The Globe and Mail economic debate September 17

Brachina wrote:

 I think some on Rabble would happily call Tommy Douglas a neoliberal, if you keep abusing a word it stops having any meaning.

If the shoe fits, it's not abuse.

The shoe doesn't fit, not like that would stop you from from shoving on everyone's foot. No Mulcair is not a neoliberal, he's increasing taxes in order to help the poor and families get ahead, a neoliberal cuts services in order to funnel the money to the rich and corporations.

Brachina wrote:

The shoe doesn't fit, not like that would stop you from from shoving on everyone's foot. No Mulcair is not a neoliberal, he's increasing taxes in order to help the poor and families get ahead, a neoliberal cuts services in order to funnel the money to the rich and corporations.

Not true at all.  Both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair raised taxes, and both are considered to be neo-liberals.

Mulcair continues to trot out 'a $15 federal minimum wage' knowing full well that each time he does, many, many of those hearing it actually think it applies to a national minimum. I am repeatedly hearing that "The NDP supports a $15 dollar minimum wage", and am happy to disabuse those that make this mistake. The reaction is invariably hostile to this 'sleazy' little contrick.

Brachina wrote:

The shoe doesn't fit, not like that would stop you from from shoving on everyone's foot. No Mulcair is not a neoliberal, he's increasing taxes in order to help the poor and families get ahead, a neoliberal cuts services in order to funnel the money to the rich and corporations.

well said

NDPP wrote:

Mulcair continues to trot out 'a $15 federal minimum wage' knowing full well that each time he does, many, many of those hearing it actually think it applies to a national minimum. I am repeatedly hearing that "The NDP supports a $15 dollar minimum wage", and am happy to disabuse those that make this mistake. The reaction is invariably hostile to this 'sleazy' little contrick.

are you trying to say the NDP doesn't support a 15.00 min wage?

i see you want Harper to remain in power. good for you.

 Mulcair made it abundantly clear what his expectations and goals for the $15 minium wage, he hide nothing, he expects to effect 100,000 people and to encourage the provinces to do the same, he same it several times, someone fails to understand that its not Mulcair's  fault they that they're not paying attention, again he has been continously clear about this. 

 Btw that rightwing terror of neoliberalism want to start building universal pharmacare, but wait his plan invovles building it over time, so that means he hates the poor right? And kittens, he hates the poor and kittens, that neoliberal Tyrant.

 Btw what is with peoples obsession with Mulcair's beard? Wtf. Not on rabble, just in general.

 I'm not talking idealogy and personality, I'm talking approach to institution building, long term thinking, and a desire for balanced budgets. Again look at Tommy Douglas's actual actions as Premier of Sask and Mulcair's plans and it becomes clear. Actions speak louder then words.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 Mulcair's platform so far and his approach during the debate really reminded me more of Tommy Douglas then Jack Layton, anyone else feel this way?

I heard Tomy speak in his heyday and Mulcair is no Tommy Douglas. Not in his demeanor nor his passion nor his ideology. Him and Jack share way more in common as leaders and speakers.

Oh my goodness, everyone from Sask. is now going to weigh in on this, including me. Jack absolutely did not remind me of TC.

So to us Sask types...    Tommy Douglas was a storyteller extraordinaire...   connected with people like he was talking over the kitchen table.  I agree this doesnt' fit Tommy (we don't even imagine Tommy) Mulcair.  To Brachina's point...   taking a sustainable systemic approach seems a characteristic of both Tommy's.  

Just an aside, when asked later in life what his greatest accompllishment was, Tommy Douglas didn't mention medicare, he replied, "rural electrification."  It took over a decade, was infrastructure building in a manner that didn't break the bank, and significantly impacted the quality of many who resided in rural areas.  And it was done with a public crown corporation, Sask Power, which is still around today providing service and keeping profits within the province.  Again, this sustainable, systemic thinking seems to fit both Tommy's.

 

DLivings wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Mulcair continues to trot out 'a $15 federal minimum wage' knowing full well that each time he does, many, many of those hearing it actually think it applies to a national minimum. I am repeatedly hearing that "The NDP supports a $15 dollar minimum wage", and am happy to disabuse those that make this mistake. The reaction is invariably hostile to this 'sleazy' little contrick.

Sounds like a very sophisticated, double blind study you're doing. No possibility of bias in that sample.

To many workers it does sound like a tease because at first they think it applies to them even if they realize in the next sentence that it doesn't. After all, provincial minimum wages apply to everyone so why wouldn't a federal minimum wage apply to everyone?

 

I think you're saying it's like Justin Trudeau's infrastructure plan.  JT says, "We're going to invest in infrastructure"... then you find he's actually going to create a bank that municipalities and provinces can borrow from.  It's like we have an idea that infrastructure spending is a good thing...   so we'll help you to borrow to do it.

He didn't say that was his sole contribution to infrastructure building so no it isn't the same thing.

DLivings wrote:

I guess it's like the $15 federal minimum wage isn't the sole investment the ndp is committing to in order to lift up and support Canadian families.

No, there is no comparison. The 15$ minimum wage is the only measure affecting minimum wage. The measure was not introduced as a subset of a larger program. It was announced as one of the 5 major platform planks introduced in the fall of 2014. The parallel between minimum wage and infrastructure investment makes no sense.

If Trudeau is wrong and voters do and did understand the federal minimum wage doesn't apply to all minimum wage workers then Trudeau will sound condescending and the NDP will benefit by it.

 

Mulcair reminds me of Honore Mercier

Ciabatta2 wrote:

It is actually very comparable because in reality the infrastructure money will very likely require provincial and municipal matching contributions once implemented, and/or use of prviate alternate financing methods to match.  Trudeau's infrastructure and Mulcair's minimum wage, they're both very surface, phoney in-the-fine-print promises.

Isn't that the norm for non-federal infrastructure programs and don't provinces already have existing infrastructure budgets? That is, it would not require any new money from provinces. The federal money would be in addition to what they already spend. Trudeau has already stated he will cancel the Champlain Bridge tolls. Normally cities and provinces get no help at all with sewers.

"Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure."

These are all currently funded by the provincial and municipal governments.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan on the basis that it will require billions of dollars of extra funding from the provinces. I don't think he would leave himself open to the same attack on infrastructure spending by requiring extra provincial spending.

Pondering wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

It is actually very comparable because in reality the infrastructure money will very likely require provincial and municipal matching contributions once implemented, and/or use of prviate alternate financing methods to match.  Trudeau's infrastructure and Mulcair's minimum wage, they're both very surface, phoney in-the-fine-print promises.

Isn't that the norm for non-federal infrastructure programs and don't provinces already have existing infrastructure budgets? That is, it would not require any new money from provinces. The federal money would be in addition to what they already spend. Trudeau has already stated he will cancel the Champlain Bridge tolls. Normally cities and provinces get no help at all with sewers.

"Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure."

These are all currently funded by the provincial and municipal governments.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan on the basis that it will require billions of dollars of extra funding from the provinces. I don't think he would leave himself open to the same attack on infrastructure spending by requiring extra provincial spending.

So much of the social and hard infrastructure costs have been off-loaded on the provinces over the last couple of decades.  That's why we have a physical infrastructure deficit.  And for the record, the decade of Liberal government prior to the Harper years actually cut health care transfers more than the Harper years.   So the provinces are shouldering more with fewer resources.

 

Admittedly boutique polling on who won the debate from CBC's VoteCompass:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues...

Pondering wrote:

Isn't that the norm for non-federal infrastructure programs and don't provinces already have existing infrastructure budgets? That is, it would not require any new money from provinces. The federal money would be in addition to what they already spend. Trudeau has already stated he will cancel the Champlain Bridge tolls. Normally cities and provinces get no help at all with sewers.

"Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure."

These are all currently funded by the provincial and municipal governments.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan on the basis that it will require billions of dollars of extra funding from the provinces. I don't think he would leave himself open to the same attack on infrastructure spending by requiring extra provincial spending.

Exactly.  The projects he is targeted are currently funded by other governments.  The federal government is not going to step in and gift busytown a stormwater management upgrade as it sets precedents, doesn't diffuse accountability and doesn't make the dollars last over additinal announcements.  And they certainly aren't going to go in and fund stuff that is already funded.  The reality of infrastructure funding is that there are very few full cheques.  Trudeau's commitment, right now, doesn't imply it either way, but taside from anyone's partisan leanings for or against Trudeau, I think you will find should he win the election (and I think he will) the majority of his dollars (if spent) will require partners to pony up comparable funds of 20-40 percent.  Mulcair is being more clear about the provinces having to fund the daycare plan, but only because he has to.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Isn't that the norm for non-federal infrastructure programs and don't provinces already have existing infrastructure budgets? That is, it would not require any new money from provinces. The federal money would be in addition to what they already spend. Trudeau has already stated he will cancel the Champlain Bridge tolls. Normally cities and provinces get no help at all with sewers.

"Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure."

These are all currently funded by the provincial and municipal governments.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan on the basis that it will require billions of dollars of extra funding from the provinces. I don't think he would leave himself open to the same attack on infrastructure spending by requiring extra provincial spending.

Exactly.  The projects he is targeted are currently funded by other governments.  The federal government is not going to step in and gift busytown a stormwater management upgrade as it sets precedents, doesn't diffuse accountability and doesn't make the dollars last over additinal announcements.  And they certainly aren't going to go in and fund stuff that is already funded.  The reality of infrastructure funding is that there are very few full cheques.  Trudeau's commitment, right now, doesn't imply it either way, but taside from anyone's partisan leanings for or against Trudeau, I think you will find should he win the election (and I think he will) the majority of his dollars (if spent) will require partners to pony up comparable funds of 20-40 percent.  Mulcair is being more clear about the provinces having to fund the daycare plan, but only because he has to.

I don't see why any part the provinces pony up can't come from their existing infrastructure budgets. Montreal water pipes are in terrible shape. We are losing somewhere around 30% or more of our treated water to leaking pipes. The city is working on replacing them but they can't do it fast enough alone. We have major pipe breaks every winter. Montreal A doubling of funds for that would be a huge boost. We are already spending the money. Cancelling the tolls on Champlain bridge that were to contribute to paying for the bridge isn't costing Quebec anything.

Calgary is already planning measures on flood mitigation and Trudeau had a meeting with Nenshi so flood mitigation is one of the projects Trudeau is offering federal money for.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan because it requires the provinces to put in new money that they don't have. If he then announces a program that also requires new money from the provinces he would open himself up to the exact same criticism.

Perhaps it is just me, but who on earth was responsible for the lighting at the debate? Somehow I doubt they have any professional qualifications at all... maybe they did the lighting for some kid's Halloween party. The backdrop didn't help either... still not sure if was supposed to be the Parliament buildings or the old Toronto City Hall.

Pondering wrote:

DLivings wrote:

So much of the social and hard infrastructure costs have been off-loaded on the provinces over the last couple of decades.  That's why we have a physical infrastructure deficit.  And for the record, the decade of Liberal government prior to the Harper years actually cut health care transfers more than the Harper years.   So the provinces are shouldering more with fewer resources.

You are absolutely right. Canada (Chretien/Martin) were following the prevailing "wisdom" of the times and had the full support of the public. That was then, this is now. Times change and Liberals change with it.

So the Liberals' principles change based on the wisdom of the times? Did the wisdom of the times change between 1993 and 1994 regarding NAFTA?

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't see why any part the provinces pony up can't come from their existing infrastructure budgets. Montreal water pipes are in terrible shape. We are losing somewhere around 30% or more of our treated water to leaking pipes. The city is working on replacing them but they can't do it fast enough alone. We have major pipe breaks every winter. Montreal A doubling of funds for that would be a huge boost. We are already spending the money. Cancelling the tolls on Champlain bridge that were to contribute to paying for the bridge isn't costing Quebec anything.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan because it requires the provinces to put in new money that they don't have. If he then announces a program that also requires new money from the provinces he would open himself up to the exact same criticism.

Any *new* infrastructure will need *new* money.

The reason Trudeau hasn't specified is because no one has asked.

The "new" money is the billions of federal dollars Trudeau has committed to infrastructure building.

mark_alfred wrote:

No, Trudeau partisans will never wake up.  But regarding the debate, many pundits did give Mulcair an edge (Ivison, the Globe, Kinsella, etc.) but we do see that many non-partisans did go with the money now now now message of Trudeau rather than the long term (eight year) plan of $15 a day universal child care supported by an increase in corporate taxes put forth by the NDP.  I do hope people wake up and go with the progressive choice of the NDP.

From the Globe:

Analysis

Trudeau emerges as leader with new economic vision for Canada

David Parkinson - ECONOMICS REPORTER

The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 17, 2015 11:07PM EDT

Last updated Friday, Sep. 18, 2015 3:16PM EDT

While it was at times hard to find the economic meat in this muddled sandwich of political finger-pointing and out-shouting, the Liberal Leader gave by far the most convincing case yet for his road map for the Canadian economy of the future.

First, though, he and his two counterparts, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, had to get their dreary, intelligence-insulting political games out of the way.

.......

Was he convincing? Not always. But he did better than his two opponents in explaining the rationale behind his policies. He presented himself as the only man of the three with something meaningful to offer. And he looked like he knew what he was talking about.

......

Nevertheless, the three distinguished themselves from each other on the economy Thursday. Mr. Mulcair came off as less scary on the economy than the NDP is often painted to be. Mr. Harper defined himself as the safe choice on the path that, while not so great, also hasn’t been so awful.

But whether you like it or not, only Mr. Trudeau offered voters a vision of something new.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-emerges-as-leader-w...

 

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

From the Globe:

Analysis

Trudeau emerges as leader with new economic vision for Canada

David Parkinson - ECONOMICS REPORTER

The Globe and Mail

The Globe is just averse to having a party like the NDP in that will move toward having corporations pay their fair share.  So of course their economic reporter will support either the Liberals or the Conservatives.  It's always been that way.

Your comment:

No, Trudeau partisans will never wake up.  But regarding the debate, many pundits did give Mulcair an edge (Ivison, the Globe, Kinsella, etc.)

was erroneous.  You claimed the Globe gave Mulcair the edge so apparently there is no "of course" about it.

Kinsella would smear the Liberals, something he has been doing since they refused him as a candidate. He has even said that he is as inflamatory as possible to attract clicks. Ivison wants Harper to win and thinks that's more likely against the NDP. The Liberals are taking more votes away from Harper than the NDP can.

 

Oh no, with some polls out we are sure to get some more ponderous posts.