PERB election poll

[LLLurkJ2]

LOL! I asked you point blank previously, " what exactly is your more "nuanced' Keynesian or neo-Keynesian approach?"

Seems like you're the one that can't hold a discussion when challenged to explain your "Keynesian" approach! LOL

I don't know what it's called, vitriol, bias or whatever, but what you seem to suffer from is making yourself the victim (i.e. claiming personal attacks) when you're called out for your own foolish desire to appear learned by using big words like "nuanced Keynesian approach" and "trickle down economics."

Its there if you read my post . Better weigh the oportunity costs of cuts as opposed to yelling 'we must cut'. What are the developmental costs of cuts in terms of industry? Who does it benefit most to have reduced debt loads and who does it cost the most when cuts are made? Why would we move towards a low debt load when the other G7's arent and put ourselves at competitive disadvantge? To what degree should we reduce debt?

Case in point- we cut support for vaccine manufacturing in the country to the bone, then what happened? We had to beg for vaccines.

As for claiming victimhood, I dont see where I've done that. What i said was you were spewing personal attacks instead of subsantive points, so there was no point in engaging.

In terms of vocabulary, 1) I dont consider nuanced , Keynesian, approach, trickle, down, or economics to be considerably big words and 2) Technically I am learned with a graduate degree , but I don't throw that around to imply that I'm better than anyone..despite the amount of money it might have cost.

Let me guess, your next step is to call me simp or cuck and rant about my inadequacy.

 

[KOM]

I can’t vote for communist parties and both Liberals and Conservatives are working at violating our civil rights. Little by little before people notice. Let’s slip a little by during the pandemic. Let’s pass a law the gives us control over your speech, vaccine passport, forcing vaccine on federal workers to keep their job. What’s next. Lose your job if you smoke. How about laws that make it illegal to be a service provider. It’s a slippery slope even when they justify it. Civil Rights aren’t for the majority, they are for everybody. That only leaves me with sending the message and building up the NDP and hopefully they are different.

 

[Amerix]

I can’t vote for communist parties

That only leaves me with sending the message and building up the NDP and hopefully they are different.

You might not have thought this through.

 

[appleomac]

Its there if you read my post . Better weigh the oportunity costs of cuts as opposed to yelling 'we must cut'. What are the developmental costs of cuts in terms of industry? Who does it benefit most to have reduced debt loads and who does it cost the most when cuts are made? Why would we move towards a low debt load when the other G7's arent and put ourselves at competitive disadvantge? To what degree should we reduce debt?

Case in point- we cut support for vaccine manufacturing in the country to the bone, then what happened? We had to beg for vaccines.

As for claiming victimhood, I dont see where I've done that. What i said was you were spewing personal attacks instead of subsantive points, so there was no point in engaging.

In terms of vocabulary, 1) I dont consider nuanced , Keynesian, approach, trickle, down, or economics to be considerably big words and 2) Technically I am learned with a graduate degree , but I don't throw that around to imply that I'm better than anyone..despite the amount of money it might have cost.

Let me guess, your next step is to call me simp or cuck and rant about my inadequacy.

When cuts are made it hurts EVERYONE! Cuts to federal healthcare transfers to the provinces in the 90's HURT EVERYONE - whether it was longer waits for hip replacements for seniors, longer waits for MRI's, etc., etc., etc.! Whereas spending money that you don't have doesn't BENEFIT EVERYONE! And again, why do you believe DEBT is about "keeping up with the Jones'"? If your neighbour is sinking in debt with 14 cars and 4 homes, that doesn't mean you should follow your neighbour off that same cliff. "I should do it because they are doing it" is the mentality of an infant - which is apparently the mentality you have!

If the Government of Canada was smart enough to start a company (which they shouldn't) that is bigger/better and more successful than the likes of Pfizer or Merck or Novartis, etc. - well, you're grasping at straws! Governments aren't good at starting/building/creating the biggest and most successful corporations in the world - that's not their specialty! What you call "government support" is dog whistling for "government ownership". People like you whine about how "Mulroney sold off Connaught Labs, etc., etc.,etc" - while you know nothing about history of Connaught. When the government owned it, it was losing money continuously! And it's a perfect example of how governments aren't good at "business" - because Connaught Labs still exist - they're owned by Sanofi (oddly enough, literally one of the world's largest vaccine producers)! You have the mindset that "if you throw enough government money at something, it will be successful". That is absolutely asinine - no amount of money (government or otherwise) can create a successful commercial venture without actual "business know how, experience, etc." and money doesn't buy that!

LOL! And, I didn not present my credentials to show that I am better than you! I did so, because you literally asked what my credentials were! You asked the question - and I answered it. Whereas you still cannot answer my direct question to you - what is your "more nuanced Keynesian approach"? Again, all you are demonstrating is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You answer direct questions with vague questions like "what are the opportunity costs?" You take some quasi-academic BS attitude of "questions demonstrate that I'm intellectual" - but you can't answer a single damn question - only ask vague question to avoid having to answer questions yourself! In my younger days I used to guest lecture are various universities - I saw that same quasi-academic BS attitude from students and faculty that think they are more "intellectual"/smart/intelligent than they truly are. And that is you, bringing up words/concepts/theories you clearly do not understand (and not even remotely relevant to the idea of how to pay off debt) and when challenged to state your position you simply reply with vague questions such as "what are the opportunity costs". Whatever you do for a living or whatever your profession is, you're just a fraud - trying to sound "intellectual" just to try and get by another day hoping others don't find out you're just full of it!

 

[happycanuck99]

When cuts are made it hurts EVERYONE! Cuts to federal healthcare transfers to the provinces in the 90's HURT EVERYONE - whether it was longer waits for hip replacements for seniors, longer waits for MRI's, etc., etc., etc.! Whereas spending money that you don't have doesn't BENEFIT EVERYONE! And again, why do you believe DEBT is about "keeping up with the Jones'"? If your neighbour is sinking in debt with 14 cars and 4 homes, that doesn't mean you should follow your neighbour off that same cliff. "I should do it because they are doing it" is the mentality of an infant - which is apparently the mentality you have!

If the Government of Canada was smart enough to start a company (which they shouldn't) that is bigger/better and more successful than the likes of Pfizer or Merck or Novartis, etc. - well, you're grasping at straws! Governments aren't good at starting/building/creating the biggest and most successful corporations in the world - that's not their specialty! What you call "government support" is dog whistling for "government ownership". People like you whine about how "Mulroney sold off Connaught Labs, etc., etc.,etc" - while you know nothing about history of Connaught. When the government owned it, it was losing money continuously! And it's a perfect example of how governments aren't good at "business" - because Connaught Labs still exist - they're owned by Sanofi (oddly enough, literally one of the world's largest vaccine producers)! You have the mindset that "if you throw enough government money at something, it will be successful". That is absolutely asinine - no amount of money (government or otherwise) can create a successful commercial venture without actual "business know how, experience, etc." and money doesn't buy that!

LOL! And, I didn not present my credentials to show that I am better than you! I did so, because you literally asked what my credentials were! You asked the question - and I answered it. Whereas you still cannot answer my direct question to you - what is your "more nuanced Keynesian approach"? Again, all you are demonstrating is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You answer direct questions with vague questions like "what are the opportunity costs?" You take some quasi-academic BS attitude of "questions demonstrate that I'm intellectual" - but you can't answer a single damn question - only ask vague question to avoid having to answer questions yourself! In my younger days I used to guest lecture are various universities - I saw that same quasi-academic BS attitude from students and faculty that think they are more "intellectual"/smart/intelligent than they truly are. And that is you, bringing up words/concepts/theories you clearly do not understand (and not even remotely relevant to the idea of how to pay off debt) and when challenged to state your position you simply reply with vague questions such as "what are the opportunity costs". Whatever you do for a living or whatever your profession is, you're just a fraud - trying to sound "intellectual" just to try and get by another day hoping others don't find out you're just full of it!

Sadly your excellent points are drowning in vitriol.

It's an interesting thread, but I really wish the personal attacks on both sides would stop. They really distract from the points being made.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

When cuts are made it hurts EVERYONE! Cuts to federal healthcare transfers to the provinces in the 90's HURT EVERYONE - whether it was longer waits for hip replacements for seniors, longer waits for MRI's, etc., etc., etc.! Whereas spending money that you don't have doesn't BENEFIT EVERYONE! And again, why do you believe DEBT is about "keeping up with the Jones'"? If your neighbour is sinking in debt with 14 cars and 4 homes, that doesn't mean you should follow your neighbour off that same cliff. "I should do it because they are doing it" is the mentality of an infant - which is apparently the mentality you have!

If the Government of Canada was smart enough to start a company (which they shouldn't) that is bigger/better and more successful than the likes of Pfizer or Merck or Novartis, etc. - well, you're grasping at straws! Governments aren't good at starting/building/creating the biggest and most successful corporations in the world - that's not their specialty! What you call "government support" is dog whistling for "government ownership". People like you whine about how "Mulroney sold off Connaught Labs, etc., etc.,etc" - while you know nothing about history of Connaught. When the government owned it, it was losing money continuously! And it's a perfect example of how governments aren't good at "business" - because Connaught Labs still exist - they're owned by Sanofi (oddly enough, literally one of the world's largest vaccine producers)! You have the mindset that "if you throw enough government money at something, it will be successful". That is absolutely asinine - no amount of money (government or otherwise) can create a successful commercial venture without actual "business know how, experience, etc." and money doesn't buy that!

LOL! And, I didn not present my credentials to show that I am better than you! I did so, because you literally asked what my credentials were! You asked the question - and I answered it. Whereas you still cannot answer my direct question to you - what is your "more nuanced Keynesian approach"? Again, all you are demonstrating is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You answer direct questions with vague questions like "what are the opportunity costs?" You take some quasi-academic BS attitude of "questions demonstrate that I'm intellectual" - but you can't answer a single damn question - only ask vague question to avoid having to answer questions yourself! In my younger days I used to guest lecture are various universities - I saw that same quasi-academic BS attitude from students and faculty that think they are more "intellectual"/smart/intelligent than they truly are. And that is you, bringing up words/concepts/theories you clearly do not understand (and not even remotely relevant to the idea of how to pay off debt) and when challenged to state your position you simply reply with vague questions such as "what are the opportunity costs". Whatever you do for a living or whatever your profession is, you're just a fraud - trying to sound "intellectual" just to try and get by another day hoping others don't find out you're just full of it!

LET ME DO THIS IN ALL CAPS SO YOU SEE IT: FOR THE THIRD TIME , BORROW MONEY WHEN ITS CHEAP AND RAISE TAXES TO PAY OFF THE DEBT WHEN INFLATION IS UP.

Nuance comes into play in deciding how much of each.

So whats your solution?

 

[LLLurkJ2]

Sadly your excellent points are drowning in vitriol.

It's an interesting thread, but I really wish the personal attacks on both sides would stop. They really distract from the points being made.

Happy, since you seem to able to discern them unlike me, what are his excellent points?

That cuts hurt everyone and gvmnt has no place in business? That things must be cut? That debt is bad?

 

[KOM]

You might not have thought this through.

Care to elaborate? If the Liberals and Conservatives are both showing communist tendencies then what party am I left with to turn too? I'm no expert but when you allow a government to violate civil rights, even if you agree, then what happens when they do the same when you don't? Conservative and Liberal policies may be different but they are a carbon copy of each other when it comes peoples rights. The NDP are the next closest competition. All I have left is hope.

 

[iliketravel]

From my point of view, there is really nobody to vote for in Canada. There's been many of these and that people over the years, and did any of them really make this country change its course for better? If so, life should be cheaper and people should be wealthier. I'm talking about average Canadians, not those who by chance became rich thanks to the cryptocurrencies sudden gimmick, playing with stock or cashing on the real estate boom. Did food or gas, rent, taxes, became more affordable? Nope. Under any of the competing and pounding their chest parties. Nope, there is really nobody to vote for and that want change unless all of them get replaced.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

From my point of view, there is really nobody to vote for in Canada. There's been many of these and that people over the years, and did any of them really make this country change its course for better? If so, life should be cheaper and people should be wealthier. I'm talking about average Canadians, not those who by chance became rich thanks to the cryptocurrencies sudden gimmick, playing with stock or cashing on the real estate boom. Did food or gas, rent, taxes, became more affordable? Nope. Under any of the competing and pounding their chest parties. Nope, there is really nobody to vote for and that want change unless all of them get replaced.

Three of the the parties in parliment have not held the prime ministers office and one of those is regional to Quebec. We've yet to try the other two.

 

[appleomac]

LET ME DO THIS IN ALL CAPS SO YOU SEE IT: FOR THE THIRD TIME , BORROW MONEY WHEN ITS CHEAP AND RAISE TAXES TO PAY OFF THE DEBT WHEN INFLATION IS UP.

Nuance comes into play in deciding how much of each.

So whats your solution?

LOL! Taking out copious amounts of debt just because interest rates are low doesn't mean you get to roll over that debt at the equally low interest rate. Seriously mate, are you that obtuse? Do you truly believe that any number of the multiple series of Canadian bonds that may be maturing in the next 3 or 4 or 5 years get the benefit of TODAY'S LOW INTEREST RATES? My gawd, your complete lack of understanding of how bond markets/money markets work is laughable. Borrowers are rate takers - NOT RATE SETTERS. Saying nothing for the fact that, "we'll just raise taxes later" is actually not a plan to repay anything. That's the same as someone saying "I know I can't afford this loan, but I'll just make more income later." You have no nuance - the nuance would be a plan, nuance would be someone who claims to read to have actually studied some numbers and provide specifics. Again, you are simply trying to sound "intellectual" by saying "nuance" and then providing absolutely no nuance at all! LOL

 

[happycanuck99]

Happy, since you seem to able to discern them unlike me, what are his excellent points?

That cuts hurt everyone and gvmnt has no place in business? That things must be cut? That debt is bad?

Yes, I think you've identified them well. Here's the thing: disagreeing with them doesn't invalidate their being good points.

 

[rozen30]

Too anyone who think cutting spending or raising taxes is the solution and the Conservatives would be the answer:
1. O'Tool has promised spending that is unheard of from a Conservative leader
2. Conservatives generally would cut taxes as they want a small government with low spending/cut benefits. It is extrenely naive to think rthe Conservatives would ever entertain a tax hike. Their donators, primarily corporations and ultra high net worth individuals would suffer.
3. If they would cut spending, where would the cut come from? Education, healthcare, firefighting, border security, immigration, road construction are all underfunded. Would you cut gas subsidy? Energy companies are the biggest donors for the PC. I don' think they would be happy to hear that. I guess you could cut scienticfic research funding. Who needs technologies of the future?

I don't like the Liberals and Conservatives. I would prefer the Liberals form a minority government, so that legislative changes will include input from all parties and it would be equitable to the poor and the rich.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

LOL! Taking out copious amounts of debt just because interest rates are low doesn't mean you get to roll over that debt at the equally low interest rate. Seriously mate, are you that obtuse? Do you truly believe that any number of the multiple series of Canadian bonds that may be maturing in the next 3 or 4 or 5 years get the benefit of TODAY'S LOW INTEREST RATES? My gawd, your complete lack of understanding of how bond markets/money markets work is laughable. Borrowers are rate takers - NOT RATE SETTERS. Saying nothing for the fact that, "we'll just raise taxes later" is actually not a plan to repay anything. That's the same as someone saying "I know I can't afford this loan, but I'll just make more income later." You have no nuance - the nuance would be a plan, nuance would be someone who claims to read to have actually studied some numbers and provide specifics. Again, you are simply trying to sound "intellectual" by saying "nuance" and then providing absolutely no nuance at all! LOL

Ah, but apoplecticly yelling 'we must cut ' like some kind of throbbing forhead vien is a good plan of course!

This old cons parroted point of 'if a household takes on debt' is more bullshit and either you wasted your money on your education or you're being a disingenous liar or both.

Households dont set their overnight rates , or put more money into the supply to steer inflation, or control policy that moves fiscal outcomes for everyone.

Blowhards who think they're making good points by yelling them loudest are the real psuedo-intellectuals. I can't see you having been invited to guest lecture at anything other than a kindergarten class really. You're seeming hatred towards any kind of critical thought or questioning is telling, and i doubt you have the credentials you purport.

 

[westwoody]

I guess you could cut scienticfic research funding. Who needs technologies of the future

I’ve said it before - my father was a scientist at NRC. Harper threw away our entire world class nuclear program.
SNC? Idiots who bitch about Justin Trudeau and SNC make me laugh. Harper handed AECL to SNC for pennies on the dollar and fired hundreds of published scientists and thousands of support workers in a hissy fit.
Harper had a tantrum when the nuclear regulator told him he was wrong. So he destroyed an entire industry, decades of work and thousands of careers. Cons pretend to be careful businessmen but really are fucking ignorant assholes.

 

[appleomac]

Ah, but apoplecticly yelling 'we must cut ' like some kind of throbbing forhead vien is a good plan of course!

This old cons parroted point of 'if a household takes on debt' is more bullshit and either you wasted your money on your education or you're being a disingenous liar or both.

Households dont set their overnight rates , or put more money into the supply to steer inflation, or control policy that moves fiscal outcomes for everyone.

Blowhards who think they're making good points by yelling them loudest are the real psuedo-intellectuals. I can't see you having been invited to guest lecture at anything other than a kindergarten class really. You're seeming hatred towards any kind of critical thought or questioning is telling, and i doubt you have the credentials you purport.

I never once in this thread said (as you claim) "we must cut". I have said, (and this has happened in recent history) that cuts will happen whether anyone wants them or not. Moreover, my point (which again, you're lack of reading comprehension shows, because you continually miss the point) is that debt with no plan/intention/will to pay back is asinine.

Overnight rates has nothing to do with the going market rate for government debt! Government debt is based on prevailing market rates for bonds with similar risk ratings - no government "sets the bond rates" per se, they take the prevailing rate based on their risk rating. Seriously mate, you do not understand bond rates/bond markets. If two countries A and B both have triple A credit ratings and the market determines that the going rate is 3% on triple A rated sovereign debt country B cannot say, "what the heck, I'll issue my bonds at 1% because I want cheaper debt." If they did that, the market would not buy country B's debt, they would buy country A's debt because it provides the appropriate market determined rate of return for triple A rated sovereign debt. If you had two choices buy bonds of country A or country B and both have the same risk, why would you buy the bond that provides you 1% when an asset with similar risks pays 3%? Apparently you think there are tons of market participants will accept 1% return when the going rate is 3%! You need to stop talking about bonds/monetary policy/etc/etc/etc - you are continually demonstrating that you do not understand any of it!

And FYI, monetary policy (i.e money supply techniques) does not change the fact that government's (and people) have to pay their debts! Seriously mate, all the monetary policy enacted (or not) by any government doesn't change the size of the national debt - you borrow $500 billion dollars over 2 years, you have to pay back that $500 billion. Monetary policy does not change the size of the national debt.

Again, just stop talking about things you clearly don't understand!

 

[LLLurkJ2]

I never once in this thread said (as you claim) "we must cut". I have said, (and this has happened in recent history) that cuts will happen whether anyone wants them or not. Moreover, my point (which again, you're lack of reading comprehension shows, because you continually miss the point) is that debt with no plan/intention/will to pay back is asinine.

Overnight rates has nothing to do with the going market rate for government debt! Government debt is based on prevailing market rates for bonds with similar risk ratings - no government "sets the bond rates" per se, they take the prevailing rate based on their risk rating. Seriously mate, you do not understand bond rates/bond markets. If two countries A and B both have triple A credit ratings and the market determines that the going rate is 3% on triple A rated sovereign debt country B cannot say, "what the heck, I'll issue my bonds at 1% because I want cheaper debt." If they did that, the market would not buy country B's debt, they would buy country A's debt because it provides the appropriate market determined rate of return for triple A rated sovereign debt. If you had two choices buy bonds of country A or country B and both have the same risk, why would you buy the bond that provides you 1% when an asset with similar risks pays 3%? Apparently you think there are tons of market participants will accept 1% return when the going rate is 3%! You need to stop talking about bonds/monetary policy/etc/etc/etc - you are continually demonstrating that you do not understand any of it!

And FYI, monetary policy (i.e money supply techniques) does not change the fact that government's (and people) have to pay their debts! Seriously mate, all the monetary policy enacted (or not) by any government doesn't change the size of the national debt - you borrow $500 billion dollars over 2 years, you have to pay back that $500 billion. Monetary policy does not change the size of the national debt.

Again, just stop talking about things you clearly don't understand!

Why dont you stop telling me to stop thinking.Youre obviously very threatend by my deviation from the othrodoxy

Beyond your 101 modeling, i didnt say overnight rates lead to cheaper money , I said you draw a false equivelancy between households and governements as a way to scare people. No debt collectors will be phoning us.

Also, Canada can never beat the US issuances so has to offer slightly better return or other perceived future benefits on bonds to attract buyers. That or have the BOC buy 40% like they're now holding.

Heres two more solutuons for you:
End the $18B oil company subsidies and sell the pipline off at whatever we can still get for it ...governement has no place in business after all, and if its such a great product it will be able to compete on its own.

Tax the runaway wealth of the richest 10% who've managed to takeall the productivity gains of the last 20 years while wages remained stagnant. They've obviously benefitred the most from deficit spending.

 

[appleomac]

Why dont you stop telling me to stop thinking.Youre obviously very threatend by my deviation from the othrodoxy

Beyond your 101 modeling, i didnt say overnight rates lead to cheaper money , I said you draw a false equivelancy between households and governements as a way to scare people. No debt collectors will be phoning us.

Also, Canada can never beat the US issuances so has to offer slightly better return or other perceived future benefits on bonds to attract buyers. That or have the BOC buy 40% like they're now holding.

Heres two more solutuons for you:
End the $18B oil company subsidies and sell the pipline off at whatever we can still get for it ...governement has no place in business after all, and if its such a great product it will be able to compete on its own.

Tax the runaway wealth of the richest 10% who've managed to takeall the productivity gains of the last 20 years while wages remained stagnant. They've obviously benefitred the most from deficit spending.

I draw comparisons to household debt and government debt because the underlying principle is the same - debt with no plan/will/desire/etc to repay it is ALWAYS BAD. And just because a debt collector will not come after the Government of Canada, doesn't mean copious amounts of debt have NO CONSEQUENCES. If we take on too much debt, Canada's debt rating can be downgraded, which means all new debt (actual new debt and the new debt to refinance old debt) will ALL HAPPEN AT HIGHER RATES OF INTEREST! This is not "orthodoxy" this is just how CREDIT/BORROWING WORKS. Apparently you live in a fanciful make belief world were there are ZERO CONSEQUENCES FOR UNDERTAKING DEBT CONTINUOUSLY simply because it is the Government of Canada is undertaking said debt. DEBT HAS COSTS, even you if fail to understand what those costs are - and those costs are not merely the interest rate you pay on debt!

Hell, I've said it multiple times on this forum - the Government has no business in taking an equity piece (minority stake or buying a company outright) of a corporation. I don't like that Trudeau bought a pipeline, I don't like that Kenny bought a piece of a pipeline and I don't like that Harper purchased a piece of General Motors! LOL

You need to actually study Canada's tax base if you truly believe the top 10% can pay for all the things you want. $98,000 per year (at least based on the most recent StatsCan data that is available); $98k per year in income will put you in the top 10% of income earners in this country! It's comprised of about 2.8 million people with a median income less than $130k. How much more do you want to take from someone making 98K? Should their federal tax rate be 50%? 40%? LOL Let me guess, you actually never have researched what this country's tax base even looks like.

And before you start "amending" your "nuanced Keynesian approach" by saying - "we'll just tax the top 1% more" Maybe take some time to actually research some relevant stats before you start chirping off (yet again) about things you do not have knowledge about! LOL Hell, I'll even help you out

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110005501&pickMembers[0]=1.1&pickMembers[1]=3.5&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2014&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2018&referencePeriods=20140101,20180101

Hate to break it to you, the lawyer/accountant/engineer/programmer/etc. making $113k per year - did not take anything away from you!

What's that old saying, "no pain, no gain." That usually means PAIN NOW FOR GAIN LATER. You literally want GAIN NOW FOR THE NEXT GENERATION TO SUFFER THE PAIN TO PAY FOR YOUR GAIN NOW!

 

[Crookedmember]

The way O'Toole is making all of these huge spending promises, he must think budgets balance themselves.

 

[Crookedmember]

Let's keep in mind the main reason we've been running deficits for the last 15 years is Harper foolishly chopped 2 points off the GST. A tax cut that benefits mainly the wealthy.

Harper inherited surplus budgets from the Liberals and turned them into deficits with that senseless tax cut that cost the treasury at the time $15 billion per year. Every year. (More like $20-$25 B. now.)

So Harper is the father of these deficits. But then, deficits only matter to Conservatives when they're out of power.