Sunday, 18 May 2014

Liberal Debt And Twitter Truthers

I dedicate this entry to all the Liberal-twitter-philosopher-economists who seem to be able to codify their truth telling in a mere 140 characters.

The prevailing trend of rampant Liberal logic appears to be a fairly simple method:  feeling + thought = truth.

The problem with this liberal method is most notable when a debate tries to get framed beyond the simplicity of a single thought and a vivacious feeling (however real that feeling is).

Look no further then the comedic response Liberals give to Hudak for his heartless, reckless economy killing 100 000 public service cuts.  I give credit for some very creative entries...but the common theme seems to be that there is some truth that others need to know because this Liberal had a thought that responded to their feeling.

I challenge liberals to articulate their argument to incorporate the elephant in the room: Ontario's debt.

Taken from the governments website, please note the debt has increased over 1 billion dollars per MONTH over the past 10 years!!! 

Here is the logical equivalent to the 100 000 stadium pic:

By failing to take the debt into consideration when deliberating the cuts being proposed, you deny the most basic aspect of voter due-diligence.  Do you confess you are ignoring this because you are selfish and think the next generation ought to pay for your spending addiction?

Please consider:

1. $290 billion of debt is a bad thing. Something needs to change and fast.
2. To not look foolish, we must put the interest paid on debt as the same weighted negative force as lost income to an Ontario worker.  I.E 1 cut government salary $50 000 (give or take) = $50 000 (approx.) of interest on debt.  Why do you decry the job cut, but not the corresponding lost wealth due to money going to bondholders in the form of interest?
3.  The government worker can find another job in the real-life economy; that offset's the initial job loss.  The only way to "offset" the interest payments is to pay the principal down.
4. Unless there is a major shift in government thinking, what is the best predictor of future behavior? The past. Tell me, how are the Liberals doing on this one?  For a simple clue, look at the debt chart above in relation to stated positions that Liberals plan to make no drastic changes to future spending behavior.
5. Given we can predict that future debt levels will likely rise at the same rate as the past 10 years, have you done the math to see what these "liberal values" will result in 10 years from now?  Approx. $430 billion in debt.  BTW, this would be about the same scenario as know, the place of draconian slashing of services...and massive cuts FORCED ON THEM? (Not even riots could stop it!) Keep er' going Liberals, almost there.
6. Do you want a little pain now by choice? Or several stadiums of pain forced on us later?

I submit for consideration, as soon as we frame any debate about cuts on the reasonable grounds of "out of control debt" the Liberals are in trouble. They must scream for more spending and continue to avoid topics of government waste and lack of productivity.  This sickness (blindness) will allow them to continue to create funny pics on twitter making fun of those who are a little more grounded in reality and aware of our balance sheet. Until then...keep chirping, Liberals.

Conservatives, pass this on to help others frame the debate and put pressure where it belongs; on the reckless and blind spending addiction of the Liberals.


  1. I would like to change your equation to. feelings - thought = truth.

  2. Thought on equation;

    Thought minus feelings( as much as humanly possible) has the best chance of finding truth. Believing tends to be seeing when emotions are too strong; to see reality we should not permit bias to blind us.

  3. You seem to have put little thought into this yourself. #3 is that simple? There are no effects or costs of culling 1000,000 good jobs from the economy and public service? No changes to service? No increases to costs as services are privatized? No curb to the spending of those families affected? No increase in need for social assistance? Your "equation" is insulting, but you back it up with the equivalent of "lack of thought + lack of feeling = truth". A bullet list doesn't make your opinion any more "truthy" than a funny picture.


    There are many important economic and methodological issues with the policies proposed by the PCs, and the way they have used the consultant reports to try to justify their numbers. These problems deserve a lot of further study, including:

    -The apparent double-counting of fiscal savings (like the wage freeze on public servants).
    -The failure to account for any employment downside from major public sector spending cuts.
    -The failure to include the 100,000 direct public sector jobs that the PCs pledge to eliminate.
    -The lack of any empirical support for the plan’s estimates of job gains from apprenticeship training or GTA transit initiatives.
    -How they measure “regulatory reduction” and its impact on employment. (Reevely also wrote a column on that topic, too.)

    Ontarians can and should have a serious policy debate over whether Hudak’s proposals would have any stimulative effect on employment at all (let alone creating a million new positions).


Think of how you can make your point and be respectful.
Try to keep cursing to a minimum; with thanks.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain