Trudeaumetre - Bravo!

618 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

quizzical wrote:

i'm speaking about your "just a heads up...." commentary as deflecting and speaking down, and i see you're still doing it.  Kiss

Stay on it Quizzical. Seems to me intellectual honesty and consistently should be called for of all posters on this board. You're spot on!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

The only way to meet those numbers is through cuts. 

 

 

Bullshit. Therefore the rest of your post is also.

Actrually Pondering, all your boy has to do is tax Corproations. He won't do it. And you'll cheer him on as he sticks it to the poor.

That's how Libs roll!

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Calling people twisted, saying they have blood on their hands, that they are murderers, may be emotionally satisfying but it doesn't convince people that you are right. Just the opposite.

Not interested in convincing them. They are the enemy. And those who claimed to oppose the bombing, and are now continuing it, can't be trusted to avoid, say, committing genocide in Canada too.

There were people who thought the Jews deserved it (talking about the genocide that destroyed my family). Not interested in convincing them otherwise. If you don't like me telling the truth about these non-human kinds of savages, fill your boots. But you won't stop me telling the truth.

I politely wrote to Trudeau, asking him to keep his promise and stop the bombing. I have to be polite with him. Because what he does goes down in the books as the deeds of Canada - i.e., me. So I need to be diplomatic and yet ensure that I'm on record that he is not acting in my name.

As for those folks who try to justify what he's doing - like those who tried to justify the NDP's support for slaughtering Libyans and being complicit in regime change - I feel I can speak a little more openly. I feel I can refer to them as the contemptuous conscience-less scum that they are. If you can't figure out that much, go somewhere else to hear a convincing argument. All you'll hear from me are warnings, to watch your step, because those who live by the sword, are proverbially at serious risk of dying by the sword. Ask Hitler and his cheerleaders if you don't get my meaning.

There are people who believe not stopping ISIS and not stopping the Russians would be like not stopping Hitler.They are not your enemies.

If the goal is to stop Canada from bombing in this particular mission it will soon be done. The sooner the better but it is unlikely anything you do will change the outcome. Trudeau already wants to bring us back to "peacekeeping". If you want us out of the Ukraine, and out of the weapons business, and out of dubious "peacekeeping" then you will need the support of people you call your enemies.

Pondering, I am asking you to stop making references to Hitler. As a Vet, and a Jew, I find your commentary unbeleiveably offensive. And your dad's service no mre gives you a get out of jail free card any more than my dad's did. So don't try it.

I served Pondering, you didn't. You could have, You CHOSE NOT TO, and left it to me. Its easy to talk big. I'm just sayin'.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, as a Vet, I don't care what you think. And I'll decide for myself what a man says when he speaks. I'll take no lectures from you. I served. YOU DIDN'T!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, as a Vet, I don't care what you think. And I'll decide for myself what a man says when he speaks. I'll take no lectures from you. I served. YOU DIDN'T!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Why are you so very, very, very angry Podering? You won. You should be a lot happier than you are. After all, Junior's the boss. Doesn't it make you happy?

I'm delighted the Liberals won a majority. I am disgusted the NDP turned themselves into Liberal lite and seem to be dedicated to remaining on the same failed course instead of providing a genuine progressive alternative.

I believe we need to Leap forward. The manifesto got that part right. We could use a political party that puts the environment and income inequality first, not balanced budgets or any other issues.

NorthReport

Really!  Already one broken promise. Listening to the CBC you would think Liberal shit doesn't smell.  

 

  Days in office: 24  

 

Not yet started: 168 of 184

 

  In progress: 11 of 184

 

 Achieved: 4 of 184

 

 Broken: 1 of 184

 

 

quizzical

they've acheived 3 not 4 according to the site and i disagree with one of the so called achievements. by my reckoning even the scientist one has a rider on it and we've not heard from them even, so maybe just the long form census is the only one "done" and it won't be until 2016 anyway.

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
I'm delighted the Liberals won a majority. I am disgusted the NDP turned themselves into Liberal lite and seem to be dedicated to remaining on the same failed course instead of providing a genuine progressive alternative.

So liberal-lite:  no good, liberal-full on: enough to drown us all in hubris?  From here there doesn't seem to be enough shades in that part of the spectrum to account for such a dramatic shift in supposed worth.

NorthReport

Liberals on collision course with Quebec over medically assisted suicide:

The Liberal government should be supportive, not obstructive, of Quebec’s plan to put the template on medically assisted suicide to the test as of next month.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/11/28/liberals-on-collision-cour...

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

Pondering wrote:
I'm delighted the Liberals won a majority. I am disgusted the NDP turned themselves into Liberal lite and seem to be dedicated to remaining on the same failed course instead of providing a genuine progressive alternative.

So liberal-lite:  no good, liberal-full on: enough to drown us all in hubris?  From here there doesn't seem to be enough shades in that part of the spectrum to account for such a dramatic shift in supposed worth.

Liberal lite is like imitation vinyl.

Supporters of the NDP have been saying that the NDP doesn't have the credibility to run a deficit so I expect the NDP would have kept their promise on balanced budgets every year. A 2% increase in taxes on corporations would not have given them the funds to keep all their other promises. Although I hear they corrected the error the first budget release was poorly done which Kevin Page noted. That doesn't give me much faith in the NDP's administrative capabilities.

The Liberal platform committed to a lot of changes that I am very supportive of and they do have the credibility to move forward on issues of importance to me and yet they are not dogmatic so I am confident that they will reconsider when appropriate.

Mulcair's behavior since the election has only confirmed to me, and apparently to the majority of Canadians, that Trudeau was the best choice available. (In my opinion) Mulcair is hyperpartisan and would have been incapable of working with Trudeau.

The two most important progressive issues are climate change and income inequality. In Canada we can add pipelines and the oil sands as specific threats.

I don't expect the NDP to go radical. Looking at their history they are a labour party. That is why Mulcair supported Energy East. His argument against Keystone was entirely based on "keeping jobs in Canada".

The influence of organized labour on the party is still reflected in the party's conventions as affiliated unions send delegates on a formula based on their number of members. Since approximately one-quarter of the convention delegates have recently been from affiliated labour groups, after the party changed to an Every Member Vote method of electing leaders in leadership races, labour delegate votes are scaled to 25% of the total number of ballots cast for leader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_Democratic_Party#Origin...

The party is very union oriented. Contrary to popular opinion I am not against unions, I just don't think the interests of unions should come before everyone else's interests. It is definitely not a reason to support Energy East.

The NDP does not strike me as a progressive party that supports unions, it strikes me as a union party that adopts some progressive policies when it suits. 

The Liberals are a Bay street party that adopts some progressive policies when it suits.

Generally speaking union+progressive is more progressive than Bay street + progressive but it isn't a given. The Liberals have the credibility to deliver on the aspects of their platform that are progressive. The NDP doesn't. The NDP isn't even led by a progressive. Mulcair was confused between decriminalization and legalization. While older people can be up-to-date Mulcair is not one of those people. The NDP executive seems bewildered and out-of-touch with progressives.

Climate change and income inequality are THE progressive issues of the century.

 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

Pondering wrote:
I'm delighted the Liberals won a majority. I am disgusted the NDP turned themselves into Liberal lite and seem to be dedicated to remaining on the same failed course instead of providing a genuine progressive alternative.

So liberal-lite:  no good, liberal-full on: enough to drown us all in hubris?  From here there doesn't seem to be enough shades in that part of the spectrum to account for such a dramatic shift in supposed worth.

Liberal lite is like imitation vinyl.

Supporters of the NDP have been saying that the NDP doesn't have the credibility to run a deficit so I expect the NDP would have kept their promise on balanced budgets every year. A 2% increase in taxes on corporations would not have given them the funds to keep all their other promises. Although I hear they corrected the error the first budget release was poorly done which Kevin Page noted. That doesn't give me much faith in the NDP's administrative capabilities.

The Liberal platform committed to a lot of changes that I am very supportive of and they do have the credibility to move forward on issues of importance to me and yet they are not dogmatic so I am confident that they will reconsider when appropriate.

Mulcair's behavior since the election has only confirmed to me, and apparently to the majority of Canadians, that Trudeau was the best choice available. (In my opinion) Mulcair is hyperpartisan and would have been incapable of working with Trudeau.

The two most important progressive issues are climate change and income inequality. In Canada we can add pipelines and the oil sands as specific threats.

I don't expect the NDP to go radical. Looking at their history they are a labour party. That is why Mulcair supported Energy East. His argument against Keystone was entirely based on "keeping jobs in Canada".

The influence of organized labour on the party is still reflected in the party's conventions as affiliated unions send delegates on a formula based on their number of members. Since approximately one-quarter of the convention delegates have recently been from affiliated labour groups, after the party changed to an Every Member Vote method of electing leaders in leadership races, labour delegate votes are scaled to 25% of the total number of ballots cast for leader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_Democratic_Party#Origin...

The party is very union oriented. Contrary to popular opinion I am not against unions, I just don't think the interests of unions should come before everyone else's interests. It is definitely not a reason to support Energy East.

The NDP does not strike me as a progressive party that supports unions, it strikes me as a union party that adopts some progressive policies when it suits. 

The Liberals are a Bay street party that adopts some progressive policies when it suits.

Generally speaking union+progressive is more progressive than Bay street + progressive but it isn't a given. The Liberals have the credibility to deliver on the aspects of their platform that are progressive. The NDP doesn't. The NDP isn't even led by a progressive. Mulcair was confused between decriminalization and legalization. While older people can be up-to-date Mulcair is not one of those people. The NDP executive seems bewildered and out-of-touch with progressives.

Climate change and income inequality are THE progressive issues of the century.

 

If the NDP are so similar to each other, why do you seem to detest the NDP and adore the Liberals?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Climate change and income inequality both speak to corporate power. This is where the clouds come in over the sunny ways.

Sean in Ottawa

Don't forget the Liberals are now saying that the Paris targets will not be legally binding.

Nice promise but no teeth.

Kyoto went that way too.

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

Supporters of the NDP have been saying that the NDP doesn't have the credibility to run a deficit so I expect the NDP would have kept their promise on balanced budgets every year. A 2% increase in taxes on corporations would not have given them the funds to keep all their other promises. Although I hear they corrected the error the first budget release was poorly done which Kevin Page noted. That doesn't give me much faith in the NDP's administrative capabilities.

But when Trudeau says in July we need balanced budgets and then says in September we need deficits you don't blink.

NorthReport

This doesn't look good Trudeau!  Frown

Whacking the top one per cent with a tax hike not the bonanza Liberals hype

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-...

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

This doesn't look good Trudeau!  Frown

Whacking the top one per cent with a tax hike not the bonanza Liberals hype

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-...

We knew this as this had been stated months ago and the NDP absolutely blew this issue in the campaign -- like everything else.

The NDP could have said it is only symbolic and less significant a symbol than the NDP's decision to raise min wage which the Liebrals have attacked as too symbolic.The NDP could have said that if people wanted that symbol so much the NDP could do it as well but it will not fund any tax cut. the rise in Corporate tax rates is required for that.

While I am at it -- I proposed a better corporate tax approach than either the Liberals or NDP went with -- tying it to salaries paid to canadians.

Instead, the NDP attacked Trudeau for agreeing with most NDP voters and candidates on F-35s and such and let him away with this.

This was huge as it was central to the Liebral ad buy at the moment they overtook the NDP during the campaign. I saw it coming why could Mulcair be so blind?

Another reason Mulcair needs to go. Was not just a loss but a massive displaty of extremely poor judgment and incompetence.

mark_alfred

Slumberjack wrote:

Pondering wrote:
I'm delighted the Liberals won a majority. I am disgusted the NDP turned themselves into Liberal lite and seem to be dedicated to remaining on the same failed course instead of providing a genuine progressive alternative.

So liberal-lite:  no good, liberal-full on: enough to drown us all in hubris?  From here there doesn't seem to be enough shades in that part of the spectrum to account for such a dramatic shift in supposed worth.

As I perceive it, the Liberals are Conservative-Lite, aka Cons with a happier image.  They'll approve TPP, set no real environmental standards at Paris (but, in line with the happier image, they'll feign concern about the environment), and they'll cut public services to empower the private sector later in their term with their expenditure review.  The NDP by contrast would have set hard targets for the environment and raised corporate taxes while beginning to implement a national child care program.  There's no comparison between them and the LibCon Corporate-Toady Parties, whether it's the Red or Blue flavour.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
As I perceive it, the Liberals are Conservative-Lite, aka Cons with a happier image.  They'll approve TPP, set no real environmental standards at Paris (but, in line with the happier image, they'll feign concern about the environment),

yup feign concern by telling India to reduce their emissions when he is going to allow the Transmountain to happen and leave the BC waterways under the control of the NEB.

Quote:
and they'll cut public services to empower the private sector later in their term with their expenditure review. 

i think so too there is nothing but BS coming out of the ranks of the Liberals and they're twisting themselves into knots tryng to portray Justin and the Liberals as the Canadian saviours why pretty much already breaking every platform promise made.

 

Pondering

JKR wrote:
If the NDP are so similar to each other, why do you seem to detest the NDP and adore the Liberals?

I don't adore the Liberals. I do support the Trudeau Liberals based on Trudeau and his platform in comparison to Mucair's NDP. Yes I defend Trudeau when posters insisted he couldn't win or that Mulcair would wipe the floor with Trudeau or that the Trudeau Liberals are no different than the Harper Conservatives.

I predicted that Trudeau would still win the election based on my knowledge of Trudeau and his team of economic advisors. I was right that whenever the platform was released, all the accusations of having no policy were neutered. He didn't make "gaffes". He won debates. He may not have wanted to enter the campaign with his numbers as low as they were, but they knew that they could not maintain 1st place for 2 years. They wanted Trudeau to peak on election day.

Lastly I have different expectations of the NDP. I expect the Liberals to be centrists and I expect the NDP to be progressive. If the NDP is just another Liberal party they are redundant. We already have a Liberal party. What we don't have is a progressive party willing to tackle climate change and income inequality.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, you have expectations of the NDP, but none of the Libeals. So you voted for Trudeau beacuse the NDP didn't meet your expectations? That's ridiculous!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
So you voted for Trudeau beacuse the NDP didn't meet your expectations? That's ridiculous!

Isn't that the trope du jour?  That the NDP "tried to be the new Liberals", so everyone voted for the Liberals because Tom and Anne and Brad let them down?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
So you voted for Trudeau beacuse the NDP didn't meet your expectations? That's ridiculous!

Isn't that the trope du jour?  That the NDP "tried to be the new Liberals", so everyone voted for the Liberals because Tom and Anne and Brad let them down?

It is.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, you have expectations of the NDP, but none of the Libeals. So you voted for Trudeau beacuse the NDP didn't meet your expectations? That's ridiculous!

I do have expectations of the Liberal Party just not the same ones I have of the NDP. If you think I should have the same expectations for both parties you are pretty much saying there are no major differences between the two.

I think it's very reasonable to expect the NDP to be genuinely more progressive than the Liberals, not just picking a few issues to make them appear progressive as though progressives are an interest group to satisfy, like Harper's social conservatives, just enough to keep em quiet.

Mulcair and the NDP executive are running the party as if it is a liberal or centrist party not just that it had to move to the centre to win.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If you think I should have the same expectations for both parties you are pretty much saying there are no major differences between the two.

See post #172, and specifically, "trope du jour".

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, you have expectations of the NDP, but none of the Libeals. So you voted for Trudeau beacuse the NDP didn't meet your expectations? That's ridiculous!

I do have expectations of the Liberal Party just not the same ones I have of the NDP. If you think I should have the same expectations for both parties you are pretty much saying there are no major differences between the two.

I think it's very reasonable to expect the NDP to be genuinely more progressive than the Liberals, not just picking a few issues to make them appear progressive as though progressives are an interest group to satisfy, like Harper's social conservatives, just enough to keep em quiet.

Mulcair and the NDP executive are running the party as if it is a liberal or centrist party not just that it had to move to the centre to win.

Pondering, you have said over and over the NDP and the Libs are the same, and voted for the Liberals. You did this knowing Trudeau supported the TPP. That is my point. The fact you voted Liberal, even though you KNEW Trudeau supported the TPP means that it didn't matter to you. Your logic is the NDP and the Libs are the same, the NDP isn't left enough the NDP should be more left than the Libs so I'll vote Lib. And, again, you did that KNOWING that Trudeau supported the NDP and will whip a vote on it in Parliment, Your voted enables Trudeau. If you've enabled the passing of TPP. If it passes it will be the fault of voters like you, NO ONE ELSE. Again, your argument is simply ridiculous. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth without enven paying attention to which each side is spoting. Not only is this ridiculous, its nonsensical. It makes no sense what so ever. The bottom line is your vote will enable passage of the TPP, When it passes it won't be the fault of the NDP, it will be the fault of voters like you who voted for the passage of TPP by voting for Trudeau. This is your fault and the fault of any other voted who voted the same way. Just as with NAFTA,, you'll Lib voters will own this one too!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering, you have said over and over the NDP and the Libs are the same, and voted for the Liberals. You did this knowing Trudeau supported the TPP. That is my point. The fact you voted Liberal, even though you KNEW Trudeau supported the TPP means that it didn't matter to you. Your logic is the NDP and the Libs are the same, the NDP isn't left enough the NDP should be more left than the Libs so I'll vote Lib. And, again, you did that KNOWING that Trudeau supported the NDP and will whip a vote on it in Parliment, Your voted enables Trudeau. If you've enabled the passing of TPP. If it passes it will be the fault of voters like you, NO ONE ELSE. Again, your argument is simply ridiculous. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth without enven paying attention to which each side is spoting. Not only is this ridiculous, its nonsensical. It makes no sense what so ever. The bottom line is your vote will enable passage of the TPP, When it passes it won't be the fault of the NDP, it will be the fault of voters like you who voted for the passage of TPP by voting for Trudeau. This is your fault and the fault of any other voted who voted the same way. Just as with NAFTA,, you'll Lib voters will own this one too!

I don't know why you think the NDP wouldn't have signed TPP if it is radified by the States. The NDP approved the Korean trade-deal. They would want to be re-elected so wouldn't want to appear anti-trade. Same issue as promising balanced budgets every year.

Instead of fighting neoliberalism the NDP used neoliberal arguments to justify not increasing taxes on the wealthy and to committing to balanced budgets as a top priority.

If the NDP had spent the past two years fighting against TPP and CETA and warning the public about the trojan horse nature of these trade deals I would believe that the NDP would reject them. Instead the NDP would have ranted about how they would have negotiated a better deal but that we have to sign or we will lose jobs over being out of the trading block.

As far as I can tell the NDP decided if you can't beat em, join em only they are (so far) missing the fact that we are at the beginning of a turning point. This is the time to educate the electorate on how we are being screwed over by deregulation which is redistributing income to the wealthiest.

You don't think the NDP would have signed even if the US signs. That's fair, no one can predict the future. But by that token it is also fair for me to believe the NDP would have signed it because renegotiation is off the table.

The NDP does not have the credibility to run deficits or not sign trade deals because they have failed to promote social democracy.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, your counter arguments have one failing; they are made in support of a party that has no interest in reform. You keep throwing it back at me and the NDP because you have no coutner. Everyone on here no its; I keep telling, you aren't fooling anyone. And I told, you before and I say it again, you're no smarter than anyone else here. You really aren't that clever Pondeirng, but i'll say one thing, you have an ego the size of which I have never seen, and a air of hubirs about you that is unmatched.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The personal attacks and bickering on here are getting kind of old.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Lastly I have different expectations of the NDP. I expect the Liberals to be centrists and I expect the NDP to be progressive. If the NDP is just another Liberal party they are redundant. We already have a Liberal party. What we don't have is a progressive party willing to tackle climate change and income inequality.

Because we are operating under FPTP plurality voting, the NDP has to run toward the centre. Unfortunately, we have an electoral system that unfairly inflates the seat totals of centrist "big tent" parties. If we want this to change, we're going to have to move to a proportionally representative electoral system. This is one of the reasons why hopefully the all-party committee on electoral reform will support the establishment of a mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system.

quizzical

montrealer58 wrote:
The personal attacks and bickering on here are getting kind of old.

yup, evertime a discussion could break out.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Because we are operating under FPTP plurality voting, the NDP has to run toward the centre. Unfortunately, we have an electoral system that unfairly inflates the seat totals of centrist "big tent" parties. If we want this to change, we're going to have to move to a proportionally representative electoral system. This is one of the reasons why hopefully the all-party committee on electoral reform will support the establishment of a mixed-member proportional (MMP) electoral system.

I acknowledge that was a smart strategy to gain support and the NDP came very close to winning this election. However, had they won it, they would then have had to govern to the centre to maintain power. They would have had to keep their promise about no deficits.They would have to prove that they actually are centrist. This was not a bait and switch situation. Their platform was modest. They didn't give people much to vote for.

Now that the Liberal Party is back the NDP has dropped to 12%. That's terrible and it isn't due to strategic voting because the election is over. That is what is left of the NDP's core support.

I agree that the NDP can't be radical and get elected. They aren't just a protest party. They want to govern. Even so under the current political climate they can no longer present themselves as meek centrists. They have to be bold.

A good start would be proving that health care costs have gone up with privatization coupled with proposed solutions. I keep hearing that France has the best system and it is semi-privatized so maybe that isn't the problem.

Housing first and basic income programs have proven to be more economical that the systems we currently have so make the economic argument for those programs.

The Liberals were left to make the argument that short-changing education for indigenous people was self-defeating and would cost us much more over the long run. It is Trudeau who said we are a wealthy country so there is no excuse.

It is Trudeau who had the guts to commit to gender parity in cabinet and he has now taken that even farther. He is extending it to patronage appointments and the boards of Crown corporations though it will take longer to get there. I don't believe the NDP would have done that.

Now they have no choice but to move back to the left of the Liberals. They have to regroup and figure out how to design a progressive party still centrist enough to win elections but still principled.

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

I acknowledge that was a smart strategy to gain support and the NDP came very close to winning this election. However, had they won it, they would then have had to govern to the centre to maintain power. They would have had to keep their promise about no deficits.They would have to prove that they actually are centrist. This was not a bait and switch situation. Their platform was modest. They didn't give people much to vote for.

The differences between the NDP and Liberal platforms were about revenue, not spending.

felixr

Time for Trudeau to break some promises: 25,000 syrian refugees by Christmas....not happening.

Sean in Ottawa

This round the clock trust in the Liberals and attack on the NDP for being nothing other than the NDP by Pondering is also getting old and is a provocation since it cannot be answered by logic since it does not rest in the territory of logic -- it is more akin to a religion the way it is repeated here without any attempt at real support.

As for the trade deals there are substantial differences between the CETA and the TPP for a party connected to labour. The greatest difference of course is that the deal with Europe is one with an economy where the majority of people we are in competition with are paid close to what Canada is. The TPP deal is with economies where millions and millions of workers are paid less than the legal minimums in Canada. This sets those two agreements apart in my view.

mark_alfred

Trudeau was pretty evasive in the press conference he gave over climate change.  He was asked several times what the levels and/or carbon pricing the feds plan to put in place (rather than relying solely on the provinces, which currently would be insufficient to meet the target) and he just gave evasive talking point answers such as "investment in green infrastructure". 

felixr

mark_alfred wrote:

Trudeau was pretty evasive in the press conference he gave over climate change.  He was asked several times what the levels and/or carbon pricing the feds plan to put in place (rather than relying solely on the provinces, which currently would be insufficient to meet the target) and he just gave evasive talking point answers such as "investment in green infrastructure". 

Contrast that with Notley, premier of the oilpatch. She has the courage of her father. Perhaps we can say the same for Trudeau

quizzical

how can he talk about something or anything? he is a talking face and sfa else.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

how can he talk about something or anything? he is a talking face and sfa else.

 

Canada endorsing the US position of no binding result means that the only thing that has changed is better rhetoric.

The question is will the world see through it?

quizzical

the world might. i don't know about Canada yet.....people are still tittering.

 

the righteous wing nuts in AB are trying to recall Notley. says a lot about people' stupidity.

Pondering

World leaders are gathering in Paris starting Monday to attempt to seal an international deal to curb greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change. If given the opportunity, the Republican-led Senate would almost undoubtedly reject such a deal.

President Obama doesn’t plan to give it the chance. Whatever agreement emerges from Paris, he has no intention of submitting it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty. The administration argues that any agreement does not bind the United States to a course of action. Moreover, it says the Clean Air Act and the United Nations Framework on Climate Change signed by former President George H.W. Bush already give Obama the authority he needs to carry out climate commitments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/11/30/trick-or-tre...

If binding it would be a treaty which would have to be radified by the US Senate who would oppose it. The only way to get the US signature is if it is not a treaty.

NorthReport

Too bad our new pm is such a bullshitter, eh!

Trudeau children's nannies being paid for by taxpayers

Caregivers will be paid $15-$20 an hour during the day and $11-$13 hourly at night

Canadian taxpayers are paying the wages of two nannies hired to care for the children of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau, according to cabinet orders posted online.

The hirings were approved late last week, with cabinet authorizing the appointment of the two women under the Official Residences Act as "special assistants at the prime minister's residence."

They will be paid between $15 and $20 an hour during the day and 11 to $13 an hour for night shifts effective Nov. 4 — the day Trudeau and his cabinet were sworn in.

The disclosure comes after an election campaign where Trudeau repeatedly attacked the Conservatives' enhanced universal child care benefit, or UCCB, and income splitting for families, arguing rich families like his and former prime minister Stephen Harper's didn't need taxpayers' help.

"In these times, Mr. Harper's top priority is to give wealthy families like his and mine $2,000," Trudeau said in reference to the Conservatives' income-splitting tax credit. "Let me tell you something: We don't need it. And Canada can't afford it."

Trudeau is also entitled to collect annual UCCB payments of about $3,400 for his three children.

He promised to give the money to charity.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-nannies-taxpayers-1.3344533

quizzical

yup so much for Justin's "Canadians can't afford to pay for his childcare costs and he doesn't need the money".

and it's fkn bs paying them less for evenings.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-economic-forecasts-too-optimistic-budget-watchdog-says/article27540072/ 

Anyone have any thoughts about how this might affect Liberal spending promises? I really don't believe them to meet any of their promises as they understood and as the CANDIAN PUBLIC UNDERSTOOD THEM TO MEAN.

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-economic-forecasts-too-optimistic-budget-watchdog-says/article27540072/ 

Anyone have any thoughts about how this might affect Liberal spending promises? I really don't believe them to meet any of their promises as they understood and as the CANDIAN PUBLIC UNDERSTOOD THEM TO MEAN.

Perhaps Mulcair's slow and steady approach to change will prove prescient over the "real change" fast-paced showy stuff of the Liberals, especially if the Libs plan turns out to be a stinker with deep cuts later in the term.

Pondering

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/30/jean-denis-frechette-pbo-kevin-p...

Frechette has been employed in the Library of Parliament since 1986 and was senior director of the economics, resources and international affairs division of the library's parliamentary information and research service when named to his new post.

Federal sources said Frechette was one of three people on the Conservative government's short list, and the only candidate given a briefing about the inner workings of the budget office.

Frechette, however, has apparently never been involved in developing or analyzing a federal budget.

Harper replaced Kevin Page with a Conservative lapdog that does not appear qualified to ascess a federal budget. From your link:

For the most part, the PBO said it agreed with Finance Canada’s numbers in the near term: between 2015-16 and 2018-19, the department projects deficits averaging $2.7-billion a year while the PBO projects deficits averaging $2.9-billion.

However the two projections are at odds when it comes to the outlying years. In 2019-20 – when the Liberals promise to record a surplus – the fiscal update shows a $1.7-billion surplus. The PBO projects a $4.6-billion deficit. The following year, Finance Canada’s numbers show a $6.6-billion surplus, while the PBO projects a $4.2-billion deficit.

Economists have been saying that is a rounding error and 4 years out all it can be is a loose estimate.

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-economic-forecasts-too-optimistic-budget-watchdog-says/article27540072/ 

Anyone have any thoughts about how this might affect Liberal spending promises? I really don't believe them to meet any of their promises as they understood and as the CANDIAN PUBLIC UNDERSTOOD THEM TO MEAN.

The Liberals are promising to spend more than economists think they can pay for without raising taxes somewhere.

This leaves one of a few possibilities:

1) The Liberals do not intend to deliver on these promses in full

2) The Liberals intend to cut more than they have so far suggested elsewhere

3) The Liberals intend to raise taxes to cover this shortfall

4) The Liberals believe the fiscal potential for the government is better than what the private sector thinks

5) The Liberals believe that the spending they intend to make will stimulate the economy such that the fiscal capacity of the government will increase

If you believe it is #4 and/or #5 then there are only two choices:

1) The Liberals are right

2) The Liberals are wrong

When it comes to the private forcasters -- can we trust them not to low-ball the potential of the Canadian economy in order to try to reduce government spending (for ideological purposes)?

Private forcasters who are to the right simply based on ideology do not believe that stimulous spending can work. Therefore they would not by nature go along with the Liberal government projections that rely on the impact of stimulus. As well they may be more pssimistic about a non-oil economy than the Liberals may be.

The PBO may have the same ideology when it comes to forcasting.

I am not sure. It is all possible.

The other possibility is that the Liberals politically want to make promises but they do not want to increase taxes so they don't know what to do.

There are good reasons not to trust the Liberals but there are also some excellent reasons to be wary of private forcasters' criticisms of a plan that they do not recognize due to their ideology -- and even of a PBO forcast -- unless we know the ideology of the individuals.

Economics is an art not a science.

For me, this would be a question for the late Mike McCracken. Maybe we should ask Jim Stanford what he thinks. But I suggest this criticism came from people hard-wired to make it.

 

quizzical

i'm still waiting to hear what the Liberals are going to do about Harper's appointments, and during Thursday's opening session, they had better be dealing with the 5 female ministers of state and make them full cabinet ministers.

imv they've done sfa on any of their promises, so it's only natural the economic numbers and promises don't add up.

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

here's the quote of Trudeau's from a Halifax campaign stop and in the article it indicates it was part of their platform.

Quote:
The Liberal government is already changing its tune on a campaign promise to reopen nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices closed by the Harper government, including one in Sydney.

The party’s “Real Change” platform document explicitly states a Liberal government would “restore access to the support that veterans are due (and) reopen the nine Veterans Affairs service offices closed by Stephen Harper,” a promise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reiterated during a campaign stop in Halifax in September.

so everyone in Atlantic Canada voted for them and we lost Meghan Leslie and this is how the Veterans Affairs Minister speaks to them and about them.

and they're not pulling out of their illegal war on Syria and are shafting the Veterans who will be coming back as hehr noted it will take them YEARS to figure out what offices need to be reopened.

I think they're taken a lot of heat on this one - sounds as if they've decided to keep their campaign promise:

Quote:

Nine veterans affairs offices controversially closed under the former Conservative government will reopen within a year, according to Veterans Affairs minister Kent Hehr.

“I say that you can put a pretty good bet on it that we’ll definitely be done before a year – possibly sooner,” Hehr told Global News in an interview. “But, I don’t want to start drawing lines in the sand that I quickly have to walk back from.”

Hehr also confirmed all nine offices will reopen in the locations they closed in.

quizzical

well good on Canadian for maybe forcing them to keep this promise,  i still will wait to see if it happens before applauding too loudly. they could be thinking people will forget soon enough and just want the bad pres to go away.

Pages

Topic locked