Canadian Politics Thread

[Elias Pettersson]

3 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

 

The last election in 2021 that was not needed and was only for Trudeau's ego cost the taxpayers $600 million...

[Coconuts]

15 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Rich people took advantage of high inflation, which means high interest rates, which means making more money on their money.  They also took advantage of the housing boom.  They also took advantage of a slowing economy by moving their money around and waiting for the market to flip.  They aren't interested however in increased taxation and wealth redistribution.

 

Didn't Chretien cut social services to balance the budget?  Hard choices need to be made.  I know some on here think you can just print money with no repercussions, but that is just not true at all.  The young generation will be the ones who suffer from that, and that is why alot of generation z is voting Conservative...

 

You see the issues with this, right? 

 

Those living towards the margins shouldn't have their supports stripped away because governments can't figure out how to make the wealthy pay their proportional share. 

 

Why should a financially conservative approach to balancing budgets involve slashing supports for low and mid-income earners? Yeah, I get that funding for these things has to come from somewhere but it all just seems so backwards. 

 

We talk about income inequities and the folks who always seem to ultimately pay for said inequities are those who are suffering the most because of said inequities. 

 

Young generations will suffer because we ultimately can't satisfy the greed and financial hoarding of the wealthy. 

Edited Saturday at 07:09 PM by Coconuts

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Boudrias said:

Not worth commenting on. I believe Ford ran against a women. The same type of comments were being made about him. He won and was re-elected. 

How about we consider the platforms rather than looks or cheap shots. If the platform does not stand up against the opposition then don't vote for the candidate. 

 

If that's how people actually voted, we wouldn't see a con government leading in the polls in their current guise.

 

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I thought Trudeau was a man of the people?  What happened?

 

 

The wealth gap had been widening for 40+ years under neocon and neoliberal governance. It's not going to get any better flip flopping back under the Cons.

[4petesake]

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Rich people took advantage of high inflation, which means high interest rates, which means making more money on their money.  They also took advantage of the housing boom.  They also took advantage of a slowing economy by moving their money around and waiting for the market to flip.  They aren't interested however in increased taxation and wealth redistribution.

 

Didn't Chretien cut social services to balance the budget?  Hard choices need to be made.  I know some on here think you can just print money with no repercussions, but that is just not true at all.  The young generation will be the ones who suffer from that, and that is why alot of generation z is voting Conservative...

 

-I’m well aware of the advantages of rich people have gained from the economy, they took advantage…

-I don’t care if rich people are interested in paying higher taxes and wealth distribution.

-No one here thinks you can just print money with no repercussions.

 -Hard choices should include the wealthy, no?

 

Why is  the solution to balancing a budget always at the expense of the working poor but somehow the wealthiest 20% always get left out of the equation? The poor and middle class should just buckle down and work harder, make some sacrifices, and accept less but the same doesn’t hold true for the top 20%? Sacrifice should be equally shared by all at worst and at best be top-heavy by those most able. You know…the ones who have taken advantage the most from this economy.
 

 

 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

You see the issues with this, right? 

 

Those living towards the margins shouldn't have their supports stripped away because governments can't figure out how to make the wealthy pay their proportional share. 

 

Why should a financially conservative approach to balancing budgets involve slashing supports for low and mid-income earners? Yeah, I get that funding for these things has to come from somewhere but it all just seems so backwards. 

 

We talk about income inequities and the folks who always seem to ultimately pay for said inequities are those who are suffering the most because of said inequities. 

 

Young generations will suffer because we ultimately can't satisfy the greed and financial hoarding of the wealthy. 

 

The mental gymnastics eh? 

 

Wealth gap is widening, the rich are richer then ever. Let's cut even more supports for the people at//near the margins!

[NewbieCanuckFan]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

How was my post altered? I did not write the last 2 sentences. 

Sorry that was my bad editing.. Last two sentences are entirely mine.  

 

I've fixed it.

Edited Saturday at 08:51 PM by NewbieCanuckFan

[Coconuts]

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

The mental gymnastics eh? 

 

Wealth gap is widening, the rich are richer then ever. Let's cut even more supports for the people at//near the margins!

 

It's shit like this that has a lot of young folks thinking the French had the right idea with their guillotines. 

 

The wealth gap growing isn't new, Covid certainly exacerbated it though. It's not even a uniquely Canadian issue, wealth disparities have continued to grow around the world. 

 

The wealthy finding ways to enrich themselves isn't uniquely a liberal or conservative issue, I'm sure there are several examples of both parties historically contributing to the enrichment of society's corporate and Canadian elite. 

 

It's not just that governments can't find ways to make the wealthy pay their proportional share, it's that there's a lot of incentives for them not to. 

Edited Saturday at 07:21 PM by Coconuts

[The Arrogant Worms]

26 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The last election in 2021 that was not needed and was only for Trudeau's ego cost the taxpayers $600 million...

Change the narrative101

[The Arrogant Worms]

[Elias Pettersson]

46 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

You see the issues with this, right? 

 

Those living towards the margins shouldn't have their supports stripped away because governments can't figure out how to make the wealthy pay their proportional share. 

 

Why should a financially conservative approach to balancing budgets involve slashing supports for low and mid-income earners? Yeah, I get that funding for these things has to come from somewhere but it all just seems so backwards. 

 

We talk about income inequities and the folks who always seem to ultimately pay for said inequities are those who are suffering the most because of said inequities. 

 

Young generations will suffer because we ultimately can't satisfy the greed and financial hoarding of the wealthy. 

 

The issue right now that we've never had before is that the interest on the federal deficit is around $45 billion.  That debt needs to be paid out of revenues.  This is a direct result of printing money so that we can have good stuff.  

 

So, how does that $45 billion get paid?  You either increase revenues or decrease expenses.  No different than me or you with our own personal debt.

 

Hard choices need to be made.  We can't please everyone.  There obviously needs to be a balance.  Nobody has ever said we need to cut all social services from people that need them.  I never said that.  Chretien cut services.  I expect the Conservatives to do the same thing.  I also expect to see some type of taxation whereby we can increase revenues.  Not sure how that will look like.  

[bolt]

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-justin-trudeau-get-his-emails

 

Probably too intoxicated to answer emails on the Government jet anyways.

[RupertKBD]

15 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

National Post suggested Christy Clark 

 

Carney would be best but don't see it now.

 

Id probably go with Joly out of the current crop.

 

 

I was on that bandwagon back when JT's marriage ended. I thought it was the perfect time to call it quits and hand the reigns over to someone else. (I believe you were stumping for Carney around the same time)

 

I'd be fine with Freeland too, but I think the inflation thing has probably soured the electorate on her....

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The issue right now that we've never had before is that the interest on the federal deficit is around $45 billion.  That debt needs to be paid out of revenues.  This is a direct result of printing money so that we can have good stuff.  

 

So, how does that $45 billion get paid?  You either increase revenues or decrease expenses.  No different than me or you with our own personal debt.

 

Hard choices need to be made.  We can't please everyone.  There obviously needs to be a balance.  Nobody has ever said we need to cut all social services from people that need them.  I never said that.  Chretien cut services.  I expect the Conservatives to do the same thing.  I also expect to see some type of taxation whereby we can increase revenues.  Not sure how that will look like.  

 

I think what some of us are suggesting, given that the rich have never been richer, wealth gaps continue to expand, corporations posting quarterly after quarterly record profits, and we continue to see the erosion of the middle class (who largely pay those taxes and create that rising tax revenue), that perhaps slashing funding to those people and the ones even further down the margins, may not in fact be the proper solution here.

[Elias Pettersson]

40 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I think what some of us are suggesting, given that the rich have never been richer, wealth gaps continue to expand, corporations posting quarterly after quarterly record profits, and we continue to see the erosion of the middle class (who largely pay those taxes and create that rising tax revenue), that perhaps slashing funding to those people and the ones even further down the margins, may not in fact be the proper solution here.

The rich got even richer under Trudeau. So naturally nothing will change when the Conservatives take over. Why would anyone think otherwise?

 

Also, if the rich got richer under Trudeau, what makes you think anything will change if he is re-elected?  
 

Seems to me the erosion of the middle class will happen no matter who is in power. 

Edited Saturday at 09:54 PM by Elias Pettersson

[Warhippy]

5 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I thought Trudeau was a man of the people?  What happened?

 

Trudeau controls wages and CEO/1% wealth values?

[bishopshodan]

2 hours ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

 

 

I gotta admit...I am a fan...of 3 little dots...when I post...

[RupertKBD]

Just now, Warhippy said:

Trudeau controls wages and CEO/1% wealth values?

 

I know what Trudeau didn't do....

 

He didn't cut taxes for the 1% and cut funding for social programs....

[RupertKBD]

1 minute ago, bishopshodan said:

 

 

I gotta admit...I am a fan...of 3 little dots...when I post...

 

Guilty....

 

....but I do it with panache...

Edited Saturday at 10:13 PM by RupertKBD

[bishopshodan]

17 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The rich got even richer under Trudeau. So naturally nothing will change when the Conservatives take over. Why would anyone think otherwise?

 

Also, if the rich got richer under Trudeau, what makes you think anything will change if he is re-elected?  
 

Seems to me the erosion of the middle class will happen no matter who is in power. 

 

If that is your concern... 

It's almost like we should give the guy that says 'tax the rich' a shot.

 

I know, wild idea. 

 

[Warhippy]

Trying to manage the minefield of hypocrisy here.

 

Personal wealth increased under trudeau.  Good

Wealth inequality increased under trudeau like it has under EVERY PM since it started being charted.  Bad.

Inflation helped people who had sound investments succeed.  Good

Inflation made things these people will rarely ever be affected by.  Bad

The debt/deficit needs to be reigned in or social services will have to be cut and revenues need to increase. Bad

Conservatives plan to cut services, raise revenues by cutting taxes spurring investments meaning less for the majority more for the minority.  Good

 

I...what?  huh?

[Elias Pettersson]

7 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

If that is your concern... 

It's almost like we should give the guy that says 'tax the rich' a shot.

 

I know, wild idea. 

 

Trudeau had 9 years and counting to tax the rich. What happened?

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Trudeau had 9 years and counting to tax the rich. What happened?

 

It turned out that he wasn't Jagmeet?

 

Give that dude a shot, he's the one saying what you want, no?

[Warhippy]

8 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Trudeau had 9 years and counting to tax the rich. What happened?

But...you've spent years telling everyone that if he taxes the rich it's bad because it will chase off investment and kill the economy and that the rich will just hide their money anyway.

 

I don't get it

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, RupertKBD said:

 

I was on that bandwagon back when JT's marriage ended. I thought it was the perfect time to call it quits and hand the reigns over to someone else. (I believe you were stumping for Carney around the same time)

 

I'd be fine with Freeland too, but I think the inflation thing has probably soured the electorate on her....

 

I think she'd be good, but probably too closely linked with jt.

 

I could be wrong but I do think people would like to vote for liberal policy just not Justin.

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

The rich got even richer under Trudeau. So naturally nothing will change when the Conservatives take over. Why would anyone think otherwise?

 

Also, if the rich got richer under Trudeau, what makes you think anything will change if he is re-elected?  
 

Seems to me the erosion of the middle class will happen no matter who is in power. 

 

It will. It just happens faster and "gappier" under the Conservatives. I don't know how anyone in the bottom 2/3 of the earning population (or anyone with a conscience in the top 1/3rd) votes for that.... But vast swaths do. 

 

I don't particularly expect it to change if he (or the Liberals in general) gets re-elected, it just won't be as bad as it will be with the Cons. Perhaps in a continued minority, we continue to at least get things like dental and pharmacare programs. They sure as hell won't continue/be expanded under the Cons.