You missed the point. That point being, debt to GDP, presenting debt in that manner is an erroneous measure to justify for more debt. But you don't understand why. It's arbitrary, which you fail to see, as demonstrated by your constant comparisons to other nations. If you have two maxed out credit cards (a bad situation) and you say "but my neighbour has 3 maxed out credit cards" - you are justifying your bad situation because some else's is worse. Bad is bad and worse is worse. That someone else is worse off then you, does not change the fact that you are in bad situation. In other words, you have arbitrarily decided that 3 maxed out credit cards is the barometer of bad. Just like you parroting off Liberal talking points ("but Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the lowest net debt to GDP ratios in the G7" or whatever the Finance Minster says). So no, it is not hyperbolic, because this government has taken out copious amounts of debt and all you can say to justify that is that other countries are "worse" than us. Again, other people's/country's situation does not change ours.
What same playbook, deficits? Sure Conservative and Liberals have both contributed to the level of national debt. In the not so distant past, a reasonable person could say the Libs did alot to deal with Canada's national debt. Chretien and Martin, their combined time as PM's - they had a mere $30ish billion in total deficit in their combined 12 years in office. Now, if you want to compare that to Harper (and his $120 billion in total deficit in 9 years). Yes, you can say the Chretien/Martin fiscal record is MUCH better than Harper. However, JT is no Chretien or Martin on the fiscal file. Ergo, rightly or wrongly (and I would say rightly), JT gets compared to his predecessor, and that would be Harper. Again, $120 billion in total deficit for Harper in 9 years vs over $500 billion for JT in 9 years. If you want to compare JT to Chretien and Martin on the fiscal record, that makes JT look even worse. Ergo, why some people like to (or try to) compare JT to Mulroney. I think that's foolish, Mulroney was 40 years ago and dead. But if that's what people want to do, fair enough. Mulroney had just under $300 billion in total deficit in his 9 years in office and JT, again, is at over $500 billion. You can say all you want that Harper or Mulroney were not as good on the fiscal side as Chretien and Martin. However, and this should be obvious - Canadians' choice for PM will not include a Chretien or Martin will it? JT does not get to claim Chretien and Martin's record of fiscal stewardship. JT has to live, or die, by his own fiscal record. And that fiscal record is - that JT is the single biggest deficit spending PM in the history of Canadian Confederation. Yes, a spot that JT took over from a conservative (i.e. Mulroney). But, Mulroney and his record is NOT on the ballot. Mulroney had is reckoning with the Canadian public, or at least his now non-existent political party did. Harper had his reckoning with the Canadian public. Do you see a trend here? All politicians will have their reckoning with the Canadian public - that is how this thing called democracy works. You are somehow saying that JT should not have his reckoning beause, what? Trump? Sure, the LIbs are going to pull that card. Because of Ford or Moe or Smith - sure, the Libs are going to try that card. Because of racism, Islamaphobia transphobia, etc, sure the Libs are going to try that card. It's all desperation. Harper got desparate too in 2015 - cultural barbaric practices hot-line (dumb attempt at a wedge issue), the niqab "issue" (dumb attempt at wedge a issue). Voters want change, they get change. And JT will trot out all his usual (and stupid) wedge issues as well. And if you think after 3 terms and 10 years in office that somehow wedge issues work when people want change. They don't - the public sees it for what it is, just like they did with Harper - desperation. There's an old saying, father time is undefeated. In modern politics in Canada, father time comes calling for incumbents around the 10 year mark.
