Tracking the Liberal government's record of keeping promises (a.k.a. Trudeaumeter 2)

355 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Well, it really depends what the Liberals will be spending the deficit on. If they spend most of it on useful infrastructure, as JKR hopefully imagines, then yes, that would help the economy, just as Krugman says. On the other hand, tax cuts for corporations and the upper middle class, more international military adventures and the like do little to stimulate the economy. So, it'll be interesting to see in the budget just where this larger deficit is spent.

I agree.

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

JKR wrote:

Mulcair wants to fight corporate power?!?!

Trudeau condemning Mulcair for not being a corporate toady like Trudeau is:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUWurysfiB0

I think Mulcair's 18% corporate tax rate was a great idea but I don't think the NDP's election promises were sufficient to get the economy running on all cylinders. I think that is one reason the NDP did so poorly on Election Day.

mark_alfred

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Well, it really depends what the Liberals will be spending the deficit on. If they spend most of it on useful infrastructure, as JKR hopefully imagines, then yes, that would help the economy, just as Krugman says. On the other hand, tax cuts for corporations and the upper middle class, more international military adventures and the like do little to stimulate the economy. So, it'll be interesting to see in the budget just where this larger deficit is spent.

Perhaps.  We'll see.  The thing about Keynesian economics is it recommends counter-cyclical policies.  So, rather than save in bad times and spend in good, you do the opposite.  Run deficits in bad times (spend), and increase taxes in good times (save and replenish).  The former to stimulate and the latter to cool (to prevent inflation and to replenish gov't coffers).  Problem is governments never do the latter.  So, spend in bad times, then in good times they abandon Keynes and cut taxes, and continue this over several cycles until things are so fucked up that governments end up shitting on everyone and gutting the public service with huge cuts (IE, Chretien and Martin).  In doing this government becomes weakened and the private sector strengthened.  This is what both Trudeau and Wynne are ultimately offering.  Public service gutted under Liberal rule while the private sector becomes more dominant (and things get worse for us all).  Wait and see.  Can anyone tell me what their "social infrastructure" plan is?

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Well, it really depends what the Liberals will be spending the deficit on. If they spend most of it on useful infrastructure, as JKR hopefully imagines, then yes, that would help the economy, just as Krugman says. On the other hand, tax cuts for corporations and the upper middle class, more international military adventures and the like do little to stimulate the economy. So, it'll be interesting to see in the budget just where this larger deficit is spent.

Perhaps.  We'll see.  The thing about Keynesian economics is it recommends counter-cyclical policies.  So, rather than save in bad times and spend in good, you do the opposite.  Run deficits in bad times (spend), and increase taxes in good times (save and replenish).  The former to stimulate and the latter to cool (to prevent inflation and to replenish gov't coffers).  Problem is governments never do the latter.  So, spend in bad times, then in good times they abandon Keynes and cut taxes, and continue this over several cycles until things are so fucked up that governments end up shitting on everyone and gutting the public service with huge cuts (IE, Chretien and Martin).  In doing this government becomes weakened and the private sector strengthened.  This is what both Trudeau and Wynne are ultimately offering.  Public service gutted under Liberal rule while the private sector becomes more dominant (and things get worse for us all).  Wait and see.  Can anyone tell me what their "social infrastructure" plan is?

So how does running surpluses during economic downturns make sense?

mark_alfred

[thread-drift]

My understanding of Keynes is that the counter-cyclical policies were reserved for extreme times only (war, severe recession or depression).  And used in conjunction with other jurisdictions in a similar boat.  After the war coffers were empty but spending occurred anyway to start shit up, and when shit was started taxes were raised to replenish stuff.  As things become regular with normal ups and downs, counter-cyclical policies were not to be used, as I understand it, and things would go back to normal (normal being to spend when money is plentiful via service expenditures or tax cuts, and save when money is low and times are slow via tax hikes and less expenditures).  Anyway, counter-cyclical policies can sometimes work, but sometimes they're a disaster.  Things seemed to work after WWII, and likewise after the near market collapse in 2008 (both were coordinated among many different jurisdictions).  In England in the '70s Labour used heavy deficit spending in England and it was a disaster (true I think to a lesser degree in NA).  The Rae government in the '80s initially tried it and it made things worse not better (Frances Lankin mentions that here).  So it's not always a magic bullet.  My opinion is if it's not a coordinated effort by a number of different jurisdiction to deal with a large crisis (IE, the aftermath of WWII or the near global collapse of 2008) then it's either misguided and will fail....or, it's just a government looking to privatize more public services -- which is what I believe both Trudeau and Wynne are doing -- and the jacked up deficit spending is the transition to privatizing public services.  That's all I see the Liberals doing.  It's government badly responding to bad policy (IE, governments that refuse over the years to properly tax due to political cowardice), rather than responding to a calamity like the aftermath of WWII or to a near market meltdown.  So, overspend to fix infrastructure problems that were caused by gutless governments who refused to raise taxes adequately, then cut services to balance things.  This is what I feel the Liberals are doing, and I do not feel it is a good thing.  But if more transit comes from it, then that will be good, I figure.  This should have come from proper taxation though, starting with increasing corporate taxes (McCorp is sitting on a pile of money, IMO).

ETA:  maybe I'm just being cynical.  We'll see how the first budget is.  Perhaps it will contain some great endeavour that willl impress me.

[/thread-drift]

mark_alfred

I just labelled my post above as thread-drift, since I've not studied economics, so really I'm just rambling.  In a nutshell, I'm anxious.  I think the fact that a former supporter like Kevin Page is now concerned is worth note:

Quote:

In an interview with CBC News, former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said he was surprised by the size of the change in the government's projections, from a $3-billion deficit to an $18-billion deficit.

Page also pointed out the government's decision to account for a weaker economy than what private sector economists had projected for the government.

"If they stuck to the average private sector forecast, I think we'd be looking at a deficit probably closer to $11 or $12 billion for 2016," Page said. "So in that sense they've given themselves $6, $7 billion worth of wiggle room."

Page says the government should have provided more detail to explain its projection.

"I think these big movements in numbers, with the lack of information and analysis, from a government that said they were going to be more transparent, more analytical, you do get concerned," he said.

mark_alfred

Liberals sunny on the surface, much fudgier underneath

CBC's Neil Madonald wrote:

on matters of policy, and governance, it appears just as capable of blithely making promises it knows it can't keep, and then blithely breaking them.

It is capable of speaking out of both sides of its mouth

And pretty clearly, it is capable of running a tightly-controlled, centralized, non-transparent operation.

mark_alfred

Another example of campaign left then govern right?

http://www.pressprogress.ca/are_the_liberals_planning_to_flip_flop_on_th...

Quote:
Are the Liberals planning to flip flop on their promise to close a big tax loophole for the rich? 

A day earlier, citing business insiders who had been briefed by Morneau's staff, the Ottawa Citizen reported the government is "expected to drop or at least postpone his party's plans for increasing taxes on employee stock option benefits."

 

swallow swallow's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Keynes was an asshole who just wanted to save capitalism with the occasional gov't injection of funds to support private enterprise with public funding (followed by cuts to the public service) on occasion when capitalism fucked up.  Screw Keynes.  Begin the move to Marx.  Increase corporate taxes and begin slowly but surely fighting corporate power. 

This will sound sarcastic, but I sincerely wish you luck in trying to make the NDP into a Marxist party. It's a tall order! 

mark_alfred

I was just ranting.  I have no grand visions.  I go with the NDP since I feel they're the best option for a more egalitarian Canada.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

[thread-drift]

My understanding of Keynes is that the counter-cyclical policies were reserved for extreme times only (war, severe recession or depression).  And used in conjunction with other jurisdictions in a similar boat.  ...

ETA:  maybe I'm just being cynical.  We'll see how the first budget is.  Perhaps it will contain some great endeavour that willl impress me.

[/thread-drift]

Yes, taxes should be raised on corporations but not in a downward cycle and it needs to be done in conjunction with other jurisdictions in a similar boat. That needs to be part of our trade deals. Low corporate taxes should be considered unfair competition. Unfortunately we don't have any political parties willing to make that argument. A 2% tweak is meaningless and potentially harmful if done now and without the greater argument being made.

I don't know why you would expect any great endeavour in a budget from any of the 3 primary parties that run for office in Canada unless you define "great endeavour" dramatically different from how I define it. 

The world has not recovered from the 2008 crisis. We are still in it. The IMF is sitting on debts that will never be repaid. Europe is in economic turmoil. The US isn't doing much better and neither is China.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/24/imf-vulnerable-global-economy_n_...

WASHINGTON — The International Monetary Fund said Wednesday that the global economy is "highly vulnerable" to adverse shocks and urged the United States and other major governments to prepare contingency plans that could be rolled out quickly to boost growth.

The IMF report said a fragile global recovery has weakened further in the face of increasing financial market turbulence, falling oil prices and diminished growth prospects in China and other emerging market countries.

The lending agency said that the world's 20 largest economies should keep pursing growth strategies they have already unveiled. But it adds that G-20 nations should develop additional measures that could be implemented quickly if growth keeps wilting.

We are not in stable economic times. When a right winger like Bill Moreau is defending high deficit spending you know we are in trouble. His "still aiming for a balanced budget" is meaningless because it is impossible in this economic climate to predict 4 years ahead. They are still pretending the oil sands will eventually get back to business as usual and this time is the same as all the other boom bust cycles which it isn't.

CETA negotiators are insisting on ISDS even though it is holding up the deal. An alternative has been proposed but protesters are not satisfied by it. Merkel can't afford to push it while the government is already losing support over refugee policy. Greece is refusing to sign off on the British EU deal until Europe does something about the refugees. I don't see them agreeing to CETA either while the EU is still putting the screws to them. Even the IMF said that Greece can't repay it's loans.

I don't agree with Iraste that we are facing the collapse of capitalism. If we get too close to that the major financial institutions and governments of the world will make some arrangement to keep the ball rolling. On the other hand I do believe that world finances are highly volatile. Saudi Arabia has said they will go down to 20$ a barrel if need be to keep market share. Oil is not going to recover.

mark_alfred

Aboriginal Groups Disappointed They Weren't Invited To First Ministers' Meeting

Quote:
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women's Association of Canada have written to the premiers to complain about being left out of discussions prior to next week's first ministers meeting.

It also calls on the premiers to hold Trudeau accountable to his promise of inclusion.

Dwight Dorey, the national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which represents about 1.1 million indigenous people living off-reserve, said the government's decision does not make sense to him.

"It is clearly discrimination. It goes totally against the commitment that the prime minister made."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/23/aboriginal-groups-disappointed-b...

swallow swallow's picture

For the CAP, word is that Trudeau will hold a boxing match against their national chief instead. 

[url]http://rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/whats-wrong-brazea...

mark_alfred

Regardless of the past leadership of the CAP, if Trudeau did, as reported, tell them in December that they would be included, he really should live up to his word.

quizzical

living up to their word not the expectation out there from Liberals supporters mark_alfred.

shame

mark_alfred

Coyne wrote a funny article about the Liberals (condensed version below):

Quote:

Why the Liberals say one thing and do another. Blame it on ‘cognitive dissonance’

Asked at a defence conference this week if the F-35 were still off the table, Harjit Sajjan would say only that the process would be “open.”

So add that to the list, along with the $10-billion deficits for two years, the balanced budget after four, the 25,000 refugees, the revenue neutral tax changes and the rest. I repeat, it has been just four months since the election.

Some might detect a pattern of deception in this. But the more one watches this government at work, the more one must be open to an alternative explanation for its behaviour. Psychologists call it “cognitive dissonance,” a condition in which the subject, unable to reconcile his own understanding of reality with the facts, retreats into the preferred reality rather than endure the acute discomfort to which he would otherwise be exposed. In a fully dissociative state, the subject becomes more or less completely disconnected from reality.

It is not that the dissociative personality says things he knows to be false or does things he knows to be in violation of his prior commitments. Rather, where there is a conflict between self-perception and reality, his subconscious simply substitutes the one for the other.

I would not go so far as the distinguished therapist Evan Solomon, who in a recent issue of the Maclean’s Journal of Medicine diagnosed Justin Trudeau as a kind of psychopath, alternately charming (“the romantic”) and homicidal (“the killer”). I think in all likelihood he poses no danger to anyone but the economy. Still, a number of recent incidents give one pause.

Consider this week’s vote in Parliament on a Conservative resolution condemning the “boycott, divest, sanctions” (BDS) campaigns against Israel being carried out by various churches and activist organizations. Here again the Liberals were clear in their opposition to the motion, which they rejected as overly sweeping, given the many disparate groups with disparate motives who are involved. And here again they voted for it. (“Liberals denounce and agree with Tory motion” was one headline.) It is one thing to say one thing and do another, in sequence. But to do both at the same time is deeply worrying.

Further examples are easily called to mind. Sending troops to fight in a “non-combat” role against ISIL. Signing the Trans Pacific Partnership international trade agreement, while disavowing any commitment to ratifying it. It is of great comfort, in the circumstances, to learn that the Liberals have been consulting an expert in “deliverology.” For this is a government that is plainly in need of professional help.

mark_alfred

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/06/liberals-back-csis-in-tort...

Quote:
Liberals back CSIS in torture lawsuit

The Liberal government has taken up the former Conservative government’s legal fight against an apology and compensation for three Canadians tortured in the Middle East, despite voting in favour of the former detainees’ cause while they sat in opposition.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/06/liberals-back-csis-in-tort...

Quote:
Liberals back CSIS in torture lawsuit

The Liberal government has taken up the former Conservative government’s legal fight against an apology and compensation for three Canadians tortured in the Middle East, despite voting in favour of the former detainees’ cause while they sat in opposition.

Of course they have. Liberals lie!

mark_alfred

Yes.  Here's another (link):

Quote:

Trudeau backs away from election pledge on First Nation veto

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to back away Wednesday from an election pledge that First Nations would have a veto over natural resource projects on their territories.

Trudeau was asked whether he would still stick to his pledge that a First Nation’s no meant “no” on TransCanada’s proposed cross-country Energy East pipeline project and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline project in British Columbia.

The prime minister responded saying that he was committed to a “renewed relationship” with First Nations that “respect inherent and treaty rights.” He said the federal Liberal government looked to “First Nations and Indigenous peoples as partners in all that happens in this land.”

In an APTN virtual town hall held during the election campaign Trudeau was asked by anchor Cheryl McKenzie whether a no would “mean no under your government?”

Trudeau responded, “Absolutely.”

He makes a definitive statement during the campaign, but now gives vague non-answers when asked about it.

quizzical

jr partners it looks like to me.

mark_alfred

The chattering class is already writing semi-mocking articles about the Trudeau Liberals (1,2,3,4), and they've only been in power a few months.  Descriptors such as "incoherent", "in need of professional help", "less than the sum of its parts", "a deer caught in headlights", seem to be occuring quite frequently in a lot of recent articles.  Be interesting to see what's in the first budget.  Trudeau is clever and has the ability to surprise with something that seems impressive, so we'll see.  Anyone know when the first budget is expected?  ETA:  March 22.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

The chattering class is already writing semi-mocking articles about the Trudeau Liberals (1,2,3,4), and they've only been in power a few months.  Descriptors such as "incoherent", "in need of professional help", "less than the sum of its parts", "a deer caught in headlights", seem to be occuring quite frequently in a lot of recent articles.  Be interesting to see what's in the first budget.  Trudeau is clever and has the ability to surprise with something that seems impressive, so we'll see.  Anyone know when the first budget is expected?  ETA:  March 22.

Which only goes to show how empty political commentary is. They need an excuse to write every week. The Liberals would do better to emulate the Conservatives. Refuse to allow ministers to speak, don't consult with stakeholders, and above all don't speak to the media unless you have an official announcement to make.

swallow swallow's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Regardless of the past leadership of the CAP, if Trudeau did, as reported, tell them in December that they would be included, he really should live up to his word.

The article says he promised to meet them regularly, and that promise is reiterated in the article. There are no claims that Trudeau promsied to invite CAP to the First Ministers meeting. 

The decision to invite 3 groups is perhaps an indication of tensions between the indigenous groups, The CAP has attacked the AFN in the past. As the babble thread I linked indicates, there are complaints from come that the CAP is not a strong advocacy voice and does not really speak for uban First Nations people. I don't know if these complaints are well-founded or not, but I'd be careful about a party-line condemnation of Trudeau on this one. Maybe the AFN or the Metis leadership blocked their attendance, even. We do not know. 

Quote:

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) has also tried to create a minor controversy over its exclusion from the meeting. CAP and the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) have written to the premiers asking to be allowed to participate in the meetings.

[Metis National Council President Clement] Chartier said CAP should not be part of nation-to-nation talks with Ottawa.

“They are not invited because they do not represent nations or any governments,” said Chartier.

[url=http://aptn.ca/news/2016/02/25/chiefs-concerned-over-length-of-planned-m... stronger concern: is aboriginal inclusion just window dressing?[/url]

I don't know the details, but I am not going to rush to condemn Trudeau, and if "nation-to-nation" is the basis for talks, he can and should take his lead from the nations that Canada must deal with on a nation-to-nation basis. 

mark_alfred

swallow wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Regardless of the past leadership of the CAP, if Trudeau did, as reported, tell them in December that they would be included, he really should live up to his word.

The article says he promised to meet them regularly, and that promise is reiterated in the article. There are no claims that Trudeau promsied to invite CAP to the First Ministers meeting.

From the article:

Quote:
The letter, obtained by The Canadian Press, expresses surprise and "great disappointment" at the lack of an invitation from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

"At a meeting held on Dec. 16, 2015, the prime minister reiterated the federal government's commitment to include all five (national aboriginal organizations) in high-level discussions pertaining to indigenous issues," it reads.

That reads like a pretty specific claim to me. 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/06/liberals-back-csis-in-tort...

Quote:
Liberals back CSIS in torture lawsuit

The Liberal government has taken up the former Conservative government’s legal fight against an apology and compensation for three Canadians tortured in the Middle East, despite voting in favour of the former detainees’ cause while they sat in opposition.

This is from February 6th. I wish they would follow up on this story. It's very concerning. Same goes for C 51. I don't see what is taking so long on that.

swallow swallow's picture

I guess we can all read different detail into media coverage, and I read that differently since it didn't use the words "First ministers meetings" or "all" high level meetings. But I may be wrong. Either way, there are bigger issues going on than that detail. "Nation to nation" should mean that Trudeau spends more time with indigenous nation representatives than he does with premiers, and that ain't happening. Promise not yet started, I guess. 

mark_alfred

Here's a new one:  https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/7307

The promise "Immediately implement the imported gun marking regulations," is now listed as a broken promise. 

Quote:

Trudeau Liberals Misfire On Promised Gun-Marking Regulations

The Liberal government has broken a promise to immediately implement firearm-marking regulations to help police trace guns used in crime.

Just before the August federal election call, the Conservative government quietly published a notice deferring the firearm-marking regulations until June 1, 2017 - the seventh time the measures had been delayed. [...] In their election platform, the Liberals said they would "immediately" implement gun-marking regulations. The party also promised other, longer-term measures aimed at making it harder for criminals to get and use handguns and assault weapons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/11/liberals-misfire-on-promised-gun...

mark_alfred

This seems to be good.  The government seems to be living up to its promise to not spend money on partisan ads and to reign in spending on advertising in general:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-ads-liberals-1.3455529

quizzical

they have to leave space for the BC Liberal ads.......we'll see next year after the BC election is over. ;)

mark_alfred

Some tax changes the Liberal government should be considering:  Tax Loopholes For Rich Cost Canada $16 Billion A Year: Study

mark_alfred

More details about the Trudeau Liberal's exclusion of the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from discussions on climate change in Vancouver.  Tom Mulcair speaks out saying that the government should apologize to them.

http://www.timescolonist.com/apologize-to-excluded-aboriginal-organizati...

Quote:

"The government of Canada has committed to working and meeting regularly with the national aboriginal organizations, and will continue to engage in robust bilateral discussions with all five ... on issues of importance to their members," said spokesperson Andree-Lyne Halle [for the Trudeau Liberals].

This explanation does not hold weight, Mulcair said.

"The best way we start getting to solutions is to have all five at the table ... otherwise any nation-to-nation approach risks becoming an empty shell because they've promised that they'd all be there," he said. "You can't be respectful and you can't have a nation-to-nation approach if you're deciding to exclude some."

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

More details about the Trudeau Liberal's exclusion of the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples from discussions on climate change in Vancouver.  Tom Mulcair speaks out saying that the government should apologize to them.

http://www.timescolonist.com/apologize-to-excluded-aboriginal-organizati...

Quote:

"The government of Canada has committed to working and meeting regularly with the national aboriginal organizations, and will continue to engage in robust bilateral discussions with all five ... on issues of importance to their members," said spokesperson Andree-Lyne Halle [for the Trudeau Liberals].

This explanation does not hold weight, Mulcair said.

"The best way we start getting to solutions is to have all five at the table ... otherwise any nation-to-nation approach risks becoming an empty shell because they've promised that they'd all be there," he said. "You can't be respectful and you can't have a nation-to-nation approach if you're deciding to exclude some."

Sadly the NDP still hasn't learned it's lesson. 

quizzical

unfortunately, for you, it's the Liberals who've not learned anything in their years as the 3rd party.

exclusion and lying lies, same old Liberals.

their history with FN's is historically bad. i was sad when many FN's across Canada believed their lies. indoctrination is hard to overcome in some cases.

 

 

mark_alfred

Pondering

quizzical wrote:
unfortunately, for you, it's the Liberals who've not learned anything in their years as the 3rd party.

exclusion and lying lies, same old Liberals.

their history with FN's is historically bad. i was sad when many FN's across Canada believed their lies. indoctrination is hard to overcome in some cases.

Given that the Liberals won a majority and have increased support since then, mostly at the expense of the NDP, I think they learned their lessons very well. 

The NDP failed to convince people that they were or are the best choice to run the country. Instead of holding the NDP responsible for their loss you are putting down indigenous people by suggesting their decisions are based on indoctrination.

swallow swallow's picture

Disappointing to see the focus remain on the list of groups that should be at the table, and not at the marginalization of all indigenous voices to the sidelines of the First Ministers meeting. 

quizzical

Justin wants 600,000 more to run his own PMO personal webite for a total of 1.6 million in budget allocations. first millions more to run Liberal constituency offices and now this.

1.6 million to run a website? i guess he needs 6 staffers to bs the public on how wonderful he is.

but no money for Aboriginals cut from reparations for destroying their lives.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Justin wants 600,000 more to run his own PMO personal webite for a total of 1.6 million in budget allocations. first millions more to run Liberal constituency offices and now this.

1.6 million to run a website? i guess he needs 6 staffers to bs the public on how wonderful he is.

but no money for Aboriginals cut from reparations for destroying their lives.

Do you have a link to prove he has refused to pay reparations to aboriginals? Will you apologize and start supporting the Liberals when they pay it?

quizzical

lolol no.

their bs on whose file it is and basically following along with Harper's 2010 law change renders them as speakers out of both sides of their mouth. non-trustworthy.

they instantly should've said this is nonsense and did the right thing. it's the force of the backlash on this which will make them do anything. if they figured the public wasn't paying attention, imv they wouldn't have done a thing.

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Justin wants 600,000 more to run his own PMO personal webite for a total of 1.6 million in budget allocations. first millions more to run Liberal constituency offices and now this.

1.6 million to run a website? i guess he needs 6 staffers to bs the public on how wonderful he is.

but no money for Aboriginals cut from reparations for destroying their lives.

"Justin" didn't ask for this.

The funding requested by the Privy Council Office (PCO), which provides non-partisan support to the prime minister and cabinet, would bring the price tag of operating the pm.gc.ca website to $1.6 million this year.

Civil servants made the request. It's a normal part of government in the modern age to keep a website on the Prime Minister and cabinet. It would be archaic not to have one. Shooting wildly just takes attention away from the serious issues. It took time to end the bombing mission and they refused to confirm any date until they were prepared to announce the details. Same goes for this. There is an administrative process to go through and it began quickly in terms of how long it usually takes to get government moving on anything.

 

quizzical

lolololol pondering. you go girl.....lolol

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

lolololol pondering. you go girl.....lolol

I don't find restitution for victims of residential schools amusing.

quizzical

i find your posturings amusing. as you well know.

stop trying to conflate the 2 to try and get away with weasling it's okay about the 1.6 million dollar price tag for the Prime Minister's and Liberals social media propaganda schemes..

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

i find your posturings amusing. as you well know.

stop trying to conflate the 2 to try and get away with weasling it's okay about the 1.6 million dollar price tag for the Prime Minister's and Liberals social media propaganda schemes..

You don't seem to understand the difference between civil servants and the elected government. The Liberals haven't increased the budget for the website nor asked for it to be increased. If the NDP had won the election civil servants would have been asking the NDP government for an increase.

You are the one who conflated restitution for residential schools with a civil servant request for increased funding. You also stated that even if the Liberals do pay it you still won't give them credit for it. That's your right but it makes it impossible to take you seriously. It even seems to me you would prefer that they don't pay it because it would be one less thing for you to condemn them for.

quizzical

i know the relationship pondering and i'm not naive so stop trying to sell me a phoney bill for goods i'm not buying.

in fact  Canadians now more than ever know the relationship between government and their employees. we saw it play out in real time under Harper's government. it's no different now than it was then.

the civil servants just have different masters they have to keep happy in order to keep their jobs.

quizzical

hey does anyone know anything about how it's going with Justin getting all Harper's appointees to step down?

news is quiet about it and so are the Liberals. i would guess they are keeping them and just wanting a lid kept on it.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Justin wants 600,000 more to run his own PMO personal webite for a total of 1.6 million in budget allocations. first millions more to run Liberal constituency offices and now this.

1.6 million to run a website? i guess he needs 6 staffers to bs the public on how wonderful he is.

but no money for Aboriginals cut from reparations for destroying their lives.

Do you have a link to prove he has refused to pay reparations to aboriginals? Will you apologize and start supporting the Liberals when they pay it?

Damanding more apolgoies. Would you demand G-d apologize to you if he didn't put you at his/ber right hand? Why should Quizzical support he Libs if they do the right thing here? Theyr'e supposed to do the right thing; they promised. So now, if they get pressured into acually doing somethig they promsied, that means they deserve every lefties unwavering allegience?

THAT, frsnkly, is some of the secrewiest logic I've ever seen posted as argument on this webiste. Who's your writing this stuff for you Pondering? Or is this, REALLY, what you believe? Nonsense from you, once more, At least you never dissapoint!

Wow!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Justin wants 600,000 more to run his own PMO personal webite for a total of 1.6 million in budget allocations. first millions more to run Liberal constituency offices and now this.

1.6 million to run a website? i guess he needs 6 staffers to bs the public on how wonderful he is.

but no money for Aboriginals cut from reparations for destroying their lives.

Do you have a link to prove he has refused to pay reparations to aboriginals? Will you apologize and start supporting the Liberals when they pay it?

Damanding more apolgoies. Would you demand G-d apologize to you if he didn't put you at his/ber right hand? Why should Quizzical support he Libs if they do the right thing here? Theyr'e supposed to do the right thing; they promised. So now, if they get pressured into acually doing somethig they promsied, that means they deserve every lefties unwavering allegience?

THAT, frsnkly, is some of the secrewiest logic I've ever seen posted as argument on this webiste. Who's your writing this stuff for you Pondering? Or is this, REALLY, what you believe? Nonsense from you, once more, At least you never dissapoint!

Wow!

I didn't demand anything, I asked a question. More to the point, if you accuse someone of something, say, theft, and they didn't do it, then yes I do think they are owed an apology. Quizzical is condemning the Liberals for things that haven't happened.

quizzical

quizzical wrote:
hey does anyone know anything about how it's going with Justin getting all Harper's appointees to step down?

news is quiet about it and so are the Liberals. i would guess they are keeping them and just wanting a lid kept on it.

still waiting for anwers on this but meanwhile love this

 

Quote:
Campaign tips from Justin to Bernie...........But I’ve also really, really worked on my empathy. I’m the elected leader of a G8 country! Canada is one of the wealthiest nations in the world! There has to be more to a leader of this stature than genuinely stunning physical characteristics.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

That New Yorker piece "From Justin to Bernie" is absolutely hilarious. I highly recommend reading the whole thing. My favourite quote:

faux Justin wrote:

Consider it from my perspective: you spend years preparing for a federal election, you defeat the once powerful Conservatives, and then, instead of getting to defend your voting record in Parliament, or explain why modest government spending isn’t the worst evil, all you read and hear about is how you’re the best-looking world leader, probably in history.

Pages