Politics in 2018

[Altair]

Yup that's true. And looking a wounded war vet in the face and saying vets are asking for more than the government is willing able to give while dishing out money for isis reintegration  was ballsy too.


Trudeau's Canadian tour of duty reminds me of a platoon/company commanders hour when they're hit with a barage of serious issues and complaints and they close their notebook and just start nodding their head looking at their watch.

That was Trudeaus excuse,  what was Harpers?

If I remember correctly,  both leaders have had a jolly ole time screwing wounded vets.

 

[FSTO]

That was Trudeaus excuse,  what was Harpers?

If I remember correctly,  both leaders have had a jolly ole time screwing wounded vets.

Fantino was a very poor choice as VA minister but there was improvement starting under O'Toole.
The Liberals have the ball now and the PM's response at the town hall was pretty cold blooded for a man who is cries at the drop of the hat at every perceived injustice.

I've said this many a time, the mandarins at VA want you to come back from a deployment one of two ways; not a scratch on you in mind, body and soul or atomized on the battlefield or lost at sea so that they don't have to even pay to get your carcass back to Canada.

 

[Altair]

Fantino was a very poor choice as VA minister but there was improvement starting under O'Toole.
The Liberals have the ball now and the PM's response at the town hall was pretty cold blooded for a man who is cries at the drop of the hat at every perceived injustice.

Harper,  Trudeau,  Fantino O'Toole,  Herr, O'Regan,  all have been battling vets in courts over lifetime benefits.  One can focus on Trudeaus response all they want,  both parties are guilty of penny pinching here.

I've said this many a time, the mandarins at VA want you to come back from a deployment one of two ways; not a scratch on you in mind, body and soul or atomized on the battlefield or lost at sea so that they don't have to even pay to get your carcass back to Canada.

I imagine they hope for the former but the latter is rather more efficient from their standpoint.

 

[FSTO]

Harper,  Trudeau,  Fantino O'Toole,  Herr, O'Regan,  all have been battling vets in courts over lifetime benefits.  One can focus on Trudeaus response all they want,  both parties are guilty of penny pinching here.

The ball is in the current governments court. The PM's response does not give me much hope things will improve under this government either.

 

[jollyjacktar]

One can focus on Trudeaus response all they want,  both parties are guilty of penny pinching here.

But only one party and leader made promises to get elected that he has no intention of honouring. I suppose, because he has none himself.  And it isn't Harper.

Too bad he doesn't have the same time for us as he does for the Khadr's, Boyle's and returning terrorists.  As long as they're taken care of and paid off...

 

[Altair]

But only one party and leader made promises to get elected that he has no intention of honouring. I suppose, because he has none himself.  And it isn't Harper.

Too bad he doesn't have the same time for us as he does for the Khadr's, Boyle's and returning terrorists.  As long as they're taken care of and paid off...

I remain hopeful the courts side with vets at the end of the day and force the government to do the right thing.

But at the end of the day,  he has to own it, his broken promise.  At the same time,  he isn't the only one here guilty of screwing over vets.  Its largely a team effort.

CPC and LPC both support the new legislation  to bring in the new rules.

CPC starts the fight with the vets fighting for a return to lifelong pentions

LPC continues to fight vets once they take power.

Doesn't really matter who is in power,  vets are getting the shit end of the stick either way.

 

[Loachman]

I would like to point out that the majority of Canadians are better off now than 10, 20 or even 50 years ago.

I'd say, as one who can remember "even 50 years ago", that it is not so. My father had a decent but not-unusually-well-paid job. We owned a house (the first was a modest standard row house in England until we moved in 1965; two on that street are on the market for the equivalent of $1.22 million right now) in Stratford in a new subdivision, lacked nothing, and my mother did not have to work. She later took a part-time job because she wanted to buy her own car. My father also had a decent company pension. How many can say the same thing today?

"Better off" may be illusory and fragile:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-household-debt-to-income-ratio-hits-record-high/article37324237/

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/24/canadas-household-debt-levels-higher-than-any-other-country-report-says.html

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/12/14/canadian-household-debt-hits-record-high-as-net-worth-declines_a_23307418/

http://business.financialpost.com/business/canadas-economic-growth-has-come-at-a-price-its-debt-level-is-now-highest-in-the-developed-world

Our current underwhelming prime minister (cbuh) is racking up debt like mad. What happens when interest spikes as it did in the late eighties? I bought my first house in Chalk River in 1989 with an 11.75% mortgage. Fortunately, I only paid $54000.00 for it. I bought my next house in Newmarket for $158000 three years later. Similar houses in the same neighbourhood have recently sold for around $750000.

Paul Martin raided RCMP, PS, and CF pension funds to reduce the federal deficit not so long ago. But nobody would ever do that again when the consequences of his wild spending hit, would he?

 

[Jarnhamar]

That was Trudeaus excuse,  what was Harpers?

If I remember correctly,  both leaders have had a jolly ole time screwing wounded vets.

Butwhataboutharper

Harper doesn't need an excuse, he's not in office right now. Nor is he paying 35 million dollars for rapists and murders to get poetry lessons and back rubs. Nor being found guilty ethics breaches. 

 

[Altair]

I'd say, as one who can remember "even 50 years ago", that it is not so. My father had a decent but not-unusually-well-paid job. We owned a house (the first was a modest standard row house in England until we moved in 1965; two on that street are on the market for the equivalent of $1.22 million right now) in Stratford in a new subdivision, lacked nothing, and my mother did not have to work. She later took a part-time job because she wanted to buy her own car. My father also had a decent company pension. How many can say the same thing today?

"Better off" may be illusory and fragile:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-household-debt-to-income-ratio-hits-record-high/article37324237/

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/24/canadas-household-debt-levels-higher-than-any-other-country-report-says.html

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/12/14/canadian-household-debt-hits-record-high-as-net-worth-declines_a_23307418/

http://business.financialpost.com/business/canadas-economic-growth-has-come-at-a-price-its-debt-level-is-now-highest-in-the-developed-world

Our current underwhelming prime minister (cbuh) is racking up debt like mad. What happens when interest spikes as it did in the late eighties? I bought my first house in Chalk River in 1989 with an 11.75% mortgage. Fortunately, I only paid $54000.00 for it. I bought my next house in Newmarket for $158000 three years later. Similar houses in the same neighbourhood have recently sold for around $750000.

Paul Martin raided RCMP, PS, and CF pension funds to reduce the federal deficit not so long ago. But nobody would ever do that again when the consequences of his wild spending hit, would he?

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/we-are-not-heading-to-fiscal-crisis/amp/

The ultimate measure of the sustainability of fiscal policy is the debt-to-GDP ratio. This ratio compares the size of the debt to our collective ability to pay for it. When this ratio rises, we can get into a spiral where interest costs drive the debt higher, which then leads to more interest costs and we end up in a crisis. Back in 1995, Canada was very close to such a crisis. We had annual deficits around five per cent of GDP, which drove the debt-to-GDP ratio over 65 per cent. With the yield on long-term government bonds then exceeding eight per cent, debt servicing cost grew to a very large six per cent of GDP. The infamous 1995 budget turned the corner by chopping billions from federal spending and raising taxes until budget balance was reached in 1997.

The current scenario is very different. The 2016 budget projects a deficit of 1.5 per cent of GDP, which will push our debt to GDP ratio up to 32.5 per cent. With today’s long bonds yielding less than two per cent, public debt charges are only 1.3 per cent of GDP. If the Liberal government is able to hold to their plan, the deficit will fall to 0.6 per cent of GDP by 2021 and the debt to GDP ratio will recede to 30.9 per cent. As Stephen Gordon points out, that’s a big “if.” Meeting these Budget 2016 targets will require the Liberal government to have a steely spine and keep tight control of spending.

 

[Altair]

Butwhataboutharper

Harper doesn't need an excuse, he's not in office right now. Nor is he paying 35 million dollars for rapists and murders to get poetry lessons and back rubs. Nor being found guilty ethics breaches.

True,  this whole fighting vets in court started the second Trudeau was elected,  how silly of me.

 

[Rifleman62]

Altair:

....how silly of me.

You said it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

True,  this whole fighting vets in court started the second Trudeau was elected,  how silly of me.

Exactly.

 

[jollyjacktar]

True,  this whole fighting vets in court started the second Trudeau was elected,  how silly of me.

His breaking election promises started the minute he was.  Yes, very silly of you to such a fanboy apologist.

 

[Loachman]

He has never made a promise to not build pipelines,  thus he has no promise to break with BC.

Perhaps not, technically, but others don't seem to see it quite as technically:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3097871/fact-check-justin-trudeau-break-promise-approving-pipelines/

"Throughout last year’s election campaign and his government’s first year in office, Trudeau has championed the environment, promised to work with First Nations communities and revamp the review process for energy projects.

"He reneged on some of those."

"But in the same breath, Trudeau approved two other projects: Enbridge’s Line 3 (carrying oil from Alberta to Wisconsin) and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain line (carrying bitumen from Alberta to the B.C. coast).

"Those approvals provoked cries of betrayal, dishonesty and political pandering from environmental groups across the country and opposition MPs in Ottawa, given some promises he’s made."

"Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said Trudeau “betrayed” British Columbians, many of whom fiercely protested oil conduits running through their province and onto their shores."

"During the election campaign, Trudeau said he would overhaul the National Energy Board and change the process for reviewing energy proposals. He also pledged to work with and consult indigenous communities. He painted himself as a defender of the environment. And he frequently said to voters it’s the communities that grant permission - the government can only grant permits*.

"It’s those promises that have the critics up in arms."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pipelines-campaign-promises-1.3874933

"New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair says Trudeau broke a "solemn promise" to Canadians that no pipeline would be approved under the National Energy Board review system put in place by the previous Conservative government."

* Permit http://www.dictionary.com/browse/permit?s=t

noun

8. an authoritative or official certificate of permission; license: a fishing permit.
9. a written order granting special permission to do something.
10. permission.

- He therefore contradicts himself. Nice hair, though.

 

[Altair]

His breaking election promises started the minute he was.  Yes, very silly of you to such a fanboy apologist.

Politicians break promises. I have yet to find one who doesn't. Have you?

Maybe I just temper my expectations.

Or maybe I'm a realist and realized that no matter who we elect the vets are getting screwed on this issue.

I'm not particularly happy about it,  but c'est la vie.

 

[Altair]

Perhaps not, technically, but others don't seem to see it quite as technically:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3097871/fact-check-justin-trudeau-break-promise-approving-pipelines/

"Throughout last year’s election campaign and his government’s first year in office, Trudeau has championed the environment, promised to work with First Nations communities and revamp the review process for energy projects.

"He reneged on some of those."

"But in the same breath, Trudeau approved two other projects: Enbridge’s Line 3 (carrying oil from Alberta to Wisconsin) and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain line (carrying bitumen from Alberta to the B.C. coast).

"Those approvals provoked cries of betrayal, dishonesty and political pandering from environmental groups across the country and opposition MPs in Ottawa, given some promises he’s made."

"Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said Trudeau “betrayed” British Columbians, many of whom fiercely protested oil conduits running through their province and onto their shores."

"During the election campaign, Trudeau said he would overhaul the National Energy Board and change the process for reviewing energy proposals. He also pledged to work with and consult indigenous communities. He painted himself as a defender of the environment. And he frequently said to voters it’s the communities that grant permission - the government can only grant permits*.

"It’s those promises that have the critics up in arms."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pipelines-campaign-promises-1.3874933

"New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair says Trudeau broke a "solemn promise" to Canadians that no pipeline would be approved under the National Energy Board review system put in place by the previous Conservative government."

* Permit http://www.dictionary.com/browse/permit?s=t

noun

8. an authoritative or official certificate of permission; license: a fishing permit.
9. a written order granting special permission to do something.
10. permission.

- He therefore contradicts himself. Nice hair, though.

odd to see you siding with mulcair.

Regardless, he has for years said that no country with billions of dollars of natural resources in the ground would leave them there.

He has for years said that that oil will continue to be extracted,  pipeline or not,  and that transporting oil via pipeline is safer and better for the environment than transporting it via rail.

Anyone who though he wouldn't approve some pipelines wasn't listening to him speak.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/04/21/news/trudeau-boxes-and-talks-pipelines-new-york-city-video

At New York University, Trudeau also spoke about how Canada's energy resources shouldn't be demonized, about how transporting oil by rail is much more dangerous than by pipeline, and how it's important to include First Nations' input when it comes to energy projects.

 

[Loachman]

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/we-are-not-heading-to-fiscal-crisis/amp/

That's nice 'n' all, until interests climb to the point where servicing that debt eats up too much to be able to afford. I've lived through a time where that was a huge concern.

https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/history-wars-was-trudeau-a-disaster-david-frum-and-lawrence-martin-debate/

"Canada today is a very successful country. It has suffered less from the  global economic crisis than any other major economy. So Canadians may be tempted to be philosophical about disasters in their own past. Hasn't it all come out  right in the end?

"But I want to stress: Canada's achievement overcoming Pierre Trudeau's legacy  should not inure Canadians to how disastrous that legacy was.

"Three subsequent important prime ministers - Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien  and Stephen Harper - invested their energies cleaning up the wreckage left by  Pierre Trudeau. The work has taken almost 30 years. Finally, and at long last,  nobody speculates anymore about Canada defaulting on its debt, or splitting  apart, or being isolated from all its major allies.

"Yet through most of the adult lives of most people reading this, people in  Canada and outside Canada did worry about those things. And as you enjoy the  peace, stability and comparative prosperity of Canada in the 2010s, just  consider - this is how Canadians felt in the middle 1960s. Now imagine a  political leader coming along and out of ignorance and arrogance despoiling all  this success. Not because the leader faced some overwhelming crisis where it was  hard to see the right answer. But utterly unnecessarily. Out of a clear blue  sky.

"Pierre Trudeau took office at a moment when commodity prices were rising  worldwide. Good policy-makers recognize that commodity prices fall as well as  rise. Yet between 1969 and 1979 - through two majority governments and one  minority - Trudeau tripled federal spending.

"In 1981-'82, Canada plunged into recession, the worst since the Second World  War. Trudeau's already big deficits exploded to a point that Canada's lenders  worried about default. Trudeau's Conservative successor, Brian Mulroney,  balanced Canada's operating budget after 1984. But to squeeze out Trudeau-era  inflation, the Bank of Canada had raised real interest rates very high. Mulroney  could not keep up with the debt payments. The debt compounded, the deficits  grew, the Bank hiked rates again - and Canada toppled into an even worse  recession in 1992. Trudeau's next successors, Liberals this time, squeezed even  tighter, raising taxes, and leaving Canadians through the 1990s working harder and harder with no real increase in their standard of living. Do Canadians understand how many of their difficulties of the 1990s originated in the 1970s?  They should. To repay Trudeau's debt, federal governments reduced transfers to  provinces. Provinces restrained spending. And these restraints had real  consequences for real people: more months in pain for heart patients, more  months of immobility for patients awaiting hip replacements."

Y'all really, really do not want a rerun of that.

Anyway, the initial point was the claim that people have it better now than fifty years ago, which I dispute. National debt is one problem, or quickly could be again; personal/household debt is another. Even a slight increase in interest rates could tip more than a few people over a financial cliff.

And that would be the start of an avalanche.

 

[Loachman]

odd to see you siding with mulcair.

Since when does quoting somebody equate to siding with them, either in general or just on the topic of the quote?

I just quoted you - don't feel too flattered by that.[/quote]

As for the rest, it is irrelevant to my original post.

Whatever he does, pipeline-wise, he pisses somebody off, either Alberta or BC, along with natives and assorted envirotwits.

He will side, as I said, with whichever faction costs him the fewest votes.

And avoiding more vote losses is the best that he can hope for, these days. His support level can only continue to slide as he annoys more and more people.

 

[Altair]

That's nice 'n' all, until interests climb to the point where servicing that debt eats up too much to be able to afford. I've lived through a time where that was a huge concern.

https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/history-wars-was-trudeau-a-disaster-david-frum-and-lawrence-martin-debate/

"Canada today is a very successful country. It has suffered less from the  global economic crisis than any other major economy. So Canadians may be tempted to be philosophical about disasters in their own past. Hasn't it all come out  right in the end?

"But I want to stress: Canada's achievement overcoming Pierre Trudeau's legacy  should not inure Canadians to how disastrous that legacy was.

"Three subsequent important prime ministers - Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien  and Stephen Harper - invested their energies cleaning up the wreckage left by  Pierre Trudeau. The work has taken almost 30 years. Finally, and at long last,  nobody speculates anymore about Canada defaulting on its debt, or splitting  apart, or being isolated from all its major allies.

"Yet through most of the adult lives of most people reading this, people in  Canada and outside Canada did worry about those things. And as you enjoy the  peace, stability and comparative prosperity of Canada in the 2010s, just  consider - this is how Canadians felt in the middle 1960s. Now imagine a  political leader coming along and out of ignorance and arrogance despoiling all  this success. Not because the leader faced some overwhelming crisis where it was  hard to see the right answer. But utterly unnecessarily. Out of a clear blue  sky.

"Pierre Trudeau took office at a moment when commodity prices were rising  worldwide. Good policy-makers recognize that commodity prices fall as well as  rise. Yet between 1969 and 1979 - through two majority governments and one  minority - Trudeau tripled federal spending.

"In 1981-'82, Canada plunged into recession, the worst since the Second World  War. Trudeau's already big deficits exploded to a point that Canada's lenders  worried about default. Trudeau's Conservative successor, Brian Mulroney,  balanced Canada's operating budget after 1984. But to squeeze out Trudeau-era  inflation, the Bank of Canada had raised real interest rates very high. Mulroney  could not keep up with the debt payments. The debt compounded, the deficits  grew, the Bank hiked rates again - and Canada toppled into an even worse  recession in 1992. Trudeau's next successors, Liberals this time, squeezed even  tighter, raising taxes, and leaving Canadians through the 1990s working harder and harder with no real increase in their standard of living. Do Canadians understand how many of their difficulties of the 1990s originated in the 1970s?  They should. To repay Trudeau's debt, federal governments reduced transfers to  provinces. Provinces restrained spending. And these restraints had real  consequences for real people: more months in pain for heart patients, more  months of immobility for patients awaiting hip replacements."

Y'all really, really do not want a rerun of that.

Anyway, the initial point was the claim that people have it better now than fifty years ago, which I dispute. National debt is one problem, or quickly could be again; personal/household debt is another. Even a slight increase in interest rates could tip more than a few people over a financial cliff.

And that would be the start of an avalanche.

100 percent agree,  Canadians on a whole are cutting it too close financially. Interest rates rising is going to hurt a lot of budgets.

I simply don't buy that the feds are spending out of their minds. Current defecits are nowhere close in scale to the 90

 

[Altair]

Since when does quoting somebody equate to siding with them, either in general or just on the topic of the quote?

I just quoted you - don't feel too flattered by that.

As for the rest, it is irrelevant to my original post.

Whatever he does, pipeline-wise, he pisses somebody off, either Alberta or BC, along with natives and assorted envirotwits.

He will side, as I said, with whichever faction costs him the fewest votes.

And avoiding more vote losses is the best that he can hope for, these days. His support level can only continue to slide as he annoys more and more people.

Correct me if I'm wrong,  but don't most governments sag in support at the middle point of their term?