Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

392 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

Yes, shot down by a US warship illegally inside Iranian waters in 1988, a passenger airbus Iran Airflight 655 with 290 civilians. The reaction from the 'statesman, patriot and true friend to Canada' is above. The commander was awarded a medal. Because it was only brown people murdered, the most critical evaluation was that it was 'a screw-up.' Thanks for remembering WWWTT. Perhaps it will serve as a cautionary lesson if/when we decide to join these psychocidal madmen in USrael's much desired war to come on Iran. Which is likely since our politicians will refuse nothing to neither.

https://youtu.be/lRJnumxuHwY

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Corporate welfare bums: It's payback time

Canada’s welfare state is disintegrating. Meanwhile, Canada’s corporate welfare state has never been stronger.

In his 2018 Fall Economic Report, Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced that corporations would receive $14 billion in new tax breaks. Enough money to fund a national daycare program is being handed over to the business sector.

Although the rationale is the supposed need to maintain Canada’s competitiveness in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump’s gargantuan tax cuts, it is actually a question of priorities — or, more accurately, constituencies. The federal government has made it clear to whom it feels accountable.

In a time of record profits, Canadian corporations already receive billions in subsidies every year, not to mention massive corporate tax cuts and loopholes and the roughly $3 billion in taxes that wealthy Canadians and corporations evade through offshore havens on an annual basis. Despite perennial promises by government to crack down, that money continues to accumulate, sloshing around the global economy in an era of unprecedented wealth and inequality....

Sean in Ottawa

epaulo13 wrote:

Corporate welfare bums: It's payback time

Canada’s welfare state is disintegrating. Meanwhile, Canada’s corporate welfare state has never been stronger.

In his 2018 Fall Economic Report, Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced that corporations would receive $14 billion in new tax breaks. Enough money to fund a national daycare program is being handed over to the business sector.

Although the rationale is the supposed need to maintain Canada’s competitiveness in the face of U.S. President Donald Trump’s gargantuan tax cuts, it is actually a question of priorities — or, more accurately, constituencies. The federal government has made it clear to whom it feels accountable.

In a time of record profits, Canadian corporations already receive billions in subsidies every year, not to mention massive corporate tax cuts and loopholes and the roughly $3 billion in taxes that wealthy Canadians and corporations evade through offshore havens on an annual basis. Despite perennial promises by government to crack down, that money continues to accumulate, sloshing around the global economy in an era of unprecedented wealth and inequality....

I am not sure that I agree that the welfare state as such is disintegrating or that this is a productive way of saying what is happening.

1) First, Canada's welfare state was never so strong that the climb down could be said to be as extreme as the word suggests. The reality is that for the poorest of the poor, things have changed very little and they are as desperate as they were 40 years ago.

2) Secondly, what we are seeing as a decline is much, much broader than the system of social assistance and related governemnt programs. Due to technology, tax changes, trade policies and more, the disintegration is really most dramatic among lower income but previously quite independent people who remain independent from help from the government.

It is true that social assistance rates have been largely unchanged and so have minimum wages which while they have had a recent catchup in some jurisdictions were long eroded by inflation. In some cases they are slightly above where they were and in some cases slightly below (depending on which years you look at). Social assistance in some cases is slightly better (Quebec for a single person had a social assistance rate of $171/month in 1985) while in most cases is below but more stagnant than declining.

So where is the "disintegration"?

As I was saying it is not the bottom fifth of property and income that has seen the most decline. It is two other groups:

First, the next fifth up from that-- the 21st-40th ranked incomes have suffered tremendously. These, in many cases, were the old above minimum hourly waged workers, some unionized and some not, who did not make good wages before but were nevertheless a chunk above minimum. These are the people who made $10 an hour when minimum wage was about $5 an hour and often supported families on those incomes. Many of those people are  much closer to minimum now and few jobs are in the range they were in today. They used to be described as the lower middle income earners. Their wages stagnated, their jobs disappeared and so did what many saw as a stepping stone to what they thought of as middle class.

The next group are those above this group who had decent private sector unionized work. They were right in the middle income range the middle 20%. The unions that remain are struggling to keep any jobs at all as wages are rolled back or lose pace. The vast majority of this work is gone -- or going.

This is what many have termed the hollowing out of the so-called "middle class."

During this time inflation has failed as a statistic. It has been held down by imports of products and automation: electronics, clothing and the like made cheaper for the better off at the cost of workers here. Those who spend the majority of their income on housing, food and energy have seen how prices have risen dramatically and many of those spend a lower percentage of their incomes on electronics, new clothes and many of the other things that have become cheaper as their incomes go more and more to the necessities. Many have had to move to or remain in the largest cities where rents, even when shared, consumeup to 80% of income and much of their days are spent communting.

Reduced hourly work weeks have shaved5 hours from a 40 hour week to a 35 hour week although hourly workers did not get a boost in pay. Minimum wages, were long ago based on the 40 hour week but many workers struggle to get barely over a quarter of the hours now.

No, it is not the system of welfare that is disintegrating most, affecting the very bottom incomes most. It is true that they are desperate, although they have always been unacceptably so. It is the next group up: the people who, healthy and capable, through their own efforts used to expect a decent life, who can no longer aspire to that. These are the people the government has ignored, deregulated.

It is essential that we understand this group. They are furious at what they see as handouts to the poorest, when they are prevented from making it. They often support right wing reactionary policies against those who are just a little worse off than they are. They often politically support the policies that help the very rich costing the poorest becuase they are angry about being ignored. No, the myth is wrong and they did not support Trump in the last election in the US, but the story is believable becuase the sentiment of alienation is there. This is also true in Canada. Their alienation hurts the poorest becuase the assistance to the poorest, ignoring the next group up, divides politically those who need progressive policies.

The politics of division continue as each government lurches to some voting subclass. In the last federal rejigging of the tax rates, the federal government helped families with young children in the 40,000-70,000 range and individuals over 70,000 while screwing families with older kids and individuals below 40,000 once again. The policies here are like giving a single meal to ten hungry people -- it will not go well but as a group they will not be a threat as they fight among themselves. Other people's eyes glaze over with the details of who got help and who did not.

Governments are statisfied with wide-ranging desperation so long as the people do not consume social assistance. Governments want to raise up the lowest just so they can struggle and fail on their own rather than consume assistance. The policies of this and past governments have been to make destroy those in the middle income range, driving them down just short of welfare but not quite; just short of homelessness, but using all their incomes to couch surf if needed.

No, really, it is society that is disintegrating as wealth and income is becoming more and more concentrated. The poorest are a casualty, making little or no progress in their horrible position, but the war is on the people above them.

It is a clever strategy. The lowest rung you have to help just a little, as they will fight back when they have nothing left to lose. The next rung up you have to suppress. These are the people who would have had tools to fight back at the unfairness. You have to keep them from rising enough to want more and be able to get it. By giving crumbs to the poorest, the wealthier can feel okay even as the hidden lower middle is squeezed. Of course, this middle has a lot of people in it and squeezing them is devastating to the long term. You could never accuse the wealthy of giving a shit about the long term otherwise they would care more about sustainability, not just socially but also environmentally.

NDPP

The Real Face of Justin Trudeau    -     by Ramzy Baroud

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/13/the-real-face-of-justin-trudeau-...

"Are Palestinians Canada's new Jews?"

Pondering

Excellent post Sean. Do you have any ideas about reaching the groups we need for electoral success?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Excellent post Sean. Do you have any ideas about reaching the groups we need for electoral success?

This is a good question. I don't have a perfect answer although I have suggestions.

To combat the politics of division you need holistic policies. This is much easier said than done. A huge problem is the way politics are being done. I have spoken about this in other posts. The advanced data the Conservatives and the Liberals are working with leads to divisive policies as they segment the population and choose boutique policies to create maximum political benefit at lowest cost. The Conservatives began this with transit, fitness and cultural credits but all the parties are involved in this. The Liberals did it in their tax policies and the NDP, while they lack the advanced data to calculate which policies would create maximum benefit frequently do the same, as a result of interest lobbying on the party.

Instead of a myriad of micro divisive policies, looking at solutions that affect more of the population are more helpful. Adding pharmacare, dentistry and eyecare services to health plans is an example of a policy that affects more people with less division. Public transit is another that can affect people in more than one income group. Tax back benefits rather than using means testing has long been a part of universal policies designed to benefit more than divide. Instead of targeting individual policies to specific groups make them much broader and tax back the support in excess. This allows people across a broad range to be involved in a benefit even if some net less than others based on their income.

As I said this is not easy though. Designing a policy like a minimum income has a dividing line somewhere. However, even this policy is wider and can be designed to tail off rather than stop abruptly (allowing earned income not to be removed dollar for dollar). Still if we separate tax policies which are designed to make people a little more equal and rely on those rather than specific benefit policies that divide people this is a start. It is also more efficient. Tax policies and income support policies such as income assistance and minimum incomes ought to be the primary leveling policies and can be as aggressive as we want. There is no need to make other policies divisive. the one exception ought to be environmental behaviour. A party founded on this principle could be a positive thing. The NDP, which long proclaimed the value of universal programs and more aggressive tax and support programs could reaffirm this commitment. All parties from a different perspective of the desired amount of economic leveling could take the same position. It is certainly no incompatible with the Liberals party although the charity over entitlement focus of the Conservatives makes it a harder sell there but this is not insurmountable.

I cannot say that any federal party is really using what we can call the individual equalization policies only and making other policies universal right now. The reason for this has been apparent in previous conversations you and I have had over universality. The objection comes primarily from the fact that taxes would need to be increased overall in order to make programs more universal otherwise the cost for doing so would be unbearable. This is a point you made previously saying that the appetite for the broad tax increases just were not there. As you remember, you and I were not able to resolve this and come to an agreement.

One possible option would be to review the way the tax system is communicated. It is presented as contribution in the way of contribution according to ability and reception according to need. This may be part of the problem given that this socialistic representation is out of step with the national culture, even if popular here. An alternative would be to reduce taxes dramatically and replace them with a national social insurance program. The social insurance program would be assessed like tax but communicated as insurance. It would also make it harder to cut as people will be paying for it.

Social insurance could be for the following things:

Income, employment, health (including dental, pharmacare, eyecare), higher education, transit, housing. A populist from the left could institute this program indicating how much you pay for each. It would tie specific benefits to premiums. Since income and employment are included making it affordable for everyone, those premiums can be flat costs provided to everyone.

One way of looking at this is with the institution of a minimum income, basic tax could be flatter supplemented by taxes on higher incomes.

Greater understanding of what people were paying and what they were getting would make universal policies and taxes easier to implement.

Also a left populist could adopt some of the principles of social credit - minimum income was already one of them (although not in the form it is today). The form is the concept of each of us being a social shareholder. With a basic income, all people would also become taxpayers so the division that now exists socially between contributors to these things and beneficiaries would be removed. Each Canadian should get prior to their taxes and easy-to-read prospectus, not from the government in the form of a budget but from the auditor general saying the broad areas where money was spent. People have a right to know and a need to know to engage in democratic debate. The lack of this information is what makes election and promises a degree of farce as knowledge is an essential part of choice and consent.

Some of my views are similar to what you could imagine being what a left version of the ideas of social credit would look like. they are in that sense very populist. They also trust the public more with knowledge.

This is just an initial reaction to your very good question.

quizzical

wow good posts Sean gotta do some thinking now.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

wow good posts Sean gotta do some thinking now.

Yeah me too. Will probably take a couple of days and more than one post to respond with as many questions as comments.

NorthReport
NDPP

Roger Waters Condemns Trudeau's Disregard For Palestinian Human Rights

https://youtu.be/mbLgS1dCii4

"Roger Waters condemns Justin Trudeau's lavish support for Israel and Trudeau's disregard for Palestinian human rights..."

'Either you're for universal human rights or you are not...'

None of Canada's parliamentary politicians are. A shameful situation. Stop voting for anyone who doesn't oppose Israeli Apartheid.

WWWTT

It's time for a true anti imperialist socialist political party in Canada NDPP! Thanks again for the link

Martin N.

Thats a good idea. More fringe parties will force the morally bankrupt 2 main parties into coalition governments.

Trudeau has moved so far to the left ( at least he presents that way in public) that the NDP face a wipeout under the uninspired leasdership of the almost invisible Singh.

WWWTT

Martin N. wrote:
Thats a good idea. More fringe parties will force the morally bankrupt 2 main parties into coalition governments. Trudeau has moved so far to the left ( at least he presents that way in public) that the NDP face a wipeout under the uninspired leasdership of the almost invisible Singh.

LOL Ya Justin moved way to the left, that's why he allowed Ms Meng to be arrested. Who said anything about starting another party on the left???

Being on the "left" is actually an excuse to get the liberals voted in. Same old stupid story over and over and over. 

Socialism is not on the "left" because according to Justin's and liberal logic, being a subserviant to imperialism is also acceptable left wing behaviour!

Martin N.

Unlike ant enterprising mouth-breather on a streetcorner, Trudeau is so incompetent he can't even make a success of selling dope. Why do you believe he will be successful at foreign policy?

WWWTT

I never said or even thought that Martin N?!?!?!?

This Justin character has a dismall record at foreign policy as far as I'm concerned. The only time he tried to really claim that he did was with his meetings with the French president Macron! And I don't think Justin wants to even wisper the name "Macron" right now! Let alone say it out loud for people to actually hear.

NDPP

This is Canada in 2019

https://twitter.com/TorranceCoste/status/1082413714475606016

"The PM is tweeting about environmental progress as the RCMP works to forcibly remove Indigenous leaders to make way for new fossil fuels infrastructure...."

NDPP

A Secwepemc Message For the Prime Minister (and vid)

https://twitter.com/HarshaWalia/status/1083092931169243136

"GET THE FUCK OFF OUR LAND!"

NDPP

Twitter Up in Arms After Trudeau Says He'll 'Continue to Condemn BDS'

https://on.rt.com/9mh9

"...The prime minister's comments were welcomed by Israeli interest groups, but slammed by many, including Independent Jewish Voices Canada which accused Trudeau of 'using our identities as Jews to go after support for Palestinian human rights."

What a shameful international embarrassment, especially when contrasted with the puffed up pretension of Canada's 'global defender of human rights' reputation.

iyraste1313

Trudeau must be challenged in federal Court for his violations of everything his Party supposedly stood for in the elections....If we lose we only win by showing what a farce our Charter ofd Rights truly is.....

montgomery

voice of the damned wrote:

josh wrote:
Lincoln is no longer beloved by Republicans. He believed in "big" government, opposed states rights, and interfered with the "right" of private property,

Well, Chong didn't neccessarily mean "beloved by Republicans". Just that he WAS a Republican. Who was beloved(presumably by Americans in general).

And while their own policies might be a negation of everything Lincoln stood for, I think most Republicans would still pay lip-service to his iconic status, in the same way that people who say "I believe in an eye for an eye!!" would still claim to love Jesus. Because saying you hate Jesus is just not done.

 

I neither love or hate jesus because I don't know of anything to love or hate in the whole thing. Which might relate to the topic of this thread? Is Trudeau a believer or is he just pretending as politicians are wont to do? 

And that could bring up the question for any of our NDP leaders. I sure hope they're just pretending. Probably easy to determine if one keeps a close eye on what they're up to on Sundays.

montgomery

montgomery wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

josh wrote:
Lincoln is no longer beloved by Republicans. He believed in "big" government, opposed states rights, and interfered with the "right" of private property,

Well, Chong didn't neccessarily mean "beloved by Republicans". Just that he WAS a Republican. Who was beloved(presumably by Americans in general).

And while their own policies might be a negation of everything Lincoln stood for, I think most Republicans would still pay lip-service to his iconic status, in the same way that people who say "I believe in an eye for an eye!!" would still claim to love Jesus. Because saying you hate Jesus is just not done.

 

I neither love or hate jesus because I don't know of anything to love or hate in the whole thing. Which might relate to the topic of this thread? Is Trudeau a believer or is he just pretending as politicians are wont to do? 

And that could bring up the question for any of our NDP leaders. I sure hope they're just pretending. Probably easy to determine if one keeps a close eye on what they're up to on Sundays.

None of the American politicians of the past were anything like the gods those lemmings envision them as being. It's all a fantasy they've created in order to stick some feathers in their own caps. Fwiw, they're as bad as the British colonialists who run roughshod over the world right up until WW2, and then when it ended, the US took over the job.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Trudeau and his wife are Roman Catholics.  He may be like the hypocrites who love to stand and pray in the churches that they may be seen by others. Its hard to judge a man's heart when you have no personal contact with him however if he is an Xian then he should bear in mind that no one who practices deceit shall dwell in heaven and no one who utters lies shall see God.

Me I'm not a Christian although I was born and raised Catholic. Justin has made religion a significant part of his brand and he is getting known for lying so if I was a Xian I would be be saying that he is amongst the damned not the blessed.

bekayne

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Trudeau and his wife are Roman Catholics.  He may be like the hypocrites who love to stand and pray in the churches that they may be seen by others. Its hard to judge a man's heart when you have no personal contact with him however if he is an Xian then he should bear in mind that no one who practices deceit shall dwell in heaven and no one who utters lies shall see God.

Me I'm not a Christian although I was born and raised Catholic. Justin has made religion a significant part of his brand and he is getting known for lying so if I was a Xian I would be be saying that he is amongst the damned not the blessed.

Really? Any photos of him in church that are not a wedding, funeral or official function?

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Trudeau and his wife are Roman Catholics.  He may be like the hypocrites who love to stand and pray in the churches that they may be seen by others. Its hard to judge a man's heart when you have no personal contact with him however if he is an Xian then he should bear in mind that no one who practices deceit shall dwell in heaven and no one who utters lies shall see God.

Me I'm not a Christian although I was born and raised Catholic. Justin has made religion a significant part of his brand and he is getting known for lying so if I was a Xian I would be be saying that he is amongst the damned not the blessed.

I'm not a Christian so I would say it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to him being amongst the damned or the blessed. But I'm probably more interested in whether NDP leaders are pretending too. My guess is that they are because they have to. Not pretending to be a believer is going to cost a lot of votes. Renouncing religion is an ideal too high to strive for and expect from any politician. It's much like saying you're purely socialist and not being able to define what it means. And pretending to be a believer or being a believer isn't going to cost anything! 

cco

bekayne wrote:

Really? Any photos of him in church that are not a wedding, funeral or official function?


montgomery wrote:

I'm not a Christian so I would say it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to him being amongst the damned or the blessed. But I'm probably more interested in whether NDP leaders are pretending too. My guess is that they are because they have to. Not pretending to be a believer is going to cost a lot of votes. Renouncing religion is an ideal too high to strive for and expect from any politician. It's much like saying you're purely socialist and not being able to define what it means. And pretending to be a believer or being a believer isn't going to cost anything! 

As an atheist: What's the difference?

No, seriously. Even some clergy don't actually believe, and as far as practicing the precepts, if we go by "love your neighbour as yourself" and "turn the other cheek" we'd have to conclude no Christian has ever been elected to Parliament, even Tommy Douglas. Trudeau says he's a Catholic. I take him at his word even though I don't take him at his word on much else, because no-true-Scotsman-style analyzing degrees of hypocrisy is a good way to come to the erroneous conclusion that there aren't any religious people on Earth. He's certainly got the sanctimonious public displays of virtue and judging others while committing and profiting from acts of evil thing down pat. Sounds like a priest to me.

montgomery

cco wrote:
bekayne wrote:

Really? Any photos of him in church that are not a wedding, funeral or official function?

montgomery wrote:

I'm not a Christian so I would say it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to him being amongst the damned or the blessed. But I'm probably more interested in whether NDP leaders are pretending too. My guess is that they are because they have to. Not pretending to be a believer is going to cost a lot of votes. Renouncing religion is an ideal too high to strive for and expect from any politician. It's much like saying you're purely socialist and not being able to define what it means. And pretending to be a believer or being a believer isn't going to cost anything! 

As an atheist: What's the difference?

No, seriously. Even some clergy don't actually believe, and as far as practicing the precepts, if we go by "love your neighbour as yourself" and "turn the other cheek" we'd have to conclude no Christian has ever been elected to Parliament, even Tommy Douglas. Trudeau says he's a Catholic. I take him at his word even though I don't take him at his word on much else, because no-true-Scotsman-style analyzing degrees of hypocrisy is a good way to come to the erroneous conclusion that there aren't any religious people on Earth. He's certainly got the sanctimonious public displays of virtue and judging others while committing and profiting from acts of evil thing down pat. Sounds like a priest to me.

interesting that you would be suggesting that Tommy wasn't the real Christian thing. What the hell do you base that on?

In Tommy's time it ws expected and excusable for the enlightened minority. Now it's different.

I think Trudeau's too smart to be a Christian believer and I also lit's likely he didn't have it pounded into his head as a child by mommy and daddy. Neither of them gave off the impression that they would. And so once a child has escaped the formative years without being brainwashed and abused by Christian thinking, they're usually going to be safe for life.

I think we could have a lengthy discussion on the dangers of our political leaders being believers in sky fairies of any stripe. It would tend to influence very important considerations.

cco

montgomery wrote:

interesting that you would be suggesting that Tommy wasn't the real Christian thing. What the hell do you base that on?

You misread. I'm saying that if we're judging what religions politicians belong to by comparing their works with their religious dogma, instead of by their self-identification, there aren't going to be any who are in perfect compliance. I totally believe Douglas was a Christian, in the same way I believe Trudeau is.

Quote:

I think Trudeau's too smart to be a Christian believer and I also lit's likely he didn't have it pounded into his head as a child by mommy and daddy. Neither of them gave off the impression that they would. And so once a child has escaped the formative years without being brainwashed and abused by Christian thinking, they're usually going to be safe for life.

Intelligence alone doesn't guarantee freedom from religion. I wish it did. Smart people just find better ways to rationalize beliefs they came to for non-smart reasons.

Quote:

I think we could have a lengthy discussion on the dangers of our political leaders being believers in sky fairies of any stripe. It would tend to influence very important considerations.

Given the, er, reverence for religion in Canadian politics, society, and law, I'm not holding my breath.

montgomery

 

Given the, er, reverence for religion in Canadian politics, society, and law, I'm not holding my breath.

So that somehow prevents the conversation here on this board? Yeah right...