Politics in 2017

[Rifleman62]

Didn't know where to post. Here or More and more funnies.. vol: something...

Funny in so many ways. From the G & M Political Briefing 20 Dec 17

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he's embarking on a cross-Canada tour in the new year to get out of the Ottawa bubble. "It's easy to surround yourself with really, really smart people...the top advisers, the top ministers. You can surround yourself with concentric circles of really qualified people and completely disconnect from the folks you're actually supposed to serve," he told a Montreal radio station.

 

[Good2Golf]

Does he mean to meet the "disqualified people?"

 

[Journeyman]

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau:  "It's easy to surround yourself with really, really smart people...the top advisers, the top ministers. You can surround yourself with concentric circles of really qualified people and completely disconnect from the folks you're actually supposed to serve"

Gutsy move in acknowledging that his constituents, the people who voted for him, are stupid.  op:

 

[YZT580]

The worst thing is that he probably doesn't even realise the implications of his statement.  After all, he was a dance instructor not an English major.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Justin Trudeau is such a brave leader. Leaving the concentric circles of really smart and qualified people to mix it up with average Canadians. I hope he writes a book about his cross Canada tour. Or dare I say, tour of duty?

 

[jollyjacktar]

He might be on to something.  After all, he was voted in by folks outside of his uber intelligent peeps.

 

[McG]

Didn't know where to post. Here or More and more funnies.. vol: something...

Funny in so many ways. From the G & M Political Briefing 20 Dec 17

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he's embarking on a cross-Canada tour in the new year to get out of the Ottawa bubble. "It's easy to surround yourself with really, really smart people...the top advisers, the top ministers. You can surround yourself with concentric circles of really qualified people and completely disconnect from the folks you're actually supposed to serve," he told a Montreal radio station

What about all the MPs who are up in Ottawa to represent every corner of the country? Is that not how the house is supposed to function? Get rid of the showmanship that happens there and have rational discussions where MPs present the concerns of their constituents.

Other bits of his quotes disturbed me. Is this about getting a feel for the opinions and concerns of Canadians, or is it tax payer funded campaigning & selling himself ... creating momentum early for the still distant election?

... if you’re a politician these days and you’re expecting people to discover you through reading political articles in the political section of a given newspaper or magazine, you’re really limiting your space in terms of actually reaching people who are quite frankly, busy with their regular lives ...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-touring-to-escape-concentric-circles-in-ottawa-1.3727746

 

[McG]

... then again, maybe it is just poor choice of words and I am reading too much into it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Published on Dec 20, 2017 5:21pm
https://ipolitics.ca/2017/12/20/trudeau-broke-conflict-interest-rules-dawson/

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau violated several federal conflict of interest rules when he and his family vacationed with the Aga Khan on his private island in the Bahamas in 2016, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson said Wednesday.

“When Mr. Trudeau, as Prime Minister, accepted the gifts of hospitality from the Aga Khan and the use of his private island in March and December 2016, there were ongoing official dealings with the Aga Khan, and the Aga Khan Foundation Canada was registered to lobby his office,” Dawson said in a media statement.

“Therefore, the vacations accepted by Mr. Trudeau or his family could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence Mr. Trudeau in his capacity as Prime Minister.”

Purely coincidental timing on announcing his cross Canada tour I'm sure. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

This video of Mr.  Uhhhh Uhhhhh trying to answer the reporter is hilarious.

https://youtu.be/N_u4pVmEh8s

 

[PuckChaser]

Moved the political cartoons to the actual political cartoon thread as they were both posted without comment. (https://army.ca/forums/threads/123289.200.html)

 

[Rifleman62]

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/ten-year-end-facts-canadians-need-to-know

Ten year-end facts Canadians need to know - 21 Dec 17
 
As we end 2017, here are 10 year-end facts Canadians should understand and consider as we enter 2018:

• The total tax bill for the average Canadian family will exceed $35,000 in 2017, or 42.5 per cent of their income—more than what the average family spends on housing, food and clothing combined.

• While the federal government has claimed it “cut taxes for middle-class Canadians everywhere,” the reality is that 81 per cent of middle-class families in Canada are paying higher federal income taxes under the government’s personal income tax changes—on average, $840 more a year.

• More than 60 per cent of lower-income families (those in the bottom 20 per cent of earners) in Canada now pay higher federal income taxes because of the federal government’s tax changes.

• And that does not include the impact of the federal carbon tax mandate, the coming CPP payroll tax increase, the lowering of tax-free savings account contribution limits, or the proposed changes to the tax treatment of incorporated small businesses.

• Canada’s high and increasing personal income tax rates on its best and brightest workers have made the country uncompetitive compared to other developed countries. The federal government increased the top federal tax rate to 33 per cent from 29 per cent, and increases to top provincial rates have been made in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and other provinces. Seven of our 10 provinces now have a top combined federal-provincial rate above 50 per cent.

• The top 20 per cent of income-earners in Canada—families with an annual income greater than $186,875— will pay 64 percent of all personal income taxes and 56 percent of all taxes (i.e. income, payroll taxes, sales taxes and property taxes, etc.).

• As if this isn’t enough, the federal government has failed to achieve its election promise to run $10 billion deficits in its first two years and thereafter balance the budget. Instead, since coming into office, it has run deficits of $18 billion in 2016 and $20 billion this year, additional deficits of almost $80 billion are forecast over the next five years. There’s no immediate plan to balance the budget.

• Large annual deficits mean government debt in Canada is ballooning. Federal net debt increased to $727 billion in 2016-17 with provincial net debt collectively at $633 billion. All told, federal and provincial debt currently stands at $1.4 trillion and has increased by more than 60 per cent in the past decade.

• Prime Minister Trudeau is on track to increase per-person federal debt more than any other prime minister in Canadian history who didn’t face a world war or economic recession.

• The federal government has claimed deficit spending will help grow the economy through expenditures such as the promised $100 billion in infrastructure investment over the next 10 years. But only $6.6 billion of that will be spent in 2017 (only about a third of the $20 billion deficit), and less than 11 per cent of the $100 billion will be spent on projects that have the potential to strengthen the economy.

As we close off 2017 and look forward to 2018, let’s hope we see a refocus on policies that will actually improve the economy and lives of Canadians.

Authors: Niels Veldhuis, Charles Lammam, Milagros Palacios

 

[jollyjacktar]

Annnnnd cue the Liberal GoC apologists, to throw out counter protests.

 

[Altair]

Annnnnd cue the Liberal GoC apologists, to throw out counter protests.

No need.

The economy speaks for itself.

 

[ballz]

No need.

The economy speaks for itself.

Only if you're level of thought is extremely shallow.

If the government borrowed 3.5 trillion dollars and used it to give $100,000 to every Canadian, what would happen? A lot of statistics used to try and gauge economic performance would improve.

You would have to be an incredibly stupid person to look at the GDP and the unemployment rate which would have improved dramatically and try to assert that no further consideration is needed.

But your answer does sound a lot like "The budget will balance itself," "she speaks fluent Russian," and "because it's 2015." Extremely shallow, arrogant, and dismissive.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Annnnnd cue the Liberal GoC apologists, to throw out counter protests.

are debates now called "counter-protests"? Like fake news when it's something one's "team" doesn't agree with?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Only if you're level of thought is extremely shallow.

If the government borrowed 3.5 trillion dollars and used it to give $100,000 to every Canadian, what would happen? A lot of statistics used to try and gauge economic performance would improve.

You would have to be an incredibly stupid person to look at the GDP and the unemployment rate which would have improved dramatically and try to assert that no further consideration is needed.

But your answer does sound a lot like "The budget will balance itself," "she speaks fluent Russian," and "because it's 2015." Extremely shallow, arrogant, and dismissive.

I don't see your point, so perhaps I'm missing what you're saying. I don't see the connection between the giving of $100,000 and our current economy. The liberals have borrowed a ton (not unlike harper who allowed it to grow over $150 billion) without a doubt, which combined with poor CPC economic policies has placed Canada into a potential future debt issue. But, in terms of economic growth canada increased 4.6% last year, which is the highest in 17 years (even considering harpers almost as bad  borrowing). That can't be simply slugged off as economic factors include more than simple cash exchanges.

I also hope you see the irony in telling someone they're being arrogant, shallow, and dismissive in an extremely arrogant, shallow, and dismissive manner

 

[jollyjacktar]

are debates now called "counter-protests"? Like fake news when it's something one's "team" doesn't agree with?

Potato, potato, tomato, tomato.... I see some of the reaction l was expecting to see.

 

[ballz]

I don't see your point, so perhaps I'm missing what you're saying. I don't see the connection between the giving of $100,000 and our current economy. The liberals have borrowed a ton (not unlike harper who allowed it to grow over $150 billion) without a doubt, which combined with poor CPC economic policies has placed Canada into a potential future debt issue. But, in terms of economic growth canada increased 4.6% last year, which is the highest in 17 years (even considering harpers almost as bad  borrowing). That can't be simply slugged off as economic factors include more than simple cash exchanges.

The point is, when a government borrows to inject money into the economy, you can't just say "well the numbers improved, case closed everyone." The government did exactly that. There should be no surprise that the GDP increased, after all, it simply measures spending.

Economic growth of 4.6% did not occur. The GDP increased by 4.6% The GDP measures spending, it measures consumption, it is not a measurement of economic growth, simply an indicator. It measures *consumption* and that is a very different thing. There is no specific measurement of economic growth and this obsession with the GDP serves us more harm than good.

GDP is often used as a key figure but it is not the only one nor is it a black and white measurement of "GDP increased, therefore there was economic growth" or vice versa. It just means more consumption occurred. More consumption doesn't necessarily mean anything if you have to input borrowed money into the equation to make it happen. As Peter Schiff responded to the question about increasing the GDP, "yes, but at what cost?"

If the government borrowed 3.5 trillion dollars and gave $100,000 to every Canadian, consumption would sky rocket and therefore the GDP would sky rocket. That doesn't mean the economy is more productive or more efficient, it does not mean it is more sustainable. In isolation, the GDP just means people spent more money. You need to look at other variables as to "why" to figure out if it's a good thing.

If all other variables remained unchanged, but half the labour force stopped working and the GDP fell by 10%, it does not mean there was economic contraction.... it means the economy almost doubled it's efficiency. People who focus only on consumption (GDP) would argue that the economy is collapsing... I'd be doing back flips with excitement of how much more efficient our economy became.

I also hope you see the irony in telling someone they're being arrogant, shallow, and dismissive in an extremely arrogant, shallow, and dismissive manner

Respect begets respect, and the reverse is often also true.

 

[Altair]

Only if you're level of thought is extremely shallow.

If the government borrowed 3.5 trillion dollars and used it to give $100,000 to every Canadian, what would happen? A lot of statistics used to try and gauge economic performance would improve.

You would have to be an incredibly stupid person to look at the GDP and the unemployment rate which would have improved dramatically and try to assert that no further consideration is needed.

But your answer does sound a lot like "The budget will balance itself," "she speaks fluent Russian," and "because it's 2015." Extremely shallow, arrogant, and dismissive.

Other economic indicators show the economy is doing pretty well.

Unemployment numbers, workplace participation, consumer confidence.

But if you want to go one this whole GDP doesn't tell the whole story in order to undermine the economic performance of the LPC be my guest. As I said, the economy speaks for itself.