothing that would encourage me to support a Liberal candidate.

  16. Star Trek technobabble has come to politics in the form of econobabble. Captain Picard has a problem – Commander Data comes up with a solution involving something like a focused tachyon beam. It’s all nonsense, but the use of scientific terminology makes it plausible. I fear we’re seeing the same thing in modern politics: a political leader wants to do something, and they come up with an explanation with a leavening of economic terminology to make it sound plausible. Regrettably, people generally lack the understanding of economics or mathematics to assess the proposal accurately. Innumeracy is going to be the real social problem of the 21st century.

    • Followed closely by dreadfull basic reading comprehension. Or is that an effect of uber partisanshp? [ not you of course]

      • What an odd comment. Here I was thinking the problem with Trudeau’s remarks was that I had a fine comprehension of his words, only that his arguments demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic economic concepts and a misapplication of terminology. Similarly, I was amazed that it took anybody so long to figure out the problem with the mathematics behind the Conservative income-splitting scheme. You can’t make effective economic policy by pontificating like an undergrad in a bar or some guy in a Tim Hortons. You actually have to crunch the numbers to understand what’s going on. People hate doing that because they aren’t comfortable with math.

        • Odd that you didn’t bother reading what was bracketed. You might have discovered i wasn’t talking about your RC.
          As for the undergrad crack, really do you think Trudeau thought this up all on his own?
          Sure it’s been simplified for the sake of political messaging, but as you point out other political entities do much the same. I still don’t see what the fuss is about the message behind the video. You’d think he’s declared war o the 1% the way some are spinning this.

  17. Seems to me that JT has been living off his biggest asset which is the last name Trudeau. Would he be in favour if we taxed the living Christ out of anyone with the same last name as him?

    • Not to mention the million dollar trust fund he spent 20 years living off of. It’s actually rather hilarious to hear him talking about balancing a budget. I’m sure he’s never actually balanced a budget in his life.

      • Just like you never say a fact you couldn’t get wrong…again and again and again. Some might call that lying Tricky Rick.

          • trick answer. he never has and never will but by design, as they balance themselves and trying to balance them is a waste of time!!

          • LOL

      • I don’t think Harper has neither

  18. Give Turdeau a break.He should know what he’s talking about when it comes to the economy. After all he has experience as a —uh—-ummm—oh—aah–right,as a substitute drama teacher. What other expererience do you need? Other than experience with your head in the “trough” like all good liberals.

    • the funniest part is JT has lived his entire life on assets…not income. daddys trust fund has done him well!! mans never balanced a budget or said no to anything in his life

      • Make up your mind. Is he a guy who’s merely a drama teacher or is he Daddy’s boy, nose in the trough? Not that you have any of your “facts”right, even by lucky chance.

        • He can be a subsitute drama teacher who also lived off of his million dollar trust fund. The reason he says stupid things like “the budget will balance itself” is because he’s never had to balance a budget on a regular workers salary.

          • See! You learned a new trick today…how to walk and chew gum at the same time while still getting your facts wrong,

          • hey man i see you didnt go to work today! as you have been protecting the shiny pony on msg boards all day!!! are the ontario liberals paying you to stay home and not work to defend them??

          • I’m self employed[but shut down some of the winter]
            I don’t live in ON…so no pay.
            I’m defending Trudeau because i genuinely believe despite being very green he’ll make a better job of being PM than Harper.OTH the ndp policies don’t make sense to me.
            I am home.
            You almost but not quite didn’t get it all right there Mr 03

        • also remember it wasn;t drama. It’s a deliberate lie which has gained traction through repeated use.

        • well…not a drama teacher….hes a substitute drama teacher. and i guess, even though its hard to imagine, that some people get board living of daddy’s little trust fund and he wanted to see what middle class living is all about. he wasn’t a substitute drama teach for to long tho, i guess he didnt really like the middle class lifestyle.

          • nope.

  19. according to JT’s logic, the libs shouldn’t even help the middle class, they will balance themselves…

  20. Gerald Butts solar panels and wind mills are helping generate middle class manufacturing jobs in New York State and Michigan and steal Ontario ones with the nearly free electricity Ontario sells to the States vs. the high prices Butts forces Ontario to pay.

    • Cept Butts wasn’t there for the green act.[or whatever it was called] Back to square one wheatie boy.

      • No. He just left before the economic damage of the policy became apparent. Of course, his greenie buddies are getting their windmills paid for basically for free by the inflated electricity prices Ontarians and their businesses are forced to pay, while the electricity from said windmills flows the the States at bargain basement prices.

  21. Stephen Gordon
    ‏@stephenfgordon
    4h

    Apparently the way to get a reputation for unbiased analysis among partisans is to tell them what they want to hear: YOU

    SG seems miffed by some of the blowback, which as far as i can see amounts to little more than this article is looking for a flaws where there is only over simplification at worse.
    Try reading some of the dumps on Trudeau on the post Mr G and imagine how dealing with that day in day out might make you feel.[ true for SH and TM too of course] Meanwhile i’ll go looking for JT’s complaint about your interpretation of his video message. I thought top flight academics and economists strove to grow thicker skins than this sir!
    Meanwhile you could elaborate a little more on why you think this a poor message to put out to the voting public or LPC delegates. I mean if you’re think you’re getting unfairly dumped on anyway, you might as well go for goal and really crash the net.

    • I think he’s miffed because the only “criticism” you Liberals have provided here are:
      1) Stephen Gordon is too stupid to understand Justin Trudeau’s breathless intelligence when it comes to economics

      or

      2) Justin Trudeau and the Liberals should never have anything they say be parsed analytically or scrutinized in any way.

      • I’ll give a conditional ok to the second, since most of us are partisans here and being defensive on behalf of “our” guy is what most of us do.[ including you. Although you aren't honest enough to say so]

        #1] Is goofy. Many of those criticizing SG’s take are giving reasons. Those reasons may well be wrong. But i’ve yet to see someone call SG stupid, or claim he isn’t smart enough to understand JT’s video.
        But that’s all you got isn’t it Not Rick. Building little strawmen, or failing that making sh*t up that isn’t there…the very definition of a troll.

        • I admit to my partisanship ALL THE F*(#@$ing TIME!!! We just

          had this moronic conversation last week, where I showed you 8 comments IN ONE F*(@#$ing DAY where I admitted my partisanship.

          As for you attacking Stephen Gordon, from this post alone:
          http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/02/18/the-liberals-economic-policy-agenda-becomes-slightly-less-amorphous/#comment-1251676047

          “C”mon SG is bored with the video and is basically resorting to splitting hairs”

          “I can only conclude SG agrees with a position based solely on unsupported ideology.”

          http://www2.macleans.ca/2014/02/18/the-liberals-economic-policy-agenda-becomes-slightly-less-amorphous/#comment-1251958984
          “SG did not say that at all, to his credit. I just don’t know what he really wanted to say.”

          • Told you i didn’t bother reading your pap.
            You call that attacking? One is fair comment, still legal in this country.
            two is taken completely out of context. I was referring to another post he had made.
            three: I’m defending SG actually dim wit, and the part you highlighted for some reason known only to you, i’m asking a question. Did you intentionally leave out the ? or did i forget it?
            Thx for confirming everything i’ve ever wondered about you. Fortunately this is coming to an end. My bad entirely for feeding the troll for so long. I wont be directly commenting on any more of your posts, or answering any more of your moronic questions. You win. I’m done. Got better things and better people to debate from now in.

  22. “the people who live off their incomes, not their assets”

    Unless you are able on social assistance, we ALL live off our assets. Skills are assets, you employ them at work…ability to produce goods or services is an asset. Trudeau slipped on this one.

    “I worry that at some point, Canadians will say: “Why should we support a growth agenda if it doesn’t help my family?””

    Bingo. Trudeau got this right. Having paid huge taxes for about 40 years, and now retired with time to think about it, our whole governemtn runs on illusions to get other peoples money for power. Why support increasing government bloat and fewer services for us, the people who have supported this nation? More and more people are becoming aware of the ruse of big government.

    “while the middle class is tapped out, the federal government has room to invest”

    Funny, given Ottawa investment history NorTel stock is looking pretty good as when they went bankrupt the losses stopped being a problem. With Ottawa, tax greed just grows, and grows…. Middle class is tapped out. Our tax inflated prices from hidden taxes and effects of high taxation, our taxes in property/income/employment/utilities….have made us tax slaves of state and no longer have the money to raise enough kids, employ others, let alone invest. And looking at the TSX, most are losers and don’t make enough money to warrant the risk of owning them.

    “The answer is growth”

    Thats why with over taxed Canadians not getting larger homes, getting a fiscal start too later in life and taxed like slaves have fewer kids. We get growth from loose as a goose immigration. The real reason immigration is easy is that governemtn knows population implosion would cease to fund the government bloat.

    Growth is like lawn grass, don’t cut it too short or it will not grow back right. Want more grass, stop cutting peoples wallets with lower value money, hyper taxes, and taxes in inflated proces like cheese, beef, cell phones and more…yes, only Ottawa is greedy enough to tax food the poor eat too!!!!

    Maybe we need less non-value added government taking too much, and with more money in our pockets for each others jobs we get growth. As it will foster growth….people will spend more of their money on growth if they had it.

  23. Justin is not Pierre. He is Margaret.

    • Bottom of the barrel can be seen from here…

    • Does he bang rock musicians?

  24. Trudeau is where he is, because of his assets, not his income.

    One asset is his father, without whom Trudeau would be nothing.

    The other asset is the millions Trudeau inherited, without which he would be nothing.

    Without those two assets, Trudeau would not be the leader of the Liberal party, nor would we have to pay attention to this drivel from him.

  25. Dumb as a post, but with nice hair.
    A post turtle.

  26. This comment was deleted.

    • sadly, not the worst post in this thread.

  27. the Rockefellers owned both major political parties in Canada. They have owned the Liberal party ever since Mackenzie King was elected in 1921. King was a former employee of Rockefeller and his campaign were always paid with Rockefeller money. In exchange for this, the liberals would always raise the price of gasoline six months before and after an election in order to pay Rockefeller back.

  28. Trudea, while still an economic idiot, isn’t as bad a Mulcair.

    Mulcair has upped his mortgage 11 times while being on a 6 digit salary. At Mulcair’s age and income, he should be debt free. And only solution they all know is tax us more governemtn bloat to fix the very problems statism creates.

    We do need better choices on the ballot. They all stink. None of them represent the middle class working people that make this country work other than to tax us like slaves.

    We don’t have jobs as we are too busy carting money off for government waste to have the money to spend on each others jobs.

  29. Only immoral and unethical government can slap debt on the unborn.

    Think about the greed for a moment, They are all blind by the greed of other peoples and money and the debt they can slap on future generations. Its immoral and unethical to think this way. Trudeau Sr did it to me, could never vote against it yet paid for it for 38 years so far.

    Only government can lay down chattels on peoples lives and even newborn. Just shows how greed of other peoples money, bailouts, inflated contracts, government bloat, union geed will go. But they have excuses, weak and immoral excuses to ignore the reality of government debt.

    Government is so blaoted, they create economic problems then present thte illusion they can fix them. Take employment.

    Tax me more, inflate my costs with massive hidden taxes and price protectionism for righ buddies, devalue my money and they insanely think we will have more money to spend on each others jobs. Isn’t going to happen.

    Jobs come from the affordable exchange of goods and services. But government makes it less affordable and expects more jobs? Its the insanity of statism GREED!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *