Canadian Politics Thread

[Bob Long]

Just now, NewbieCanuckFan said:

At least Harper was a mail clerk early on his career.  Castro Jr a school teacher.  I think Pee-Pee interned in some government civil servant job a few summers (though this is just a guess)?

 

PP also had a robocall company for a brief period. Classy.

[Boudrias]

8 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

PP also had a robocall company for a brief period. Classy.

You denigrate PP and argue for the status quo which is obviously not working for many Canadians. It appears that PP will become the next Prime Minister. If he does will he be judged using the same scale that Trudeau is given by most on this thread? I doubt it.

As a fiscal conservative I view much of the trouble faced by Canada is debt and the increasing level of spending. If PP wants to right the ship he has to reduce spending or increase GDP to generate more income. Canada’s GDP has flatlined for many years. How does PP fix things when he has never had a real job? Doesn’t that sound ridiculous? 
 

A lot can happen in a year. Maybe progressives worst fear of a PP government won’t happen. If it does I suspect considerable belt tightening for many. 

[4petesake]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

and he doesn't tip. 

 

Its a silly argument, study after study has shown how beneficial a living wage is to our economy, and how little it actually impacts costs in things like the food industry. 

 

If your business model requires you to not pay employees a living wage then I could give a flying fuck if your business fails.

 

Kind of like Mars/Nestle/Hershey scaling back on their promise to eradicate child slavery in the chocolate industry. They say they were overly ambitious in their agreements and now say a 70% reduction is good enough.

[Ricky Ravioli]

An Ontario gun trafficker released on bail 3 times is nowhere to be found

https://globalnews.ca/news/10369563/reward-gun-trafficker-releaed-on-bail/

 

This is actually wild to me

[Ricky Ravioli]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

[Optimist Prime]

53 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

At least Harper was a mail clerk early on his career.  Castro Jr a school teacher.  I think Pee-Pee interned in some government civil servant job a few summers (though this is just a guess)?

Nope, just directly for the reform party. 

[Bob Long]

25 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

You denigrate PP

 

Yes, because he's a flat out liar 

 

25 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

 

 

and argue for the status quo which is obviously not working for many Canadians.

 

Not sure what that even means? Nothing is static right now.

 

25 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

 

It appears that PP will become the next Prime Minister. If he does will he be judged using the same scale that Trudeau is given by most on this thread? I doubt it.

 

Probably. What I know right now is he's a liar when things don't matter to him being in power. Gives me pause.

 

25 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

As a fiscal conservative I view much of the trouble faced by Canada is debt and the increasing level of spending. If PP wants to right the ship he has to reduce spending or increase GDP to generate more income. Canada’s GDP has flatlined for many years. How does PP fix things when he has never had a real job? Doesn’t that sound ridiculous? 
 

A lot can happen in a year. Maybe progressives worst fear of a PP government won’t happen. If it does I suspect considerable belt tightening for many. 

 

The Cpc aren't fiscal conservatives.

[Warhippy]

30 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Still...not proving anything

 

I also have great photos of our next PM playing dress up.  Does that matter?

[Warhippy]

56 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

You denigrate PP and argue for the status quo which is obviously not working for many Canadians. It appears that PP will become the next Prime Minister. If he does will he be judged using the same scale that Trudeau is given by most on this thread? I doubt it.

As a fiscal conservative I view much of the trouble faced by Canada is debt and the increasing level of spending. If PP wants to right the ship he has to reduce spending or increase GDP to generate more income. Canada’s GDP has flatlined for many years. How does PP fix things when he has never had a real job? Doesn’t that sound ridiculous? 
 

A lot can happen in a year. Maybe progressives worst fear of a PP government won’t happen. If it does I suspect considerable belt tightening for many. 

I personally denigrate PP because she's full of shit.

 

Many of the gripes and complaints he levels are the same issues his party failed in and on.

 

His claims about housing are full of shit and as housing minister in good times he did less with less roadblocks

 

I denigrate him because he's just angry Trudeau without the hair and more social bias

 

As for arguing for the status quo, PP is literally part of the status quo

[NewbieCanuckFan]

...

Edited March 20 by NewbieCanuckFan

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Well that is true I guess as that Cons media message once against Castro Jr was "essentially, he never had a 'real job'/'nice hair'" campaign fell pretty flat.

 

It's not a fiscal conservative government that I fear;  I fear much of the social conservatives power within that party at the moment.

Agreed.  The cons really need to start the denazification of their party before they can be considered an option civilized people can consider.  I'd rather keep things the way they are than allow PP to commit the crimes against humanity that he wants to.

[Boudrias]

2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Well that is true I guess as that Cons media message once against Castro Jr was "essentially, he never had a 'real job'/'nice hair'" campaign fell pretty flat.

 

It's not a fiscal conservative government that I fear;  I fear much of the social conservatives power within that party at the moment.

When I was involved I didn’t see much of the social conservatives. They existed but not particularly vocal. In my riding. Fiscal restraint will be a big deal if social spending is cut. PP will have to have a very open process for how those decisions are made. Jimmy made a fair comment that conservative governments have not been particularly good at fiscal restraint. I would argue better than the Liberals but still not stellar. Bottom line is the process has to be open with a full discussion of the pros and cons of spending increases and cuts. A reviewable process for evaluating results that all can understand. 

[Miss Korea]

10 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I spent $110 today washing my car and eating a steak for dinner at a local restaurant. But according to this thread inflation is only 2.8%. Too funny. No wonder the Conservatives are so far ahead in the polls. Most people aren’t dumb enough to believe the bullshit that the Liberal government keeps shoving down our throats on a daily basis. 

 

The only brainwashed people here are the ones who think figures released by the BANK OF CANADA and STATISTICS CANADA are just Liberal government bullshit.

 

The Bank of Canada... and StatCan.  We are pulling official figures and you're calling it propaganda.  You've been brainwashed to a point where you're now just refusing to believe hard numbers.

Edited March 20 by Miss Korea

[Gurn]

56 minutes ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

Ohh let's play with pics shall we

 

[Boudrias]

To my point earlier about how a PP government could manage the country’s finances. It is fair to say most politicians do not like to stunt the desires of those they represent, either progressive or conservative. PP is enjoying a populist surge which could easily reverse, just as it has for Trudeau. 
 

If PP  forms a government how does he orchestrate a fiscal policy that makes everyone happy? I doubt he can. The fundamentals is ‘money in, money out’. He can curb some of the spending on previous Liberal initiatives. He can reduce the size of the bureaucracy. I highly doubt spending cuts will turn the ship especially since the CPC will have their own spending initiatives. 
 

if money out doesn’t solve the problem then money in has to. Canada has a $2.2 trillion economy. Every 1% increase generates  an additional $22 billion. The government shares in that growth with attendant taxes. One assumes that such growth lowers the expenditure on social services as more people are employed. Canada has had a chronic loss of invested capital back to the Harper years. Lost capital means lower productivity. Sorry but spending $30 billion on building EV batteries will not move the pendulum. The only solution for short term gain will likely be a revitalization of the Canadian energy sector. This most definitely should not require government subsidy but should yield considerable tax revenue. LNG itself should contribute $10’s billions per year. It will strengthen the Canadian $ and make imports cheaper. The industry operates in USD $ another benefit. The Americans basically stole this industry out from under us. It isn’t too late. 

Edited March 20 by Boudrias

[Ricky Ravioli]

49 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Still...not proving anything

 

I also have great photos of our next PM playing dress up.  Does that matter?

There's nothing to prove? The government isn't responsible for anything remember? All these high costs for everything are just out of their control and we are just meant to pull up our bootstraps right?

[I.Am.Ironman]

11 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

To my point earlier about how a PP government could manage the country’s finances. It is fair to say most politicians do not like to stunt the desires of those they represent, either progressive or conservative. PP is enjoying a populist surge which could easily reverse, just as it has for Trudeau. 
 

If PP  forms a government how does he orchestrate a fiscal policy that makes everyone happy? I doubt he can. The fundamentals is ‘money in, money out’. He can curb some of the spending on previous Liberal initiatives. He can reduce the size of the bureaucracy. I highly doubt spending cuts will turn the ship especially since the CPC will have their own spending initiatives. 
 

if money out doesn’t solve the problem then money in has to. Canada has a $2.2 trillion economy. Every 1% increase generates  an additional $220 billion. The government shares in that growth with attendant taxes. One assumes that such growth lowers the expenditure on social services as more people are employed. Canada has had a chronic loss of invested capital back to the Harper years. Lost capital means lower productivity. Sorry but spending $30 billion on building EV batteries will not move the pendulum. The only solution for short term gain will likely be a revitalization of the Canadian energy sector. This most definitely should not require government subsidy but should yield considerable tax revenue. LNG itself should contribute $10’s billions per year. It will strengthen the Canadian $ and make imports cheaper. The industry operates in USD $ another benefit. The Americans basically stole this industry out from under us. It isn’t too late. 

 

Agree with a lot of this, especially the LNG sector. Although 1% of 2.2T = 22 billion, not 220. Although I do believe the investment in EV infrastructure should continue, it shouldn't come at the cost of the oil and gas industry. Both have a role to play.

[Elias Pettersson]

51 minutes ago, Miss Korea said:

 

The only brainwashed people here are the ones who think figures released by the BANK OF CANADA and STATISTICS CANADA are just Liberal government bullshit.

 

The Bank of Canada... and StatCan.  We are pulling official figures and you're calling it propaganda.  You've been brainwashed to a point where you're now just refusing to believe hard numbers.

Do you really think the average person is dumb enough to believe that the REAL rate of inflation is only 2.8%? 
 

If you actually had a family with kids and were paying a mortgage you wouldn’t be calling me brainwashed. 

[112]

Poilievre plans to move non-confidence motion in Trudeau, despite Liberal-NDP deal

 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/poilievre-plans-to-move-non-confidence-motion-in-trudeau-despite-liberal-ndp-deal-1.6814813

[bishopshodan]

13 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Do you really think the average person is dumb enough to believe that the REAL rate of inflation is only 2.8%? 
 

If you actually had a family with kids and were paying a mortgage you wouldn’t be calling me brainwashed. 

Maybe it's just the dumb people ITT with an IQ lower than 50. However, I think that poster was just pointing out the the BOC releases the stats.

 

Never knew you had kids, how many? Never seen you post about them...

Edited March 20 by bishopshodan

[Boudrias]

12 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

 

Agree with a lot of this, especially the LNG sector. Although 1% of 2.2T = 22 billion, not 220. Although I do believe the investment in EV infrastructure should continue, it shouldn't come at the cost of the oil and gas industry. Both have a role to play.

To much the number cruncher with not enough detail to decimal points. Yes $22 billion. Imagine a 3% growth rate and the impact on government finances. Look at te relative ease that Canada sailed through 2008 on the strength of the Canadian petroleum dollar. The difference between the two is who is spending the money. I would suggest the government should not be investing at the level they have in this industry. If the private sector share had been larger then perhaps. EV sales have turned down and often in correlation to the level of government subsidy in their purchase. If debt at all levels, government and consumer, is as bad as I suggest then subsidies will be curbed through necessity not that the idea of EV is a bad one. 

[Elias Pettersson]

5 hours ago, StrayDog said:

Are you saying they shouldn't be paid that much? 

No I didn’t say that. The poverty line to live in Vancouver is $36k per year. Why is that?  Why do you need to make $36k just to be at the poverty line?  
 

CPP and OAS are at $2k per month. If you don’t have a company pension you are making even less than the poverty line in your retirement. 

 

This is not sustainable. Everyone knows this. But the government isn’t at fault for anything. That’s the running theme. Except the average person doesn’t actually believe that. 

Edited March 20 by Elias Pettersson

[The Arrogant Worms]

1 hour ago, Ricky Ravioli said:

 

[The Arrogant Worms]

2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

No I didn’t say that. The poverty line to live in Vancouver is $36k per year. Why is that?  Why do you need to make $36k just to be at the poverty line?  
 

CPP and OAS are at $2k per month. If you don’t have a company pension you are making even less than the poverty line in your retirement. 

 

This is not sustainable. Everyone knows this. But the government isn’t at fault for anything. That’s the running theme. Except the average person doesn’t actually believe that. 

My CPP and OAS is far less than $2000 a month

[Ricky Ravioli]

2 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

 

I see the posting of that picture clearly went over a couple posters heads...

 

Anyways