Canadians Solidly Behind Justin Trudeau

[eyeball]

No. Most if not all of the "adaptation" was due to the initial outlandish promise - which in itself risks that other promises may bring about similar chaos.

I thought it was due to the images of Aylan Kurdi. It was a galvanizing moment that favoured the Liberals chances. Like I said before it could have gone the other way. Had the Paris attacks happened first it would have favoured Harper's chances and had he won I suspect you'd be staunchly defending measures to delay bringing in the 10,000 refugees Harper committed to.

This going on and on about a broken promise really looks a lot like a petty political point scoring exercise than anything.

[Michael Hardner]

Who believes this? Seriously, name me 1 Canadian, preferably a politician or someone on these forums.

Who on this forum doesn't want Muslims here ? Argus and DoP have both been forthright in expressing reasons for such an action, I think.

[Guest]

I am not at all surprised that this liberal government headed by Trudeau is so popular and I have no doubt that its popularity will only increase with time and they will form another likely bigger majority next time. It is an open, accountable, honest, kind, hard working, honorable government totally in opposite to scandalist, corrupt, heartless, dishonorable former Harper regime.

Give it a rest, Margaret.

[The_Squid]

The more parties there are, the harder it is to come to a global agreement. By splitting Canada into effectively 13 parties, you are making it harder to get a global agreement (a proper one, not the phony agreement at Paris).

It is less efficient. It has higher implementation costs and doesn't spread the mitigation burden broadly and evenly.

And if the Feds took the only role, people would be screaming bloody murder! "NEP... NEP!! NEP!!!"

The Provinces, and largest cities, have to take a lead role in implementation with targets set by the Feds.

[Guest]

I keep losing posts, but no-one is telling me they are being deleted, so I assume it's the software.

[-1=e^ipi]

Who on this forum doesn't want Muslims here ? Argus and DoP have both been forthright in expressing reasons for such an action, I think.

link?

The Provinces, and largest cities, have to take a lead role in implementation with targets set by the Feds.

No they don't. We could have a national CO2 emission tax if there were political will and politicians simply explained: hey a national CO2 emission tax is more efficient. Unfortunately, the FPTP system doesn't allow for much competition, so we are stuck with 3-4 terrible choices with idiotic policies.

Really, our current mess is due in large part to Harper. Because Harper refused to implement a national CO2 emission tax, the provinces took it upon themselves to implement CO2 mitigation policy.

[The_Squid]

I keep losing posts, but no-one is telling me they are being deleted, so I assume it's the software.

I am deleting them. They suck.

[Guest]

I am deleting them. They suck.

You missed one.

[Wilber]

I think you ignored the second part of what I said.

No, I didn't ignore it. You seem to be ignoring the fact the provinces are going to have to find the solutions and hope the federal government will help pay for them, as well as transferring billions to 3rd world countries to help deal with their problems. All this without driving any of the governments much farther into deficit or crippling their economies with higher taxes in order to pay for it. Plus address the so called infrastructure deficit and keep all his other promises as well You can't see any problems there?

[Smallc]

So called infrastructure deficit?

Anyway, all of that is why I'm almost convinced that taxes will need to go up within the decade.

[Wilber]

So called infrastructure deficit?

Anyway, all of that is why I'm almost convinced that taxes will need to go up within the decade.

There will be carbon taxes for sure but what other taxes?

[Argus]

Who on this forum doesn't want Muslims here ? Argus and DoP have both been forthright in expressing reasons for such an action, I think.

I have stated I do not think it wise to bring in new Muslim immigrants, and particularly not from areas of the world with a high number of extremist beliefs. I have not ever suggested we get rid of the ones here or prevent others from coming here as visitors or whatever. Then again, I don't think it wise to bring any immigrants here who can't be shown to be economically self-supporting. And according to stats, those from the middle east and western Asia are not.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Argus

[eyeball]

Then again, I don't think it wise to bring any immigrants here who can't be shown to be economically self-supporting. And according to stats, those from the middle east and western Asia are not.

According to history every new wave of immigrants disproved the evidence that was held against them by prior waves.

[Smallc]

There will be carbon taxes for sure but what other taxes?

I'm convinced that consumption taxes will eventually be increasing.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm convinced that consumption taxes will eventually be increasing.

Worked great for Mulroney to contend with a mess left by a Trudeau.

[Wilber]

I'm convinced that consumption taxes will eventually be increasing.

So how do we grow GDP to keep up with rising debt levels if government keeps taking more money out of the economy?

[Smallc]

So how do we grow GDP to keep up with rising debt levels if government keeps taking more money out of the economy?

The federal government currently takes less as a percentage of GDP than at any time in the last 70 years. Canada is still, overall, below most of Europe.

[Michael Hardner]

The federal government currently takes less as a percentage of GDP than at any time in the last 70 years. Canada is still, overall, below most of Europe.

Wow. Do you have a cite ? Somebody on another thread was saying just the opposite - something about companies going offshore and taxes going up and up. I remember our taxes being fairly low.

[Wilber]

The federal government currently takes less as a percentage of GDP than at any time in the last 70 years. Canada is still, overall, below most of Europe.

It's amazing how quickly that can change if spending gets out of control. The problem with concentrating on debt to GDP ratios is you have to keep increasing GDP to service increasing debt. You become a hamster in a wheel who keeps having to run faster to stay in the same place. France hasn't balanced a budget since the mid seventies. Not much to look up to.

Oh well, maybe the pot smokers will pay for it all.

[Big Guy]

That's a personal insult that is totally uncalled for - perhaps you can show me just one - one thing I've said that exhibits a phobia against Muslims - other than those extremists that completely sully the religion and their fellow Muslims.

By the way genius - with regards to your "Islamaphones"....... there is no common language for Islam.....nor are there telephones that are manufactured only for Muslims.

I apologize. Obviously I mistook your post for a change in mind - you have not changed your mind. Too bad.

BTW I have never had my IQ evaluated objectively but I doubt it is at the genius level. I doubt if anyone who is a "genius" would be spending any valuable time on a keyboard sharing his/her exceptional observations with other anonymous participants.

Thank you for assuming that I am a genius.

[Smallc]

Wow. Do you have a cite ? Somebody on another thread was saying just the opposite - something about companies going offshore and taxes going up and up. I remember our taxes being fairly low.

Third, it would appear that the federal government does indeed now have a smaller footprint and is back to the size it had in the mid 1960s.

http://worthwhile.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451688169e2019b00fbc652970b-pi

I can't find the other sources I've seen - apparently the government is now in 2015 as small as its been at any time since 1950.

As to my other claim:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

Canada is almost 7% less taxed than the UK.

[Smallc]

It's amazing how quickly that can change if spending gets out of control. The problem with concentrating on debt to GDP ratios is you have to keep increasing GDP to service increasing debt.

I would hope we could keep a growing economy. If not we're in trouble. As to running deficits - I prefer tax increases.

[Big Guy]

Because then you have large segments of the population without representation. The point of a representative democracy is to represent the population.

...

The only way that that every member of the population would be represented is if we had a government where everybody would have a say. With about 30 million people you have to compromise and try to find some system that BEST represents all segments of society, is ATTAINABLE and can be facilitated.

How would you suggest that every member of a society be represented?

[Wilber]

I would hope we could keep a growing economy. If not we're in trouble. As to running deficits - I prefer tax increases.

So you stifle the economy with increased taxes which ends up reducing GDP. There is only so much money in the economy and government doesn't increase it, unless it prints more. Government doesn't increase wealth, it only redistributes it.

[Smallc]

So you stifle the economy with increased taxes which ends up reducing GDP. There is only so much money in the economy and government doesn't increase it, unless it prints more. Government doesn't increase wealth, it only redistributes it.

Right now, we aren't able to meet our obligations to:

DND

CIDA

infrastructure

health

I propose returning the GST to 7% and directing the money to those 4 initiatives. We still won't meet our obligations, but we'll come a hell of a lot closer.