Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is pledging $1 billion to help Canadians care for sick or elderly relatives, a key part of his party's election platform.
The national debt represents an inablitity to pay for the social programs we already have in place, an unwillingness to pay for them.
The strategy of borrowing on top of the current deficit to pay for additional home care means he doesn't think he can win the vote on his own appeal. Rather he has to borrow money, power, from the next generation. This has been going on in Ottawa for some decades.
He has no realistic plan, is basically endorsing Harper with this muse.
"Bruce_the_vii" said The national debt represents an inablitity to pay for the social programs we already have in place, an unwillingness to pay for them.
The strategy of borrowing on top of the current deficit to pay for additional home care means he doesn't think he can win the vote on his own appeal. Rather he has to borrow money, power, from the next generation. This has been going on in Ottawa for some decades.
He has no realistic plan, is basically endorsing Harper with this muse.
We can pay for 9 years of this if we toss Harper's prison building spree.
"Bruce_the_vii" said The national debt represents an inablitity to pay for the social programs we already have in place, an unwillingness to pay for them.
The strategy of borrowing on top of the current deficit to pay for additional home care means he doesn't think he can win the vote on his own appeal. Rather he has to borrow money, power, from the next generation. This has been going on in Ottawa for some decades.
He has no realistic plan, is basically endorsing Harper with this muse.
The national debt hasn't come from "social programs". We have lots of money to fund our social programs. The debt comes from public funding of waste and bureaucracy. We could have conquered that in the 90s but made irresponsible use of our budget surpluses. Our most recent additions to debt aren't from funding social programs either, but from ill-advised bailout-stimulus spending.
Another way of wording the budget and deficit is the "government's load". That includes social programs. In any case the world around governments have over spent - failed to carry their responsibilities.
seems like a reasonable debate between the libs and cons, ie tax cuts vs social spending. I will watch it for a while to see which way makes most sense.
"ASLplease" said seems like a reasonable debate between the libs and cons, ie tax cuts vs social spending. I will watch it for a while to see which way makes most sense.
Yea, because the Conservatives haven't spent a dime.
More like crime and punishment spending (with emphasis on the punishment) versus social spending. Appeals to fear versus appeals to better nature and compassion.
Yeah, they both believe in more spending despite the deficit. The prison purchase could have been put off, they will now cost twice as much because of the interest charges on the borrowing. This guy Harper needs some better ideas to run with.
I saw an American economists on TV explain the ins and outs of deficit funding one day. He said deficits were basically good because they kept the politicians from more spending even more. This turns out to be a pretty smart philosophical answer.
Announced same day as Harper announces $155 million prison expansion plan. And what's the response? Waaaahhhh!!!! Nanny-state blah blah blah. We'd rather have Uncle Jackboot state!
At least the lefties are proud to show it.
The strategy of borrowing on top of the current deficit to pay for additional home care means he doesn't think he can win the vote on his own appeal. Rather he has to borrow money, power, from the next generation. This has been going on in Ottawa for some decades.
He has no realistic plan, is basically endorsing Harper with this muse.
The national debt represents an inablitity to pay for the social programs we already have in place, an unwillingness to pay for them.
The strategy of borrowing on top of the current deficit to pay for additional home care means he doesn't think he can win the vote on his own appeal. Rather he has to borrow money, power, from the next generation. This has been going on in Ottawa for some decades.
He has no realistic plan, is basically endorsing Harper with this muse.
We can pay for 9 years of this if we toss Harper's prison building spree.
The national debt represents an inablitity to pay for the social programs we already have in place, an unwillingness to pay for them.
The strategy of borrowing on top of the current deficit to pay for additional home care means he doesn't think he can win the vote on his own appeal. Rather he has to borrow money, power, from the next generation. This has been going on in Ottawa for some decades.
He has no realistic plan, is basically endorsing Harper with this muse.
The national debt hasn't come from "social programs". We have lots of money to fund our social programs. The debt comes from public funding of waste and bureaucracy. We could have conquered that in the 90s but made irresponsible use of our budget surpluses. Our most recent additions to debt aren't from funding social programs either, but from ill-advised bailout-stimulus spending.
seems like a reasonable debate between the libs and cons, ie tax cuts vs social spending. I will watch it for a while to see which way makes most sense.
Yea, because the Conservatives haven't spent a dime.
More like crime and punishment spending (with emphasis on the punishment) versus social spending. Appeals to fear versus appeals to better nature and compassion.
I saw an American economists on TV explain the ins and outs of deficit funding one day. He said deficits were basically good because they kept the politicians from more spending even more. This turns out to be a pretty smart philosophical answer.
Waaaahhhh!!!! Nanny-state blah blah blah. We'd rather have Uncle Jackboot state!