Canadian Politics Thread

[Chicken.]

1 minute ago, Duodenum said:

Maybe it is. Canada has resources galore, yet leadership doesn't know how to use it.

We need a Rutherford?

[Miss Korea]

6 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

So not having a carbon tax, or at least annual increases when average people are already getting squeezed, is doing nothing to improve the Canadian climate environment.. alright. Im alright with ridding single use plastic and charging for grocery bags as common sense changes to habitual consumer behaviours.

Its still hitting people’s wallets even if not a major inflationary factor (I need to read that article more closely how that was concluded, it was crazy long), and I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze as we will continue to feel global climate change impacts regardless.

Anyway, I see your perspective and I’m sure many people are in agreement, my original intent of replying was to point out that in BC many people are not getting back what they pay in and its a net take for the Gov. 
 

 

Well, BC really is a different case of its own, like I mentioned to you earlier today.  In Canada, the tax is truly designed to be revenue-neutral, and whatever doesn't get given back to Canadians is then put into those climate initiatives you were talking about in your last post.  

 

There haven't yet been any studies on the actual effectiveness of the federal carbon tax, although it's modeled after other countries' carbon taxes and should work fine.  But the BC tax has been around long enough for some specific data to emerge.  An analysis by Nicholas Rivers and Brandon Schaufele suggested a 5-15% reduction in fuel consumption in British Columbia due to the tax.

 

But to bring back my original point about the average citizen's belief vs. intention vs. perception, it's a total mess:

• Poll: 54% of Canadians believe the country should continue pushing towards its 2030 emissions reduction targets. (Angus Reid)
• Poll: 61% of Canadians think the carbon tax is either ineffective or somewhat ineffective in reducing fuel consumption (Nanos)
• Poll: 45% of Canadians don't realize they're getting rebates for the carbon tax (Angus Reid)

https://www.ivey.uwo.ca/media/1361386/effect-of-carbon-taxes-on-agricultural-trade.pdf

https://angusreid.org/carbon-tax-perceptions-rebates/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nearly-half-of-canadians-think-carbon-tax-is-ineffective-at-fighting-climate-change-nanos-1.6681740

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/december-2023/carbon-price-affordability/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/carbon-tax-inflation-tiff-macklem-calgary-1.6960189

[Miss Korea]

49 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The first post you quoted was the most recent one where I corrected my error and acknowledged that you are correct that the federal debt is actually $1.2 trillion. 
 

In terms of whose fault that is, Trudeau took over a balanced budget in 2016 with a federal debt of $629 billion. So the federal debt has doubled during his tenure. He also promised balanced budgets by 2019 which never happened. This was before COVID happened. So Trudeau was never going to balance the budget regardless of COVID, inflation, world wars, etc. 

 

As for the provinces with conservatives contributing to the overall national debt, I did post an article which shows that everyone’s favourite province, Alberta, with its conservative government has actually ran a balanced budget with a surplus for 4 consecutive years since Kenney took over from the NDP in 2019. 
 

So your logic that it’s the provincial conservative governments that are screwing up our national debt doesn’t really fly. The two provinces which have the least amount of debt and the lowest debt to GDP per person are Alberta and Saskatchewan, both with conservative governments. 

 

This talk is going in circles.

 

As I mentioned before, you're propping up surplus numbers from provincial governments which have seen aggressive cutbacks in health care and education.  These are certainly two of the most important and most expensive jurisdictions for provinces, and they are also in complete disarray.  Alberta is the kicker, where they also laid off 40% of forest firefighters a couple years ago.  So when the fires hit the province, guess who bailed them out?  Everyone else.  The overhead on that effort did not factor into the provincial budget.  So they saved money!  

[Bob Long]

33 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

We need a Rutherford?

 

We do, and his name is Carney.

[Chicken.]

19 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

We do, and his name is Carney.

Sign me up.

 

If wikipedia is to be trusted he doesn't seem too busy currently  hes making the bag before coming back to public service to save the country.

This is the type of experience we need, bring on the economist.

 

He is chairman, and head of impact investing at Brookfield Asset Management since 2020, and was named chairman of Bloomberg Inc., parent company of Bloomberg L.P., in 2023. 

 

He also serves as the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.

Edited March 23 by Chicken.

[Bob Long]

14 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

Sign me up.

 

If wikipedia is to be trusted he doesn't seem too busy currently  hes making the bag before coming back to public service to save the country.

This is the type of experience we need, bring on the economist.

 

He is chairman, and head of impact investing at Brookfield Asset Management since 2020, and was named chairman of Bloomberg Inc., parent company of Bloomberg L.P., in 2023. 

 

He also serves as the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.

 

If Carney replaced Trudeau the libs would win, and he'd be the only candidate with real world experience outside of being an mp.

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

1.  The first post you quoted was the most recent one where I corrected my error and acknowledged that you are correct that the federal debt is actually $1.2 trillion. 
 

2.  In terms of whose fault that is, Trudeau took over a balanced budget in 2016 with a federal debt of $629 billion. So the federal debt has doubled during his tenure. He also promised balanced budgets by 2019 which never happened. This was before COVID happened. So Trudeau was never going to balance the budget regardless of COVID, inflation, world wars, etc. 

 

3.  As for the provinces with conservatives contributing to the overall national debt, I did post an article which shows that everyone’s favourite province, Alberta, with its conservative government has actually ran a balanced budget with a surplus for 4 consecutive years since Kenney took over from the NDP in 2019. 
 

4.  So your logic that it’s the provincial conservative governments that are screwing up our national debt doesn’t really fly. The two provinces which have the least amount of debt and the lowest debt to GDP per person are Alberta and Saskatchewan, both with conservative governments. 

1.  Glad you admit that, unsure why you felt the need to argue it over successive days.

 

2.  Trudeau took over no balanced budget.  The only reason the budget appeared balanced is because the government before him sold all their shares in GM collected due to the auto bailout, as well as a few crown corporate interests and strategic sales which appeared to balance the books.  The sale of the wheat board and various sales to chinese interests did us no favours in the time since.

 

3.  As for the provinces with conservatives contributing to the overall debt.  8 of our provinces are run by conservative governments.  With their smaller populations Alberta and Sask had none of the same issues of growth that Quebec, BC or Ontario did.  Alberta and Sask also have significant resource economies in oil and potash.  This is evidenced by governments having to sell assets or run deficits the moment resource prices drop.  Which is why it is important to remind you that in late 2014 early 2015 oil prices started dropping.  This last for 3-4 years or the entirety of the duration of the Alberta NDP and Trudeau's first term.  It is easy to produce a budget surplus when you have a bounce back of resource prices ina  strictly resource driven economy after cutting funding to vital services.

 

https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/dashboard/wcs-oil-price/

 

But then these small facts rarely make it in to the argument as they would prove the narrative false.

 

4.  By my logic?  You mean by basic historical basis of fact right?  All one has to do is look and see what 4 or 5 provinces hold the largest debt and what their political histories are and who ran them during their largest provincial deficits.  But again you use the two Conservative provinces with the smallest populations when weighed against their respective resource driven economies.   

 

Cherry picking is all well and good but...heres the thing.

 

BC's debt:  $107,636,908 million.  BCs Premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-bc  Population:  5 million

 

Alberta's debt:  $78,241,341 million.  Alberta's premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-alberta  Population:  4.3 million 

 

Saskatchewans debt:  $18,091939 million.  Saskatchewan's Premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-saskatchewan   Population:  1.1 million

 

Ontarios debt:  $406,199,767 million.  Ontario Premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-ontario  Population:  14.5 million

 

Quebec's debt:  $231,752,198 million.  Quebec's Premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-quebec  Population: 8.5 million

 

When you look at these provinces, their GDPs vs debt and their population growth vs your insinuations you realize very quickly that going back to the modern debt issues post BoC in the 70s that the highest population and debt growth of these provinces have occurred since the mid to late 80s.  That these provinces have been run predominantly by conservative or right wing governments and that when you factor in when and where these debts were accumulated that it is almost universally Conservative or right wing premiers/governments accumulating these levels of debt and this is inarguable.  You can cherry pick the two consistently run Conservative provinces with the single highest levels of resource driven revenues and smallest populations but then you also have to look at the how and why and weigh that against oil prices or resource prices to see HOW they manage to derive those surpluses.

 

I've heard a few very intelligent people in finance outright state that Alberta's lack of any appreciable savings AND their debt are an indictment to the province and not something to be applauded because they've pissed away hundreds of billions over the last near 6 decades

 

But then you have an opinion so.....

[4petesake]

3 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Just had lunch with my sister who works in marketing for one of the big grocery chains.  She obviously doesn't know the specifics of what's going on in the top office, but the industry as a whole... is not raking in the cash right now.

 

 

And yet Loblaws managed to spend $1.73 Billion in stock buybacks in 2023.

 

 

Pretty tough for grocers to complain theres no margin in selling food when Loblaws spends over $1.7 billion on buybacks in a year. $L pic.twitter.com/BewqARInWo

— The Deep Dive (@TheDeepDive_ca) 

 

Meanwhile over at Walmart…

 

 

 

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Just had lunch with my sister who works in marketing for one of the big grocery chains.  She obviously doesn't know the specifics of what's going on in the top office, but the industry as a whole... is not raking in the cash right now.

 

There may also be some standard market economics at play here.  The pandemic had everyone cooking from home and it was a grocer's wet dream.  They could keep prices relatively low and still make massive profits because sales were so high.  Now that sales are lower... the price must also go up.  

 

With all that being said... JOIN THE CLUB

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/loblawsisoutofcontrol/

 

Probably because the majority of profits are going to CEOs and shareholders, not employees.

 

Honestly the two best things young people could do right now are make FAR better purchasing decisions, AND unionize en masse.

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The first post you quoted was the most recent one where I corrected my error and acknowledged that you are correct that the federal debt is actually $1.2 trillion. 
 

In terms of whose fault that is, Trudeau took over a balanced budget in 2016 with a federal debt of $629 billion. So the federal debt has doubled during his tenure. He also promised balanced budgets by 2019 which never happened. This was before COVID happened. So Trudeau was never going to balance the budget regardless of COVID, inflation, world wars, etc. 

 

As for the provinces with conservatives contributing to the overall national debt, I did post an article which shows that everyone’s favourite province, Alberta, with its conservative government has actually ran a balanced budget with a surplus for 4 consecutive years since Kenney took over from the NDP in 2019. 
 

So your logic that it’s the provincial conservative governments that are screwing up our national debt doesn’t really fly. The two provinces which have the least amount of debt and the lowest debt to GDP per person are Alberta and Saskatchewan, both with conservative governments. 

 

I see Warhippy already covered this but those budgets were "balanced" based on slashing social funding, including "unimportant" things like the Coast Guard and military, never mind programs that help the people struggling the most in the current economy that you prupport to defend the need for "change" to help out. That and selling our Canadian resources to the Chinese and the Wheat Board to the Saudis. While also giving tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations.

 

Again, the Liberals are FAR from perfect, but voting Conservative for "change" to help those most effected in the current difficult economic realities is the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

As for Alberta, similarly their budget surplus is on the backs of massive slashes to things like health care and a booming resource economy/relatively small population. It's certainly not based on prudent planning and sound economic stewardship.

 

One sober look at historic facts should tell anyone all they need to know about how conservative governments regularly perform worse economically, while also being worse for the general public in basically every facet of governance that matters to things like quality of life, education, health care, crime, etc, etc, etc.

 

3 hours ago, Chicken. said:

So not having a carbon tax, or at least annual increases when average people are already getting squeezed, is doing nothing to improve the Canadian climate environment.. alright. Im alright with ridding single use plastic and charging for grocery bags as common sense changes to habitual consumer behaviours.

Its still hitting people’s wallets even if not a major inflationary factor (I need to read that article more closely how that was concluded, it was crazy long), and I don't think the juice is worth the squeeze as we will continue to feel global climate change impacts regardless.

Anyway, I see your perspective and I’m sure many people are in agreement, my original intent of replying was to point out that in BC many people are not getting back what they pay in and its a net take for the Gov. 
 

 

 

Sorry, didn't mean to quote you and can't seem to delete.

Edited March 24 by aGENT

[Elias Pettersson]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

1.  Glad you admit that, unsure why you felt the need to argue it over successive days.

 

2.  Trudeau took over no balanced budget.  The only reason the budget appeared balanced is because the government before him sold all their shares in GM collected due to the auto bailout, as well as a few crown corporate interests and strategic sales which appeared to balance the books.  The sale of the wheat board and various sales to chinese interests did us no favours in the time since.

 

3.  As for the provinces with conservatives contributing to the overall debt.  8 of our provinces are run by conservative governments.  With their smaller populations Alberta and Sask had none of the same issues of growth that Quebec, BC or Ontario did.  Alberta and Sask also have significant resource economies in oil and potash.  This is evidenced by governments having to sell assets or run deficits the moment resource prices drop.  Which is why it is important to remind you that in late 2014 early 2015 oil prices started dropping.  This last for 3-4 years or the entirety of the duration of the Alberta NDP and Trudeau's first term.  It is easy to produce a budget surplus when you have a bounce back of resource prices ina  strictly resource driven economy after cutting funding to vital services.

 

https://economicdashboard.alberta.ca/dashboard/wcs-oil-price/

 

But then these small facts rarely make it in to the argument as they would prove the narrative false.

 

4.  By my logic?  You mean by basic historical basis of fact right?  All one has to do is look and see what 4 or 5 provinces hold the largest debt and what their political histories are and who ran them during their largest provincial deficits.  But again you use the two Conservative provinces with the smallest populations when weighed against their respective resource driven economies.   

 

Cherry picking is all well and good but...heres the thing.

 

BC's debt:  $107,636,908 million.  BCs Premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-bc  Population:  5 million

 

Alberta's debt:  $78,241,341 million.  Alberta's premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-alberta  Population:  4.3 million 

 

Saskatchewans debt:  $18,091939 million.  Saskatchewan's Premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-saskatchewan   Population:  1.1 million

 

Ontarios debt:  $406,199,767 million.  Ontario Premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-ontario  Population:  14.5 million

 

Quebec's debt:  $231,752,198 million.  Quebec's Premiers:  https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/premiers-of-quebec  Population: 8.5 million

 

When you look at these provinces, their GDPs vs debt and their population growth vs your insinuations you realize very quickly that going back to the modern debt issues post BoC in the 70s that the highest population and debt growth of these provinces have occurred since the mid to late 80s.  That these provinces have been run predominantly by conservative or right wing governments and that when you factor in when and where these debts were accumulated that it is almost universally Conservative or right wing premiers/governments accumulating these levels of debt and this is inarguable.  You can cherry pick the two consistently run Conservative provinces with the single highest levels of resource driven revenues and smallest populations but then you also have to look at the how and why and weigh that against oil prices or resource prices to see HOW they manage to derive those surpluses.

 

I've heard a few very intelligent people in finance outright state that Alberta's lack of any appreciable savings AND their debt are an indictment to the province and not something to be applauded because they've pissed away hundreds of billions over the last near 6 decades

 

But then you have an opinion so.....

 

The next federal government is going to have to pick a side.  There isn’t enough money going around to continue to rack up the debt, continue our current social programs, continue with healthcare the way it is, and keep the size of government as it is now.

 

The new government will need to cut somewhere.  Or raise taxes.  Chretien cut federal programs as well as cutting taxes.  He also made it a priority to cut the deficit.  He managed to keep most people happy for as long as possible, but even Chretien wore out his welcome and had to resign.  Martin tried to take his place but it wasn’t enough and that’s how Harper got into government. Looks like the same thing is going to happen again.  This Liberal government seems intent on running deficits in perpetuity.  I think a lot of people, especially the younger generation, are okay with that.  They would rather just keep racking up the debt versus cutting social programs.  

 

With interest rates they way they are that sounds like a recipe for disaster.  I don’t think we will ever see those 2% interest rates again.  So increasing our national debt and making those interest payments every month is really going to hurt revenues.  I don’t think the national debt will ever get paid off now.  Not in our lifetimes anyways.  IMO, I can see more taxes in relation to housing coming soon.  Something has to give in order to at minimum pay the interest payments on the debt.  Don’t be shocked if we see some type of a capital gains tax on your principal residence. 

Edited March 24 by Elias Pettersson

[Miss Korea]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

Probably because the majority of profits are going to CEOs and shareholders, not employees.

 

Honestly the two best things young people could do right now are make FAR better purchasing decisions, AND unionize en masse.

 

@Elias Pettersson would prefer to maintain the same spending habits/purchasing decisions.  That's taken a big bite out of his wallet and he's blaming JT for it.

 

[Alflives]

33 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The next federal government is going to have to pick a side.  There isn’t enough money going around to continue to rack up the debt, continue our current social programs, continue with healthcare the way it is, and keep the size of government as it is now.

 

The new government will need to cut somewhere.  Or raise taxes.  Chretien cut federal programs as well as cutting taxes.  He also made it a priority to cut the deficit.  He managed to keep most people happy for as long as possible, but even Chretien wore out his welcome and had to resign.  Martin tried to take his place but it wasn’t enough and that’s how Harper got into government. Looks like the same thing is going to happen again.  This Liberal government seems intent on running deficits in perpetuity.  I think a lot of people, especially the younger generation, are okay with that.  They would rather just keep racking up the debt versus cutting social programs.  

 

With interest rates they way they are that sounds like a recipe for disaster.  I don’t think we will ever see those 2% interest rates again.  So increasing our national debt and making those interest payments every month is really going to hurt revenues.  I don’t think the national debt will ever get paid off now.  Not in our lifetimes anyways.  IMO, I can see more taxes in relation to housing coming soon.  Something has to give in order to at minimum pay the interest payments on the debt.  Don’t be shocked if we see some type of a capital gains tax on your principal residence. 

If Poo Poo wins the PM seat then austerity is for sure. If people think things are difficult financially now, they’re in for a shock at hard it’s going to become under Poo Poo 

[Bob Long]

21 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If Poo Poo wins the PM seat then austerity is for sure. If people think things are difficult financially now, they’re in for a shock at hard it’s going to become under Poo Poo 

 

He may just raise the HST 

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The next federal government is going to have to pick a side.  There isn’t enough money going around to continue to rack up the debt, continue our current social programs, continue with healthcare the way it is, and keep the size of government as it is now.

 

The new government will need to cut somewhere.  Or raise taxes.  Chretien cut federal programs as well as cutting taxes.  He also made it a priority to cut the deficit.  He managed to keep most people happy for as long as possible, but even Chretien wore out his welcome and had to resign.  Martin tried to take his place but it wasn’t enough and that’s how Harper got into government. Looks like the same thing is going to happen again.  This Liberal government seems intent on running deficits in perpetuity.  I think a lot of people, especially the younger generation, are okay with that.  They would rather just keep racking up the debt versus cutting social programs.  

 

With interest rates they way they are that sounds like a recipe for disaster.  I don’t think we will ever see those 2% interest rates again.  So increasing our national debt and making those interest payments every month is really going to hurt revenues.  I don’t think the national debt will ever get paid off now.  Not in our lifetimes anyways.  IMO, I can see more taxes in relation to housing coming soon.  Something has to give in order to at minimum pay the interest payments on the debt.  Don’t be shocked if we see some type of a capital gains tax on your principal residence. 

The standard response to government debt was that the country would grow itself out of the debt. For years the anticipated GDP growth was +/- 2.5%. The Americans are blowing that number out of the water but here in Canada we struggle to reach 0%. This is why I suggest PP will look at energy exports, both oil and LNG. Growing this industry will benefit the entire country. 

[Elias Pettersson]

50 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If Poo Poo wins the PM seat then austerity is for sure. If people think things are difficult financially now, they’re in for a shock at hard it’s going to become under Poo Poo 

Chretien benefited greatly from the GST that was set up by Mulroney. He talked about getting rid of it but that was never going to happen. The GST helped Chretien balance his budgets. 
 

Don’t be surprised if we get a new tax implemented after a new government is formed. Something has to give in order to make those interest payments on the debt. 

[Elias Pettersson]

21 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

The standard response to government debt was that the country would grow itself out of the debt. For years the anticipated GDP growth was +/- 2.5%. The Americans are blowing that number out of the water but here in Canada we struggle to reach 0%. This is why I suggest PP will look at energy exports, both oil and LNG. Growing this industry will benefit the entire country. 

The GST accounts for 11% of total government revenue. I can see another tax being implemented to increase revenues. The GST could also be increased. It was originally 7%. I could see it going back to 7%. That would be a very simple way to increase revenues. 
 

I can also see a small tax being implemented on your principal residence. I don’t see a conservative government increasing personal taxes.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, Miss Korea said:

 

@Elias Pettersson would prefer to maintain the same spending habits/purchasing decisions.  That's taken a big bite out of his wallet and he's blaming JT for it.

 

I grew up with balanced budgets and a booming economy. So I never had to worry about my spending habits. At my age I’m certainly not going to worry about it now. So JT really has no influence on my life. I’m worried about others in my life. The younger generation. 
 

As for the younger generation, the current deficit and debt payments aren’t going to serve you well. So I wish you luck in your future endeavours. Maybe one day the government will allow you to buy a property and go for a nice steak dinner. Most gen z’ers don’t think they will ever own a property though. That’s a shame really. A lost generation is never a good thing. 

[Miss Korea]

9 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I grew up with balanced budgets and a booming economy. So I never had to worry about my spending habits. At my age I’m certainly not going to worry about it now. So JT really has no influence on my life. I’m worried about others in my life. The younger generation. 
 

As for the younger generation, the current deficit and debt payments aren’t going to serve you well. So I wish you luck in your future endeavours. Maybe one day the government will allow you to buy a property and go for a nice steak dinner. Most gen z’ers don’t think they will ever own a property though. That’s a shame really. A lost generation is never a good thing. 

 

Disclaimer: don't forget about my personal bias.  I'm someone who's never voted for the LPC, and likely won't next election either.  I have no great love for them or Justin Trudeau.

 

You grew up with many boom-bust cycles over the decades.  You had one in the early 90s (one which you acknowledge was dealt with by Chrétien).  You had one in the late 2000s.  We had a short one during COVID, and we're likely on the cusp of one soon.  What you likely didn't grow up with was the deficit spending during the boom cycles.  The decision to continue running the deficit was an odd one before and after the pandemic; politics certainly played a large role in it.  I'm not overly excited about that decision, but at least much of it was spent on some much-needed infrastructure, child care, and fighting climate change.

 

And yet... the numbers suggest Harper's deficit spending was considerably worse compared to Trudeau.  Even Mulroney was worse.  Trudeau's overall average debt-to-GDP ratio still sits below the averages of previous Conservative PMs.  It's a hard sell for average Canadians today that are getting squeezed by inflation, but the numbers are in JT's favour.

 

 

 

 

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/fin/publications/frt-trf/2023/frt-trf-23-eng.pdf

 

If the Liberals want to stay in power, they need to find a better way to keep the economy from sinking into a recession while managing their deficit spending.  At the very least, I think Trudeau's Liberals have a far better track record than a Harper 2.0 we're likely to see under a Poilievre CPC government.  As I pointed out with Alberta, a budget surplus means jack shit if you're cutting costs on essential services.  Alberta saved a few bucks on firefighters and the rest of Canada had to foot the bill when they came in to combat the wildfires.  You can apply that same analogy to AHS, which laid off hundreds of nurses during the height of the pandemic.

 

And yes.  You should be changing your spending habits.  If a business is gouging you for every cent you got, only a fool sits idly while they take your money from you.  That's... life.  You're complaining about the price of going out and you're blaming it on Trudeau, so clearly you think he's had some influence in your daily living.  

 

BTW, you want Gen Z to own houses?  Tank housing prices.  Cut the value of your home in half.  I dare a federal government to try doing that.  They've got quite a few policy tools at their disposal to pull that off.  I'm sure that will be a very popular move.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Disclaimer: don't forget about my personal bias.  I'm someone who's never voted for the LPC, and likely won't next election either.  I have no great love for them or Justin Trudeau.

 

You grew up with many boom-bust cycles over the decades.  You had one in the early 90s (one which you acknowledge was dealt with by Chrétien).  You had one in the late 2000s.  We had a short one during COVID, and we're likely on the cusp of one soon.  What you likely didn't grow up with was the deficit spending during the boom cycles.  The decision to continue running the deficit was an odd one before and after the pandemic; politics certainly played a large role in it.  I'm not overly excited about that decision, but at least much of it was spent on some much-needed infrastructure, child care, and fighting climate change.

 

And yet... the numbers suggest Harper's deficit spending was considerably worse compared to Trudeau.  Even Mulroney was worse.  Trudeau's overall average debt-to-GDP ratio still sits below the averages of previous Conservative PMs.  It's a hard sell for average Canadians today that are getting squeezed by inflation, but the numbers are in JT's favour.

 

 

 

 

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/fin/publications/frt-trf/2023/frt-trf-23-eng.pdf

 

If the Liberals want to stay in power, they need to find a better way to keep the economy from sinking into a recession while managing their deficit spending.  At the very least, I think Trudeau's Liberals have a far better track record than a Harper 2.0 we're likely to see under a Poilievre CPC government.  As I pointed out with Alberta, a budget surplus means jack shit if you're cutting costs on essential services.  Alberta saved a few bucks on firefighters and the rest of Canada had to foot the bill when they came in to combat the wildfires.  You can apply that same analogy to AHS, which laid off hundreds of nurses during the height of the pandemic.

 

And yes.  You should be changing your spending habits.  If a business is gouging you for every cent you got, only a fool sits idly while they take your money from you.  That's... life.  You're complaining about the price of going out and you're blaming it on Trudeau, so clearly you think he's had some influence in your daily living.  

 

BTW, you want Gen Z to own houses?  Tank housing prices.  Cut the value of your home in half.  I dare a federal government to try doing that.  They've got quite a few policy tools at their disposal to pull that off.  I'm sure that will be a very popular move.

 

The problem with comparing Trudeau to those other PM's is that back in the days of Mulroney and Chretien, house prices were dramatically lower, but wages were still pretty high in comparison.  So, you got more value for your buck.  Back in the 1990's I had friends as well as myself who were making six figure incomes.  A detached home in the 1990's was around $300k in East Vancouver.  So, as you can see life was much better back then.  I bought my first condo for $86,000 back in the 1990's.  I only needed to save up for one year to buy it.  Actually, really only 6 months.  Plus buying a car only took a few months of savings.  Eating out was not a problem.  I remember the days of $9.99 all you can eat sushi.

 

Our purchasing power was dramatically higher in those days.  Even when Harper took over it still wasn't too bad.  Things went off the rails around 2007 or so.  By 2016 it was a complete shit show and hasn't changed since in close to a decade.  House prices have more than doubled in the last decade.  Which has made real estate completely unaffordable for even a person making a six figure income.

 

Fast forward to today.  If you are making $100k today you are still not able to even really live a good life.  You are paying the bills and maybe going out for diner once a month if you are a family.  And how long will it take to save up to buy a car?  What about a condo?  That's the difference.  Your purchasing power is almost nothing today.  And that is because wages have not kept up with real estate prices or even other goods and services.  

 

At the end of the day, there really isn't any good solution to the problem.  Is PP going to fix everything?  Of course not.  He may make things worse.  But Trudeau isn't fixing everything either.  So, it's a lost cause no matter who is in charge.  With our current deficit, I don't think things will ever get better.  Not in the next decade or so anyways.  As with every other government, people eventually want change.  I am pretty hard on Trudeau these days, maybe I get too emotional in this thread, so I am guilty of that like you and many others.  Politics is a hot button issue and discussing it isn't for everyone.  Most people on CFF and the old CDC stay far away from the political threads.  These threads were so bad on CDC that they had to be put into a private section.  So that tells you everything you need to know.  

 

I can make a comment to a post and then I will get 3-4 sarcastic responses afterwards.  This happens all the time.  You know this as you read the posts.  It doesn't help discussion and pushes people away from these threads.  

 

One more thing.  As for Gen Z being able to buy a home and that house prices need to tank to accomplish that, well that is never going to happen.  I mean, even if house prices dropped by 50%, they would still be unaffordable for the average person.  The only way that Gen Z has a hope to be able to buy a property is if there is a massive amount of supply that comes onto the market, and also that supply has to be smaller condos where the price point drops considerably.  Same with houses.  You just need to build smaller homes.  This comes with multi-family units, triplexes, fourplexes, etc.  If you build the smaller homes with the smaller price points, then people may have a shot at getting into the market.

[Miss Korea]

@Elias Pettersson I don't want to lose my train of thought

 

[Bob Long]

6 hours ago, Miss Korea said:

 

Disclaimer: don't forget about my personal bias.  I'm someone who's never voted for the LPC, and likely won't next election either.  I have no great love for them or Justin Trudeau.

 

You grew up with many boom-bust cycles over the decades.  You had one in the early 90s (one which you acknowledge was dealt with by Chrétien).  You had one in the late 2000s.  We had a short one during COVID, and we're likely on the cusp of one soon.  What you likely didn't grow up with was the deficit spending during the boom cycles.  The decision to continue running the deficit was an odd one before and after the pandemic; politics certainly played a large role in it.  I'm not overly excited about that decision, but at least much of it was spent on some much-needed infrastructure, child care, and fighting climate change.

 

And yet... the numbers suggest Harper's deficit spending was considerably worse compared to Trudeau.  Even Mulroney was worse.  Trudeau's overall average debt-to-GDP ratio still sits below the averages of previous Conservative PMs.  It's a hard sell for average Canadians today that are getting squeezed by inflation, but the numbers are in JT's favour.

 

 

 

 

https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/fin/publications/frt-trf/2023/frt-trf-23-eng.pdf

 

If the Liberals want to stay in power, they need to find a better way to keep the economy from sinking into a recession while managing their deficit spending.  At the very least, I think Trudeau's Liberals have a far better track record than a Harper 2.0 we're likely to see under a Poilievre CPC government.  As I pointed out with Alberta, a budget surplus means jack shit if you're cutting costs on essential services.  Alberta saved a few bucks on firefighters and the rest of Canada had to foot the bill when they came in to combat the wildfires.  You can apply that same analogy to AHS, which laid off hundreds of nurses during the height of the pandemic.

 

And yes.  You should be changing your spending habits.  If a business is gouging you for every cent you got, only a fool sits idly while they take your money from you.  That's... life.  You're complaining about the price of going out and you're blaming it on Trudeau, so clearly you think he's had some influence in your daily living.  

 

BTW, you want Gen Z to own houses?  Tank housing prices.  Cut the value of your home in half.  I dare a federal government to try doing that.  They've got quite a few policy tools at their disposal to pull that off.  I'm sure that will be a very popular move.

 

You half the initial value by providing leasehold property. They can start doing that tomorrow.

[Bob Long]

7 hours ago, Boudrias said:

The standard response to government debt was that the country would grow itself out of the debt. For years the anticipated GDP growth was +/- 2.5%. The Americans are blowing that number out of the water but here in Canada we struggle to reach 0%. This is why I suggest PP will look at energy exports, both oil and LNG. Growing this industry will benefit the entire country. 

 

Sure but that's only good for one narrow segment of the economy. Plus Trudeau has already done that with tmx and natural gas project approvals.

Edited March 24 by Bob Long

[Gurn]

Speaking of food prices

CBC's Marketplace had a good story on last night- on GEM network/channel.

Focus was on price gouging in the north, yet managed to talk about how people that pay supermarkets to display and sell their product are also getting screwed by major retailers. Also talked of the windfall profits being made.

 

Here is a link to all the stories they have done on food

https://www.cbc.ca/search?q=Northern food prices&section=news&sortOrder=relevance&media=all

[Master Mind]

19 hours ago, Bob Long said:

@Master Mind I've been thinking about your neutrality stance a bit more. It does make some sense, none of us have the capacity to be both knowledgable or invested in every single file the government has. 

 

I think this is where trust comes in. Knowing where your preferred party likely stands on an issue is a pretty good predictor or where they will stand in areas you aren't invested in. 

 

What I see with Poilievre is a belligerent stand on most things, and very little substance on major issues, to being just flat out lying on others. I can't trust him when it comes down to it, unless you can show me where the actual plans are so I can evaluate them? 

 

 

Glad to hear you're seeing where I'm coming from.

 

Even in areas I'm not invested in, I do often have a general idea of what the party's stance would be. However, if I'm not invested in said subject, it's unlikely to impact my vote.

 

I don't have anything to show you that you wouldn't already know regarding his plans. Not trusting him is fair, as I don't trust any party at the end of the day. Whether it's a valid reason is up for debate, I think the main draw for many people is that he'd be a change, and that aspect alone will be enough for him to be successful.