turningrite

You're obfuscating. Lots of people who pay taxes in this country, like people earning $40K or thereabouts in Toronto or Vancouver, are realistically NOT in the middle class. Simply defining the issue in your own terms doesn't address the matter. As I've said, subsidies are being used and carefully targeted for maximum political benefit to mask the actual and very steep decline in the middle class in this country. And those paying for the subsidies are working individuals and in some cases seniors (who worked and paid taxes, usually for several decades) who are in many cases surviving on incomes just above subsidy eligible levels.

As indicated in the link to the CBC piece (link again provided, below) that discusses Ekos polling about the middle class released in late 2017, fewer than half of Canadians now identify themselves as belonging to the middle class. And this percentage, which has declined by more than 20 percentage points since 2002, when it was 70%, is likely to continue its steady decline. Subsidy programs merely mask the decline, and mainly so for particular segments of the population that are favored by government policy. This is the cynical game our political parties,, including our feckless Liberal government, are playing. Once you start to talk about facts we can debate further. Remember, it's 2018. It's not 2002. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/middle-class-poll-1.4542903

'Argumentum ad hominem' (see definition below), man. You just lost the argument even though you likely don't realize it. Online definition - Wikipedia: "Fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

It was creepy to listen to Macron and Trudeau gang up on Trump, even if only tangentially, during the weekend's WWI remembrance events in Paris. To me, both of them seem to be happy shills for corporate globalism while Trump at least acknowledges that it is the legitimate and primary role of elected governments and leaders to promote and protect the interests of their own people. Trump admits that he is a "nationalist," albeit the meaning of that term has been altered by supposedly high-minded progressives to falsely imply an association with neo-Nazi sympathizers and the alt-right. But when soldiers were sent to fight in the very war(s) world leaders were commemorating in Paris were they not inspired by love of country? Wasn't the notion of 'king and country' a rationale for Canada's war efforts and didn't the French fight for 'la gloire de la France' - a notion American and British Commonwealth forces ultimately helped to sustain? In fact, how many times have we heard that Canada's identity was forged by its war efforts and sacrifices? Now, though, feckless politicians like Trudeau and, presumably, Macron appear to believe that there are enterprises other than national interest more crucial to global progress. The basic problem with their position, I believe, is that it negates the nature of democracy itself, which at this point in history is definitionally nation-state based. There is no such thing as global democracy and there is unlikely to be any such thing in the foreseeable future. If we give up on the notion of nation-state based democracy, are we not effectively giving up on democracy itself. And I don't understand the concerns Macron and Trudeau raise about populism. If populism is defined as the assertion of popular will, why is it necessarily a negative thing? Isn't it a good thing that every so often governments do as they believe their country's citizens want them to do? Trudeau is an unrepentant elitist, and probably not a very bright one at that. But I thought Macron had more common sense. Oh, he says patriotism is fine, but nationalism apparently is not. Huh? The online definition of patriotism is "vigorous support for one's own country" while the online definition of nationalism is "patriotic feelings, principles or efforts." It looks to me like Macron is simply trying to be clever in opportunistically attacking Trump. Principles have little or nothing to do with it. Trudeau, though, is a mouthpiece for his usual hobbyhorses although I suspect he understands quite little about the agenda he's really promoting. No wonder Trump was so disconnected from the weekend's events in Paris, which seemed to intended as a public relations exercise by politicians who are promoting a pernicious and deceptive agenda.

You appear not to understand the modern approach to retail politics, which is to identify and target voting blocks and design policies to appeal to voters within these blocks. The entire notion of "middle class" has become muddled in the post-industrial order. Further, there are vast regional variations in Canada, thus negating your assertion that those "who are employed and who pay taxes" constitute the middle class. Somebody who earns $30K to $40K annually in St. Hyacinthe QC or Saint John NB, for instance, doesn't face the same economic circumstances as somebody living at that income level in Toronto or Vancouver. Engaging in paid employment (i.e. "working") doesn't in and of itself render one a member of the middle class in Canada and in fact income taxes in Canada kick in at very low levels, thus exacerbating the situation. As for you not understanding how a relatively small proportion of voters can influence electoral outcomes, perhaps you're not aware that swings of as little as 4 or 5 percentage points determine election outcomes in the Canadian FPTP system. The major parties in this country practice "base" politics to some extent but they can't win elections without appealing to otherwise unattached voters and in order to do so they design programs attractive to these voters. Watch for Trudeau to ramp up subsidy and redistributive offerings over the next year (as with his carbon tax rebate scheme), just as Wynne tried to do in the flailing final year of her regime in Ontario. It didn't work for her because her government was already discredited by that point, but it might work for Trudeau. As for the influence of corporations and the rich, they sure do get their way for the most part, which is generally to bear an increasingly smaller percentage of the taxation burden, which they've seen shifted to consumers and those in ordinary paid employment, both middle class and otherwise. This shift began in earnest in the Mulroney era and has continued unabated ever since. Corporations and the wealthy don't want to pay for redistributive schemes and they increasingly get their way on this. In essence, the working middle classes and the working not quite poor are paying for the subsidies. Perhaps you might apply a more sophisticated analysis in order to render your position somewhat more plausible.

I think you're overgeneralizing here. Undoubtedly, lower income Canadians are less likely to vote than are higher income Canadians, but where they do vote they can significantly impact outcomes. In part, this is because Canadian regions and communities are often income-segregated, a trend that's likely becoming more rather than less relevant. Further, as the Stats Can link you cite notes, home ownership is used as a rough equivalent of income (which may be applicable only to larger cities) and age is by far the more relevant factor where voter participation is concerned. Further, the "middle class" (and those working hard to join it, as Trudeau likes to condescendingly chirp) to which politicians so love to appeal, is quickly disappearing. According to polling done late last year and reported in the CBC earlier this year (link below) fewer than half of Canadians now define themselves as being middle class. And even within the group that does, Trudeau and other politicians appeal to meeting "family" needs and concerns, including with the now huge child tax benefit, as part of a strategy to promote their interests and no doubt appeal for their votes. But isn't the CTB more a rearguard action more than anything else? Interestingly, in 2002 70% of Canadians defined themselves as belonging to the middle class and yet even with the advent of massive subsidies like the CTB the middle class is disappearing as a viable socio-economic entity. Those most disadvantaged by public subsidies, of course, are working taxpayers without children as well as individuals and families with incomes immediately above the subsidy threshold levels. But the very notion that policies are being designed for the middle class and that these are the people most likely to vote is a simplistic mirage. I have a much more cynical view of the situation wherein I believe the government is using subsidies to mask a dramatic economic transformation in line with the needs and expectations of corporate globalism - a transformation that ultimately will render most Canadians less well off and less secure than was generally the case between the last world war and the end of the 20th century. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/middle-class-poll-1.4542903

You're absolutely correct about this. In addition to two siblings who live and work in the U.S., I have relatives on both my mother's and father's side of the family who live there. In fact, my mother, an American, met my father when she was visiting relatives who lived in Canada. Familial links between the two countries are extensive. I think a lot of the negativity Canadians have about U.S. policy emerges when Canadians believe that the U.S. fails to recognize and/or respect Canadian interests, as has been the case with Trump's tariff wars. Because the U.S. is economically much more important to Canada than Canada is to it, there's often very little apparent emotional reciprocity in the relationship. The irony in the situation is that Canadians often want to be treated as in a special relationship with the U.S. while at the same time wanting to boldly assert our sovereignty vis-a-vis our giant neighbour. The real world just doesn't work this way. But our periodic animosity eventually fades as political leadership changes south of the border.

You do realize that you're digging yourself a bigger hole here, right? The climate change issue, which we in the West seem intent on twisting ourselves into pretzels to address, doesn't seem to resonate among those in poorer countries. For every step forward taken in the West, two steps backward seem to be taken in the developing world. My point, though, is that self-styled progressives in the West want to have it both ways on issues like immigration and the environment. They fail to recognize the negative impacts of immigration on climate change while touting it, contrary in many cases to available evidence, as a cure-all to resolve problems that exist within Western economies and societies. Meanwhile, they insist that we in the West aren't doing enough to address climate change.

You seem to be trying to prove my point. Low income earners in Canada file taxes because it's in their interest to do so as most qualify for tax credits and other government-funded subsidies by so doing. It seems these non-taypayers vote in sufficient numbers to incentivize governments to pay attention to them. Identity politics, grounded in neo-Marxian victimhood ideology, has allowed old-style class-based economics and politics (as the NDP used to practice) to be supplanted by a cynical new brand of retail politics. Never underestimate the ability of politicians to be able to buy votes with taxpayers' money. The NDP will never outplay the Libs at this game.

1.) If so, at least it's a logical one. 2. & 3.) Governments do mainly posture where policy rationalization is concerned. Sorry to burst your bubble on this. Canada sells relatively small amounts of weaponry to other countries and, yes, such sales do raise moral concerns. At least we talk about them, even if only in a limited fashion. Funny, though, that our moralistic Lib government has simply carried on with an military equipment sale to the KSA that was negotiated under a CPC regime. How are ordinary voters responsible for this unless they're given a real choice in the matter? With the tri-party cartel that runs official Ottawa in place, ordinary voters are bit players. I don't remember the issue even being discussed in any detail during the last federal election. Unfortunately, our system grants the mainstream political parties a virtual monopoly to determine which issues are raised during election campaigns. Trudeau, our illustrious leader, has essentially argued that this monopoly is necessary to keep fringe voices and perspectives out of our political system. ("Fringe" presumably means anything he doesn't like, like debating immigration levels.) He's a fan, apparently, of limited and managed democracy. We're just observers. 4.) I believe the article is about the waste and misdirection of foreign aid. The alternative, I suppose, is to provide no such aid where it's apparent that corruption in recipient countries could undermine our objectives in furnishing such aid. So, would you rather we simply abandon foreign aid programs altogether? I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. You seem to want to present us as the 'bad guy' whether or not we try to help others.

I read about this situation earlier today. I guess we shouldn't be shocked. Perhaps those who argue that Muslim immigration to the West doesn't serve to undermine and/or erode Western values might want to respond on this matter. Now that the UK has abdicated, maybe Canada or the U.S. can intervene? Well, Trudeau probably won't but maybe Trump will.

I agree. We've co-existed with our American neighbours throughout our history and we will continue to find a way to do so whatever the power dynamics in Washington at any given point in time. A Mexican president once described his country's existential predicament in terms of being "so far from God and so close to the United States." There is, of course, less cultural dissonance in the relationship between Canada and the U.S., however, as Pierre Trudeau once famously noted, we're impacted by the elephant's "every twitch and grunt." This will never change.

From what I've heard voter suppression and electoral manipulation are the bigger problems south of the border. For instance, it's simply bizarre that the GOP's candidate for Georgia's governorship, who held the AG post, was in charge of managing midterm elections in that state and didn't have to recuse himself, although he has now reportedly resigned his AG post in view of the disputed gubernatorial result. Reports emerged of polling stations in which there was no power and of lineups that forced people to wait for hours to vote. I suspect many would give up under the circumstances. And then there's the broader problem of gerrymandering, which has become so widespread that observers noted it would take an almost double-digit lead in the popular vote to ensure a Democrat majority in the House. As each state sets its own rules, local grandees can ensure advantage to their own party where they hold legislative and/or gubernatorial power.

No. I did by noting that your stated position amounts to such. It's an observation.

I doubt that he cares at all. He and his ministers seemed mystified as to why many Canadians were upset about the situation just as they were adamant about the legitimacy of their notion of justice in the Khadr case. The federal Libs seem to be directed by a moral compass that's out of sync with mainstream Canada's. But, then again, Trudeau believes there is no mainstream in Canada. Let's hope that in 2019 voters remind him there is.

It's sounds like you believe ideological posturing should trump cold, hard reality. Leaving aside ideology for a minute (at least), ordinary Canadians have played little or no role in the "diddling and geopolitical vandalism" you reference. So, why should ordinary Canadians be held to account for any of this? We should do what we can and are able to do to remedy the worst atrocities, realizing that much of what we do could have little impact. We can't and shouldn't assume we can solve every problem. Look at the piece in today's G&M about the aid we provided to Afghanistan, much of it lost to "widespread waste, lax oversight and endemic corruption" (link below). As for the topic at hand about the woman persecuted in Pakistan for alleged blasphemy, I do think Western governments should have intervened to help her and her family. (I believe the UK now has.) In general, I think our refugee policy should be oriented to highlighting and addressing the plight of religious minorities although this could ruffle sensibilities among Canadian "progressives" and in particular in Trudeau's party. It seems to me that Trudeau's response to the situation in Pakistan was rather muted in comparison to his usual histrionics where human rights abuses are concerned. Go figure. Oh well, he got in his apology for the MS St. Louis fiasco, which I guess met his quota. I really appreciated the observation of one of the MS St. Louis survivors who when interviewed about Trudeau's apology during news coverage yesterday evening noted with admirable perspective, dignity and objectivity that (having occurred in 1939) "it was a different time." Who'd have thunk it? The contrast with our PM, who prefers to lionize perpetual victimhood, was stark. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-billions-in-aid-money-for-afghanistan-wasted-us-agency-finds/

Is compassionate conservatism even possible in a political system that's so beholden to special (i.e. moneyed) interests? For instance, I certainly don't believe the government monopoly health care model, as we have in Canada, is a good alternative, but the current U.S. model clearly doesn't work well for a large and vulnerable segment of the population. Obama's original reform proposal, which included a "public option" insurance alternative, would have served that segment much better than does the private insurance model. But it was blocked by the GOP and if the current iteration of the party has its way it will never see the light of day. Why? Because powerful economic interests in the U.S. will ensure that it doesn't. Does anybody realistically believe this will change?

And if financial industry systems are vulnerable, how can we possibly imagine that government databases are any more secure? My guess is that they're more vulnerable as the financial industry has real incentives to invest in IT security while governments do not.

But isn't this is the same block of voters the Libs now assiduously court? The Libs love nothing more than redistributive schemes that are designed to appeal to the subsidy classes. I think the real problem for the NDP is that progressivism has morphed from relying on class-based economic analysis to a reliance on identity-focused cultural analysis. By mimicking Lib progressivism the NDP has ditched Marxian logic for neo-Marxian frippery and become a mirror image of the Lib party, minus the corporate agenda of course - or so it likes to imagine. The Libs have conveniently adopted a neo-Marxian approach in the service of the corporate globalist agenda. Or, as Trudeau often suggests, the Libs see the role of government as serving to round the rough edges of corporate globalism to make it palatable to the hoi polloi. But is the NDP not serving to bolster the same agenda without admitting as much? At least the opportunistic Libs appear to embrace their own hypocrisy. I worry, though, that the NDP has little comprehension of the game it's playing. If its ideology isn't grounded in class-based analysis designed to serve the actual interests of ordinary working people, I think it naive to believe it now realistically serves any purpose other than to essentially validate Lib policies. In the Marxian intellectual construct, modern progressivism is a distraction that's primarily designed to serve the interests of global capital. I believe the NDP has allowed itself to be co-opted to serve this agenda.

I think you underestimate cybersecurity risks and while it's probably true that individual consumers often aren't sufficiently aware of security issues relating to their own online practices the broader threats shouldn't be taken lightly. As the article on the CBC's website (link below) indicates, the Bank of Canada warned last year that our financial systems and databases are vulnerable to threats. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bank-canada-cyberattacks-banks-1.4158068

I guess it was only a matter of time, but today the first data breach that I'm aware of relating to Ontario's online sales system was reported in the media. I don't use cannabis but I know people who do who say they simply won't buy it from a government agency or access it through the mail. Apparently, most of them are waiting for the retail outlets to open up and in the meantime are obtaining it the old-fashioned way, which legalization was supposed to end, right? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-cannabis-store-data-breach-canada-post-customer-orders-1.4895619

Huh? Now there's an example of historical reductionism. There is no unified Islamic world with a singular history and certainly it wasn't universally subjected to the predations of Western colonialism (i.e. "other nations and cultures"), as you seem to imply. In fact, much of the pre-20th century Islamic world, including most of the Middle East, was for centuries under the control of the Islamic Ottoman Empire. It's incredibly simplistic and highly inaccurate to ascribe the root of the modern world's problems to Western power, culture and colonialism.

Where did you come up with this? A friend of mine who has worked in the IT security field, including in the financial and telecom sectors, has told me that he believes that IT security is not as solid as many consumers believe to be the case. He steadfastly refuses to use online banking systems. I can't believe, then, that government systems are any more secure.

Indigenous Canadians at least have the virtue of being able to claim they've legitimately been victimized. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is incorporated into the Canadian constitution, essentially grants the Crown sovereignty over indigenous lands in return for treaty rights and government support. We can't really ignore this aspect of the Canadian political, legal and social reality. In the context of an increasingly urban and post-industrial country, however, it's unlikely that a culture of injury can improve the lot of indigenous Canadians. A recent media report suggests that despite billions of tax dollars being poured into indigenous job training programs over the past decade the unemployment rate experienced by indigenous workers remains much higher than is the case for other Canadians. We have to be honest about the extent to which cultural attributes and belief systems within some minority cultures impact economic and social outcomes and limit the degree to which government intervention can counter negative beliefs. I suspect that those raised in environments where they're taught that failure is preordained and/or attributable to others are in general and will continue to be less likely to succeed.

I think the outcome amounts to a split decision. Certainly, where the House is concerned and where every American had a chance to vote, there was a desire to check Trump's power. Yet, Trumpism survives intact as most of the races into which he injected himself were won by the GOP candidates he promoted. His influence likely generated the strong GOP majority in the Senate, in particular. I believe that while many Americans are concerned about Trump's personality, style and autocratic tendencies a huge swath of voters remains convinced that his brand of populist economic nationalism and anti-globalism is legitimate. Last night's midterm results suggest that in 2020 Trump will remain a potent force unless the Dems can come up with a coherent policy strategy to challenge him - and I'm not sure they can.