Moonbox

If the title was that "Trudeau loves throwing around money", I'd give you a gold star for actually creating a reasonable and adult thread-topic. Instead, you added another worthless hot-take to your forum thread-spam.

Ah there we are. Here's the real crux of your argument: MSM fake news. ? So...is your argument that the massive spike in deaths in the USA in 2020 was caused by...over half a million extra murders? That's mind-bogglingly stupid.

The reputation is irrelevant. What the Liberals or the Conservatives did in the 1940's and 1950's or whatever has little/no bearing on what they'll do today. It was a significant tax cut, but a popular one - just not the right one. I'm judging Harper for his policy, however, and not his ability to play to the crowd. That's the point. Having oppressive corporate tax rates is one thing, but once in the competitive range other factors are usually more important (like labor force, infrastructure, electricity costs, regulation, current environment etc). Cutting corp. taxes rates while they're already competitive has less and less marginal return the further down you go. Trump's corporate tax cuts were disastrous upon review, with the trickle-down never materializing and economic growth not even remotely coming close to the revenues lost. Tax rates are flexible and can be adjusted. What one government gives, another can take away, or another country can match. The race to the bottom and the tax arbitrage we see from jumping jurisdictions doesn't help anyone but the folks at the top pocketing the difference. You brought up Tim Horton's, so go a bit further. What do you figure the impact on jobs and investment in Canada was for an almost exclusively Canadian brand being headquartered in the US? You really couldn't have given a better example of how unhelpful and unproductive corporate tax arbitrage is. Nothing about it was fair. It was never even an option for +85% of households. This was purely a tax credit for high-income earners and rarely (if ever) was the deciding factor of whether one parent stayed home. The idea that it was somehow helpful to the rest of Canada to have your wife not working or your kids not in daycare is a bit silly. If your wife was the best candidate for a job, it would have been better to have her in it. As for daycare, there are a lot better ways of making space available than tax cuts for the wealthiest 10-15% of the population. Having come from such a family, I can attest to the inherent benefits of a having a stay-at-home parent. Financial incentives were neither required nor deserved, though I'm sure my father would have liked them too. Even Flaherty spoke out against income splitting before he died. You've already argued that slower GDP growth and economic hard times were responsible for much of Harper's poor economic record. What purpose does it serve to dive deeper into the underlying causes, other than to muddy the debate? I understand FX rates and how they affect trade account balances probably better than anyone currently posting on this forum, and can dive much deeper into the winners and losers on both end of an exchange swing. They do not however, provide much explanation for why Harper increased the size of government while cutting public revenues.

You were meant to examine them, goof. So what? Congratulations you can view a chart and speak English. What do you figure this means? but it's not. The percentage of change is...below zero before COVID showing improving mortality figures until 2020 when that reverses and we see an increase in mortality. Again, you have a math problem. I'm not sure what sort of massive spike you're demanding to see, but COVID's fatality risk was never more than ~3% and (especially in Canada) the mandates and measures made sure there was only a small proportion of people infected. When you take a low fatality rate and apply it to a low percentage of the population, you don't move the needle very far. If want to see big spikes then look to the USA, where Orange man and the idiot babies in the MAGA crowd let COVID run rampant and they actually saw some of the worst infection rates in the world.

No, I laughed at the article, and the OP, because both were freaking dumb. I don't need any sources to support that conclusion, because the article's title was absurd to begin with. The thread title here was even dumber, and it was coming from loser sources like Blacklock and TNC. I knew it was a bullshit article, but then you proceeded to explain exactly why it was bullshit with a breakdown of the numbers. Thanks? The funniest thing about all of it is that the conspiracy clown parade derides the "MSM" as not credible but then holds up demonstrably worthless sources like those above as the alternative. Why? Not because they're credible, but because they repeat what their views back to them. Yes. Very petty. I don't know what else to call it. I've already highlighted that I didn't say what you are pretending I did, but you're persisting in arguing that a claim I never even made was not accurate. That's pretty silly.

There's world mortality rates, which have been declining steadily for decades...until 2019. Here's one for just Canada, standardized for age: but not actually, because actuaries have at this point become very good at predicting the mortality rate in Canada based on age and demographics and...whoops - it jumped beyond expectation in 2019-2020 (though not really in 2021).

The reputations are irrelevant. As I said, it's a lazy heuristic for people prone to identity politics. What happened 50-60+ years ago has absolutely nothing to do with the politics today. The CPC didn't even exist back then and the Liberal Party from back then was unrecognizable from today. Whoopity-doo. The lowest tax bracket pays almost nothing already so that was hardly a difference maker. For the Liberals to go ahead with raising GST back to previous levels would probably not be worth the effort. The optics of consumption taxes are terrible because you see it on every purchase you make. It was good policy for Mulroney to implement it but it was deeply unpopular and Harper scored cheap points in reducing it. Corporate tax cuts have diminishing returns. It's hard to judge their efficacy in job/wealth creation but it's been widely studied that the effect of (relatively) high corporate taxes being reduced to lower is much more impactful than bringing average or low rates lower. The bigger problem, as you say, is the tax arbitrage that companies undertake internationally - the proverbial race to the bottom. Trump turned that into an art form south of the border and the returns on that were both temporary and insignificant and will likely need to be reversed. I can understand that but income-splitting was inherently unfair and offered no benefits to the economy. Not really relevant. Economic weakness can excuse short-term fiscal outlays to prop up the economy and smooth out volatility, but they do not excuse long-term increases to the size of government and public spending.

I wasn't asking, and don't really care. If you like psychology, maybe you'll appreciate this from the APA: https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-theories

I'm questioning the mental short-cuts. Judge a government or a party on it's platform or it's record, rather than the lazy heuristic framing of party-oriented ideology. We have good and bad examples of fiscal managers from both sides. Trudeau Sr was very bad. Mulroney was arguably good. Chretien was also good. Harper was not. Trudeau Jr is worse. The GST cuts were shit. Consumption taxes are much better policy than income tax, which is what should have been dropped (if anything). As far as the tax credits go, most of them were garbage. Not only were they bad policy favoring special interests and/or only the people with the means to take advantage of them, but they were also inefficient wastes of time that made the tax code confusing and more difficult to administer. I don't really need to be specific here, but I think we can potentially agree why home-reno tax credits, or social-club rebates for $30 club memberships were inequitable in the former, and a complete waste of time with the latter. Leading up to the 2015, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation recommended: “Broad-based income tax cuts through lower rates and fewer brackets" and concluded that "boutique credits clutter up the tax code and single out favoured groups. Lower, flatter, simpler taxes are fairer and more efficient.” By the time Harper's tenure was over, he added ~750 pages to what was previously ~2500 pages in Canada's tax code. Brilliant. ? I didn't say anything about removing Trudeau Sr. I'm asking you why you think Mackenzie King's wartime spending is relevant. If you're going to make excuses for Stephen Harper's spending during the recession, surely you can do the same for King during WW2, right? The narrative that Conservatives are somehow more credible fiscal managers than conservatives. Harper was not a good fiscal manager and his legacy will be remembered poorly. Nobody's blaming him for deficit spending during the recession, but he never did reign it back in to pre-recession levels 5 years later and he continued to run deficits while lowering taxes and those can't be blamed on 2008/2009. As before, however, I don't think any can argue here that Trudeau Jr isn't even worse.

Ah, so you're trying to tell us that a former liberal candidate can't be a reasonable judge, is that it? Only a conservative judge can properly administer justice? ?

but you don't, and you haven't responded to a single request for evidence or citation in weeks from me. ? Again, you're welcome to prove me wrong, but you can't. That's the problem with just bullshitting all of the time. When someone calls you out on it you're just left there looking foolish. Except there are scientists and health authorities all around the world reviewing Pfizer's data and you've fooled yourself into thinking that it's all fake and they're all being paid off...and worse that YOU are a better expert! ? That's unassailable self-delusion. We can unpack why you're going through frequent personality testing at a later time, but pretending you're a victim here is hilarious and I'm not sure what the hell you being a woman has anything to do with it ?. For someone who so regularly resorts to insults herself (like just straight-up calling people idiots), to play the bully card is a mind-boggling exercise in hypocrisy and (once again) self-delusion.

What are you referring to with a "political judge" by the way? You have me really curious here.

so again, you cannot or will not support your claims. Damn those fact-checkers debunking all of your clueless bullshit. ?

Cute projecting. It's stupid because you're talking your delusional nonsense here and I'm sure in your daily life, and nobody is stopping/censoring you. Surely the dictators would be all over you watching everything you say since you're so close to the Truthiness about them.

I've told you why your conspiracy theories are stupid. I've told you why it's stupid to call our current government a dictatorship. We have Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh on one hand, and then Putin or Kim Jong on the other. The differences are obvious, but that doesn't stop you from living in your angry fantasy world.

It decreased from the topic of the recession (which you'd obviously expect) but it still ended up higher than even before the recession. He had 5 good years to bring things back to pre-recession levels, and he didn't do it. Martin campaigned on income tax cuts, which are far more effective and equitable. I'd have a lot more respect for Harper's fiscal record if not for this and his goofy tax credits. It doesn't upset me. I just don't see how they're useful. How far back are we going to go? You referenced King's deficits, so can I reference Robert Borden's WW1 deficits? Do we go back to the 1800's? Why are we referencing dead prime ministers whose children are probably dead as well? I think you're downplaying his successes because they don't fit the narrative you're promoting. That's 12 years of (relatively) recent Liberal leadership bucking the narrative that Liberals = spenders and Conservatives = savers. On a different note, I would say go ahead and compare Mulroney to Harper. Mulroney actually reduced public spending per person but isn't given any credit for it because of the crippling debt service costs he inherited from Justin's sleezebag father.

Can you share your comparisons and conclusions, or is this going to be another example of you just pretending to have done research and numbers, but not actually doing any? Your "research" is a meme. I've not once seen you post a valid citation for anything you've said on this forum. At least most of the other conspiracy goofs here can land a hit once in awhile, but you're uniquely incapable at it. ?

The contribution was that the article you quoted and what it was saying was demonstrably false. The article itself literally contradicted its own title, so I good job again. ?

I wish we could talk politics, but instead we have jokers like you screaming hyperbole, promoting visibly dumb conspiracies and talking about MSM "hoaxes" and WEF/Illuminati nonsense instead. Settle down with your thread creation and maybe watch the rational adults talk for a few days.

What do you figure you're showing here, goof? Care to cite that? Math's probably not your strong suit, I'm guessing?

Sure...do your own factchecks on Facebook like Goddess does.

Who's whining? These guys are clowns and are considered clowns even in their own countries, so all they've really accomplished in the EU parliament is a collective eyeroll. What do I stand for? Common sense and reality. Sorry if that offends you.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/scicheck-posts-misinterpret-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-safety-monitoring-document/ Beninger said it was inaccurate for Campbell to say the reported deaths were “associated” with Pfizer’s vaccine. “They’re temporally associated, that’s the reason why they were reported. But the assessment’s not there to show that they were causally related,” he said. “You cannot call them vaccine-associated.” https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-coronavirus-pfizer-idUSL2N2VK1G1 A spokesperson for the FDA told Reuters that reports to VAERS post-vaccination “do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem” – and anyone can submit a report, regardless of plausibility. The FDA spokesperson added: “In fact, reviews by FDA and CDC have determined that the vast majority of the deaths reported are not directly attributable to the vaccines. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause.” When millions of people take a vaccine, it's a statistical certainty that thousands and thousands of them will end up visiting a doctor for completely unrelated issues. Except there's nothing definite about it. When they can review the data and show that there are statistically significant and usual spikes in specific side-effects, then you might have signals that something isn't right. 9 pages of "adverse effects" signals pretty much nothing on their own and it's hardly the smoking gun you've continued to pretend it to be.

I mean...you're telling us here that you want me to show you the numbers, but already implying that you will dismiss them as not being trustworthy. Are you going to tell us that 1,000,000+ people didn't die of COVID in the USA, or that close to 40,000 didn't die in Canada from it? If you want to believe your conspiracy theories over the statistical records and wisdom of the entire rest of the world, go ahead I guess. There's really no helping that sort of foolishness. ?

Or he doesn't listen to obstinate/ignorant losers whining loudly. Pretty sure nobody but you guys care that Europe's far-right yelled slogans in the EU parliament for their base back home. The Idea that anyone thinks what this goof has to say is noteworthy is a hilarious exercise in self-deception.