Uncle Ki-moon Pulls the Wool Over Poor Little Trudeau's Eyes

On Guard for Thee · February 16, 2016

No...the article is discussing 'regaining' a seat. Canada has never had a permanent seat. Canada is putting a bid in for 2016 however its not expected to get a seat until 2020 'based on how the UN rotates the openings'.

At this point we don't have some influence, we have no influence....contrary to what your initial post claimed about us 'having a seat'

I certainly didn't say we have a seat, but I was a bit sloppy saying we were getting one. But in fact I may be proved correct anyway, Trudeau in his welcoming speech with Ban mentioned his wish to seek a seat, which was warmly welcomed. I suspect Harper's snubbing of the UN would have kept the possibility out of all likelihood. I don't recall any such high level meetings during Harper's time.

Argus · February 16, 2016

And we know now that the baseline would result in a deficit totalling about $5B for the next few years, perhaps structurally.

Unless changes were made, which they would have been. He was forced into deficit spending the last time around, but barring a minority government, I don't think he would have done it again. I'm not aware of any evidence all that 'economic incentive' money did anything much to help the economy and I certainly don't think Trudeau's much lower spending will do anything.

Smallc · February 16, 2016

Unless changes were made, which they would have been.

Where was Harper going to cut money from? Was he going to further cut military funding? That's the largest federal department, after all.

He was forced into deficit spending the last time around, but barring a minority government, I don't think he would have done it again.

I agree the opposition pressured him to spend more than he would have. I think a deficit was unavoidable at the time though. I also seem to remember Harper receiving a majority mandate in 2011, and several deficits following that.

I'm not aware of any evidence all that 'economic incentive' money did anything much to help the economy and I certainly don't think Trudeau's much lower spending will do anything.

It's proven that infrastructure investment and money given directly to lower income people has a growth effect on the economy in excess of the original money invested.

overthere · February 16, 2016

I certainly didn't say we have a seat, but I was a bit sloppy saying we were getting one. But in fact I may be proved correct anyway, Trudeau in his welcoming speech with Ban mentioned his wish to seek a seat, which was warmly welcomed. I suspect Harper's snubbing of the UN would have kept the possibility out of all likelihood. I don't recall any such high level meetings during Harper's time.

No. it is true that Harper as a First World leader knew the cash price of a Security Council seat would be high.

Trudeau does not care about the price.

Ban came a- begging, and left with a promise.

On Guard for Thee · February 16, 2016

He returned troops and the result is the mess over there now. He's done nothing to influence the economy because he couldn't even get a budget passed. The insurance reform he brought in place is a complicated and expensive mess and is a far cry from what he was talking about before he was first elected, which was universal health care. Race relations are worse than when he took over. Income disparity is worse than when he took office - in contrast to Canada where the income gap has been closing since Harper took over, with the Parliamentary Budget Officer crediting his tax reforms for giving more money to the lower and middle class. He has also been able to do nothing to lessen the growing divide between the Left and Right in the US, being seemingly incapable of influencing even more moderate conservatives. His foreign policy is a confusing mess, and relations with America's allies have actually worsened under him from where they were under Bush.

The mess was caused by putting troops in in the first place. At least the current mess will put a lot less US troops in harms way. As pointed out, the ACA has actually brought costs down, and the initial computer glitch with online sign up has long since been repaired. Job creation in the US has been rising while ours has been falling. The divide between the left/right in the US has always been there but is perhaps deepening due to the total wing nuts the right seems to be attracting. But the thread is supposed to be about our UN connection.

overthere · February 16, 2016

As we now know, everyone else offered the same thing. Harper offered the same thing for the last 6 years.

Really, did Harper offer big bucks for summer student makework programs? Trudeau did, and will follow through.

Really, wouldn't it be more cost effective to just buy votes by sending students cheques instead of all this fuss?

Argus · February 16, 2016

It's proven that infrastructure investment and money given directly to lower income people has a growth effect on the economy in excess of the original money invested.

Really? Who proved it?

Big Guy · February 16, 2016

As to foreign affairs;

I watched question period where Ambrose, temporary leader of the Conservatives, hammered the government for pulling those airplanes out and backing off on "combat" by placing our troops in positions of training and safety. She asked, "Is he ever going to fight against ISIS?". She sat down to wild applause from her caucus.

Thomas Mulcair, leader of the NDP, then stood up and hammered the government for putting Canadian troops into danger by placing them on the ground where they are in much greater danger of having contact with and be in combat with ISIS. He asked, "Is he never going to get our troops out of there?" He then sat down to wild applause from his caucus.

When you get criticized from the right for being too left and criticized by the left for being too right then it sounds to me like JT and his party are in the middle - just like they used to be - and where they should be.

On Guard for Thee · February 16, 2016

Really? Who proved it?

John Maynard Keynes for one.

On Guard for Thee · February 16, 2016

As to foreign affairs;

I watched question period where Ambrose, temporary leader of the Conservatives, hammered the government for pulling those airplanes out and backing off on "combat" by placing our troops in positions of training and safety. She asked, "Is he ever going to fight against ISIS?". She sat down to wild applause from her caucus.

Thomas Mulcair, leader of the NDP, then stood up and hammered the government for putting Canadian troops into danger by placing them on the ground where they are in much greater danger of having contact with and be in combat with ISIS. He asked, "Is he never going to get our troops out of there?" He then sat down to wild applause from his caucus.

When you get criticized from the right for being too left and criticized by the left for being too right then it sounds to me like JT and his party are in the middle - just like they used to be - and where they should be.

Which is perhaps why his party has ruled more than the other two.

Accountability Now · February 16, 2016

Why exactly do we need this "influence" and in what way will it help us?

Not saying we do. Just simply pointing out the fact that we don't have one, contrary to what he was saying.

Smallc · February 16, 2016

Really? Who proved it?

These people, among others:

http://www.businessinsider.com/infrastructure-economic-multiplier-2012-11

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/oct/29/quantitative-easing-policy-stimulus-janet-yellen-ecb

On Guard for Thee · February 16, 2016

No...the article is discussing 'regaining' a seat. Canada has never had a permanent seat. Canada is putting a bid in for 2016 however its not expected to get a seat until 2020 'based on how the UN rotates the openings'.

At this point we don't have some influence, we have no influence....contrary to what your initial post claimed about us 'having a seat'

Perhaps read a little better. I didn't say we "have" a seat, and "none" is the amount of influence we have now. It's all grammatical understanding.

Accountability Now · February 16, 2016

I certainly didn't say we have a seat, but I was a bit sloppy saying we were getting one.

A bit sloppy would certainly sum it up.

But in fact I may be proved correct anyway, Trudeau in his welcoming speech with Ban mentioned his wish to seek a seat, which was warmly welcomed.

You may be right and you may not....again the article discussing how the UN likes to shift seats around. According to Wikipedia, there are three other countries running for the seats: Italy, Netherlands and Sweden. My understanding is two get in, so two won't. I would believe Sweden will get in based on their refugee numbers and the last time they were in was in 97/98. Netherlands and Canada both had their last seats in 99/2000 so it could go either way. Italy seems like a long shot as they were last in 2007/2008. With that said, having Trudeau swoon Ban won't add up to much if other deserving candidates are present regardless of their last time in the seat.

It certainly would seem like Canada is overdue for the seat as history shows we have been given a seat almost every 10 years and the last one was 2000. However a lot more countries have started to express interest in the seat and therefore the competition has gone up.

Accountability Now · February 16, 2016

Perhaps read a little better. I didn't say we "have" a seat, and "none" is the amount of influence we have now. It's all grammatical understanding.

Lol. Even by your own admission your writing is sloppy....and that is generous. Even saying we're getting seats is an unsubstantiated opinion that can't be proved right or wrong until later this year.

However, please don't let me stop you from your 'sloppy' predictions.

On Guard for Thee · February 16, 2016

Lol. Even by your own admission your writing is sloppy....and that is generous. Even saying we're getting seats is an unsubstantiated opinion that can't be proved right or wrong until later this year.

However, please don't let me stop you from your 'sloppy' predictions.

So you do understand that not having a seat does in fact means our influence equals "none"? Just trying to catch you up to what you seemed to misinterpret.

bush_cheney2004 · February 16, 2016

Gee, I wonder how those crazy left wing and right wing 'muricans fighting all the time still manage to keep their UN "influence". Might have something to do with the U.S. spending BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on the United Nations and deploying more "peacekeeping" forces than Canada.

If Trudeau wants more "influence", write a big fat check...in US dollars, please.

Accountability Now · February 16, 2016

So you do understand that not having a seat does in fact means our influence equals "none"? Just trying to catch you up to what you seemed to misinterpret.

I love your cycles. But let's keep one thing straight, you self admitted that your post was sloppy and that you should have said 'will be getting a seat'. Before your correction you went on to say 'some is better' than none, which of course is why I replied that we don't have some at the moment.

Your welcome for clearing this up for you. Stop being so sloppy next time.

Accountability Now · February 16, 2016

Gee, I wonder how those crazy left wing and right wing 'muricans fighting all the time still manage to keep their UN "influence". Might have something to do with the U.S. spending BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on the United Nations and deploying more "peacekeeping" forces than Canada.

If Trudeau wants more "influence", write a big fat check...in US dollars, please.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the money equaling influence idea. If that were the case, then Japan and Germany would be permanent members. Heck, Russia is barely above Canada!

The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to United Nations Peacekeeping operations in 2013-2015 [A/67/224/Add.1] are:

United States (28.38%)

Japan (10.83%)

France (7.22%)

Germany (7.14%)

United Kingdom (6.68%)

China (6.64%)

Italy (4.45%)

Russian Federation (3.15%)

Canada (2.98%)

Spain (2.97%)

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml

The_Squid · February 16, 2016

Your welcome for clearing this up for you. Stop being so sloppy next time.

oh, the irony...

Accountability Now · February 16, 2016

oh, the irony...

Ouch....you're right...LOL

On Guard for Thee · February 16, 2016

I love your cycles. But let's keep one thing straight, you self admitted that your post was sloppy and that you should have said 'will be getting a seat'. Before your correction you went on to say 'some is better' than none, which of course is why I replied that we don't have some at the moment.

Your welcome for clearing this up for you. Stop being so sloppy next time.

We would have some if we had a seat, even if it's not a permanent one. Get it yet?

bush_cheney2004 · February 16, 2016

I'm not sure I agree with you on the money equaling influence idea. If that were the case, then Japan and Germany would be permanent members. Heck, Russia is barely above Canada!

Permanent membership and "influence" are two different things. Influence costs money...lots of money...and Canada has just been too cheap to get in the game.

Accountability Now · February 16, 2016

We would have some if we had a seat, even if it's not a permanent one. Get it yet?

Keep cycling buddy. You're almost back to the start.

Accountability Now · February 16, 2016

Permanent membership and "influence" are two different things. Influence costs money...lots of money...and Canada has just been too cheap to get in the game.

So are you saying that Russia has no influence?