What are Justin Trudeau's views?

[CaptainChatham]

Debt to GDP ratio is around 34%. Here's a link to the CBC budgetary commentary - and the CBC are no fans of the Tories. Shortlived - this is at least twice that you have accused others of lying (Trudeau's membership/voter numbers) or fabricated numbers with no links to back up your claims. You risk being put on IGNORE by members unless you more constructively participate.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/29/federalbudget-flaherty-hilights.html

- KIS ... Thanks for being fair, not something I am used to on this board. Yes, the 2012-13 debt to GDP ratio was 34% and the 42% I cited is the projection for the FYn 2014-15 after which the government is projecting surpluses and the ratio would therefore decline again.

- I am not sure whether Shortlived was simply comparing apples and oranges because he misread or misunderstood my post or whether he was being accusative for political partisanship or for other purposes.

- In any case, he appears to be virulently anti-Harper which (second only to being anti-Ford here) will probably preclude him from any censure such as the banning to which I was subjected for the past couple of weeks because I satirically referred to The NDP as The Notoriously Dumb Party and because I did call BS on one of the Toronto municipal unionists who lurk here for his ridiculous assertion that most Torontonians were happy with the unions' delivery of municipal services and - QUELLE HORREUR! - i even quoted the most recent poll which revealed that only 20% of Torontonians were satisfied with service delivery, ranking Toronto 22nd on the list of 30 major Canadian cities in this regard.

- In case I am banned again after this post, thanks for not being a duplicitous dickhead and for not taking a run at Harper regardless of the facts.

Edited March 24, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[waldo]

You risk being put on IGNORE by members unless you more constructively participate.

[CaptainChatham]

OK 50-60% of provincial operating budgets to to health care so what you are saying is WRONG. Making think you are WRONG on everything else.

I guess you must know more than not just little me but also former finance minister of Ontario Dwight Duncan who in announcing the Ontario turn to some measure of austerity after the 2011 election noted that "the pay and benefits of our public sector employees now account for 55% of the operating budget of Ontario and is the biggest driver of our increased spending".

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that budgets for health care, for example, include the personnel costs involved such as pay, benefits, pensions and various perks. Yes, health care in Ontario and other provinces does consume 46-49% of the total operating budget but roughly 80% of that 46-49% is the associated personnel costs such as doctors and nurses pay, etc.

Perhaps you are also unaware of the fact that over 90% 9of the police budget of Toronto, just for example, is for the pay, perks and pensions of the personnel, leaving less than 10% of the budget for such bagatelles as bullets, cars, radar traps, holding rooms, etc., etc.

Now if I were a nasty guy, i would respond to your statement that I was WRONG on this and therefore on EVERYTHING ELSE by stating that you must be an uninformed moron without the slightest clue about the objects and challenges of government financing.

But I'm too nice to say that.

[RNG]

Debt to GDP ratio is around 34%. Here's a link to the CBC budgetary commentary - and the CBC are no fans of the Tories. Shortlived - this is at least twice that you have accused others of lying (Trudeau's membership/voter numbers) or fabricated numbers with no links to back up your claims. You risk being put on IGNORE by members unless you more constructively participate.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/29/federalbudget-flaherty-hilights.html

Here's a fun graph for a whole bunch of countries from wsj.com - But it shows our debt to GDP as being 82%.

Other sources I found in google range from 30% to 43%.

What gives? Or is it another example of statistics don't lie but liars use statistics.

[CaptainChatham]

Here's a fun graph for a whole bunch of countries from wsj.com - But it shows our debt to GDP as being 82%.

Other sources I found in google range from 30% to 43%.

What gives? Or is it another example of statistics don't lie but liars use statistics.

RNG ... I can't find your WSJ graph so I can't reasonably comment on it. All I can say is that the 30-43% accumulated federal debt as a percentage of Canada's annual gross domestic product you have googled is in the correct range as being consistent with the generally accepted formula that is used to compare the relative indebtedness of countries around the globe with each other.

There are all kinds of other formulas that can be used such as ones including provincial/state and municipal debt and debt from unfunded public sector pension liabilities and household and corporate debt, etc., etc. But the formula that Flaherty and the CBC and Keepitsimple and I have cited and the results under said formula are the commonly accepted ones and indicate that Harper and Flaherty and Canada have done very well in getting through the challenges of the global recession and a fractious minority parliament most of the time and slower trade with our major trading partner, etc.

$600 billion in federal debt seems like a lot and it is a lot compared with under $10 billion which it was before Trudeau took power. But the economy has grown a great deal so that $600 billion out of an economy of almost $1.8 trillion and with interest rates in the 2% area is a lot easier to handle than $600 billion out of an economy of $800 billion and with interest rates of well over 10% which is what we faced in the early 90s.

There are several reasons that Canada has outperformed the rest of the G7 through the recession in terms of relative indebtedness and net job creation and a strong currency and one of them is that we have a prime minister who is a very bright person, an economist and a fiscal conservative and we have a finance minister who is a focused and experience financial leader. Not for nothing are Harper and Germany`s Merkel the most respected of the G7 leaders and not for nothing was Flaherty voted fairly recently by the European financial press as the best finance minister among the G7 members,

It is, as they say, all relative even though I, too, wish it were possible to be more aggressive in debt reduction and more fiscally conservative. Don`t comapre Harper with The Allmighty, compare him with The Alternative. You`ll definitely feel better that way!

Edited March 24, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[Moonlight Graham]

Favorite Justin Quote which he said at the age of 29:

“I don’t read newspapers. I don’t watch the news. I figure, if something happens, someone will tell me.”

Wow hahaha I wouldn't be surprised at all that he said that. Do you have a link or source for that.

Maybe that is his view. I think what you say before you a politician says a little more about you then when you are.

So very, very true. I also think it's far more telling/useful to look at politicians previous voting record as MP, or say in Senate/House of Reps, when they are running for PM/party leader/President etc. or running for re-election instead of listening to what they during a campaign (or, well, ever)

[punked]

Wow hahaha I wouldn't be surprised at all that he said that. Do you have a link or source for that.

So very, very true. I also think it's far more telling/useful to look at politicians previous voting record as MP, or say in Senate/House of Reps, when they are running for PM/party leader/President etc. or running for re-election instead of listening to what they during a campaign (or, well, ever)

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Trudeau+effect/8030922/story.html

[Keepitsimple]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Trudeau+effect/8030922/story.html

Incredible how much protection young Mr. Trudeau seems to get from the mainstream media. Reading that article, if only half was attributed to a Conservative Leader wannabe, they would be hoisted on their petard by The Star and CBC. Alas, it will take Coservative Attack ads (Truth ads) to get the message out to the public - at least those who haven't been paying attention.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[Moonlight Graham]

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Trudeau+effect/8030922/story.html

Thank you.

[hitops]

imagine... someone refusing to help his opposition (falsely) define him before an actual campaign begins. Why, some wag might suggest it's analogous to the HarperConservatives refusing to release a policy platform months into a campaign... even after its leader is lampooned over failing to release a platform in the campaign debates. Imagine!

Unfortunately the past behaviour of Harper doesn't somehow make Justin's views clear. I'm no further ahead it seems. Are you suggesting the strategy is if you don't hold any positions than you are immune to being attacked on your positions?

[waldo]

Alas, it will take Conservative Attack ads (Truth ads) to get the message out to the public

oh my! Conservative Truth Ads!!!

[waldo]

Unfortunately the past behaviour of Harper doesn't somehow make Justin's views clear. I'm no further ahead it seems. Are you suggesting the strategy is if you don't hold any positions than you are immune to being attacked on your positions?

no - as Simple just related in his reference to "Conservative Truth Ads". The intent is not to help Trudeau's opponents to falsely frame or improperly manage his identity or positions.

Edited March 25, 2013 by waldo

[hitops]

no - as Simple just related in his reference to "Conservative Truth Ads". The intent is not to help Trudeau's opponents to falsely frame or improperly manage his identity or positions.

Or even identify them whatsoever, it would seem.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The entire nation is talking about Trudeau. That is the opportunity he needed, free publicity, and he has been getting it in spades. What are his views? As if any politician is going to hand out a playbook for their detractors to follow along. Go figure, they guy has positions that are unknown. The guy is running for leadership of a partisan faction. I would suggest that people simply read the party policy to find out what the positions are. Anything outside of that stated policy may or may not be the mans personal position, but as a party leader he will in fact push current policies and you can be assured that anything else will require the consent of the entire party. Until forming a government partisan policy rules, empowered with a mandate a leader then sets policy on a moment by moment basis with each decision.

First the guy gets tagged with..."Just watch me", now we ask the question what are his views? Hahahaha, well played!

[PIK]

But at least he isn't promising Hope and Change.

Same page as obama but different words. Any time it seems he was asked about what he would do, it was ''to have a conversation and then give them the proper tools.'' Conservation and tools will be the new line.

[g_bambino]

see election campaign, g_bambino

Odd way of saying "I meant to say election campaign"...

Regardless, in what way is it good to be so excited about a total unknown? I imagine you criticise those who did the same in the scenario you say happened involving Harper.

[waldo]

imagine... someone refusing to help his opposition (falsely) define him before an actual campaign begins. Why, some wag might suggest it's analogous to the HarperConservatives refusing to release a policy platform months into a campaign... even after its leader is lampooned over failing to release a platform in the campaign debates. Imagine!

Er, the campaign to be leader of the Liberal party began some time ago, waldo.

see election campaign, g_bambino

Odd way of saying "I meant to say election campaign"...

Regardless, in what way is it good to be so excited about a total unknown? I imagine you criticise those who did the same in the scenario you say happened involving Harper.

odd way of you assuming I wouldn't know there's a Liberal leadership campaign... that, as you say, it began some time ago? Was/is that really your interpretation? That someone, even remotely tapped into Canadian politics, wouldn't know there's an ongoing Liberal leadership campaign? Gee I think it's been in the news!!! Gee, I think there's been a brazillion threads about it here on MLW!!!

odd way of you assuming my correlation to HarperConservative election campaign actions (or lack therein) didn't imply/mean "election campaign"!!! Hey now, other than in an election campaign... and the related leaders debates... have the HarperConservatives ever been lambasted by the opposition for... not releasing a policy platform?

regardless... it appears those getting most excited about a, as you say, total unknown, are partisan supporters of the HarperConservatives & NDP. Ya think?

.

[g_bambino]

odd way of you assuming I wouldn't know there's a Liberal leadership campaign...

It was your words that lacked context. He has opposition in the Liberal leadership campaign, too, you know.

regardless... it appears those getting most excited about a, as you say, total unknown, are partisan supporters of the HarperConservatives & NDP.

You didn't answer my question.

[ed.: +]

Edited March 25, 2013 by g_bambino

[waldo]

It was your words that lacked context. He has opposition in the Liberal leadership campaign, too, you know.

and your words lacked common sense... are you going to double-down and stick with your interpretation that I didn't know there was an ongoing Liberal leadership campaign? Really?

You didn't answer my question.

[ed.: +]

I answered it by, again, stating where the most excitement lies! If you don't like that answer infer your own one... you clearly have no difficulty in doing that, hey? But hey now, you didn't answer my question; again: "other than in an election campaign... and the related leaders debates... have the HarperConservatives ever been lambasted by the opposition for... not releasing a policy platform?"

[g_bambino]

and your words lacked common sense...

I disagree. He hasn't revealed anything to his opponents in the Liberal party leadership campaign, either, and a party leadership campaign is as "actual" (to use your own word) a campaign as is one that preceeds a federal election.

I answered it by, again, stating where the most excitement lies!

That actually doesn't answer the question "in what way is it good to be so excited about a total unknown?"

[ed.: -, +]

Edited March 25, 2013 by g_bambino

[waldo]

I disagree. He hasn't revealed anything to his opponents in the Liberal party leadership campaign, either.

That actually doesn't answer the question "in what way is it good to be so excited about a total unknown?"

[ed.: -]

does this mean you've stopped your nonsense suggesting I didn't know about an ongoing Liberal leadership campaign?

who's excited... other than the media clamoring for manufactured news... and opponents seemingly so fixated with the name "Trudeau"? You Harper fans will need to get your act together - either there's no interest (given a supposed lack of registrations)... or there's "excitement"! Pick one!

[g_bambino]

does this mean you've stopped your nonsense suggesting I didn't know about an ongoing Liberal leadership campaign?

I can't stop nonsense I didn't start.

who's excited...

Many in the Liberal Party and its supporters.

[waldo]

I can't stop nonsense I didn't start.

oh my... I'm finding MLW statements of mine related to the Liberal leadership campaign... all the way back to Sept, 2012... let's have you reinforce your nonsense - let's have you unequivocally state you believe I didn't know about an ongoing Liberal leadership campaign.

[GostHacked]

Well those figures are wrong for sure. I would go with the IMF figures before the CIA figures while the CIA has its role and is really good at operating drones and giving out misinformation no I would not trust them with economic figures. Their mission statement has nothing about keeping an informed populace. I think you are closer to right then this other guy those numbers aren't right.

I don't think one can trust anything the IMF says either.

[RNG]

I don't think one can trust anything the IMF says either.

I often have similar thoughts. Look at the variety of debt to GDP ratios I posted from different sources. So who do you trust? I'm not sure who can be trusted.