Trudeau & Feel Good Policies

[Rue]

I started a previous thread satirizing a politically correct argument as to Trudeau dressing up on Halloween as an Arab (Arabian knight) but it was to make a serious point and it did not surprise me the thread was shut down and some missed the point. I've been told calling Justin, Justine is inappropriate on this forum so shutting down that thread did not surprise me..

However in spite of the above and the problems encountered when satirizing Trudeau it is important to be ablecto challenge his policies and in particular his platform and his crass tokenization of  minorities in feel good exercises..

Trudeau came into office making a huge deal about Syrian refugees and portraying the former government as cold and uncaring about refugees. The fact is he dishonestly took credit in photo cops for privately sponsored refugees who came in thanks to the previous Harper regime. For me that was monumental dishonesty at its highest and using Syrian refugees as a photo op. Now?  Have any of you kept track of what has happened to these refugees that were not privately sponsored? Well? In Trudeau's world where he stated there is no Canadian culture and we are whatever we feel we are which is what he has stated how do they and other new Canadians manage?

In the last week did any of you notice they are scaling back on refugees to a level they once attacked the Conservative party for? Suddenly they want to attract immigrants with "skills" and they've increased that quota and lowered the refugee one something Trudeau stood up and chastised the Conservatives for having done.

I stated when Trudeau began posing with Syrians and using them as props before and after the election that he was a p hony smarmy sob using them, exploiting them to get votes and make people feel good about themselves and him. It was crass exploitation feel good politics to get votes. I argued the mental health, assimilation and adjustment issues had not been planed for by the Trudeau regime that would dump them in cities and then ignore the follow up and that is exactly what has happened:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/07/04/senate-report-syria-refugees-canada-jim-munson_n_10804708.html

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/05/25/trudeau-neglecting-syrian-refugees

The fact is Trudeau manufactured a feel good exercise using refugees as props  thathas cost Canadian taxpayers $648 million., The mental health and adjustment issues are now invisible. They are not Trudeu's problem as he finds other ways to increase the deficit. Go on look at that deficit. Who is paying for it? Trudeau? You? That fool he calls a Finance Minister? Well?

Running a government requires making hard unpopular decisions not tokenizng minorities and using them for a giggle. Since he's been elected what has Trudeau achieved? He's run up this absolutely out of control deficit that has set into place an inflationary process and an inability to pay baxck ever the interest on that deficit let alone the principal amount of debt.

He thinks he will by spending like an ass in the short term prevent an economic collapse by selling away the future. He's nothing but  some jack ass for unning up a hue credit card debt to feel good now and let generations to come worry about bankruptcy, insolvency, and the out of control consequences to running up debts that can't be paid back.

This is much more than a dressing up on Hallown as a feel good Arabian Knight giggle but then I expect each day Trudeau will manufacture a feel good photo of some sort.

Mr. Feelgood generated a $648 million taxpayer deficit to bring in 25,000 people  and  many of these people have serious psychiatric and social issues that will require a lot of long term care and prevent them from ever contributing.. I worry for them. In a rush to feel good many will disappear in the social system as dependents on the state and be forgotten by this Lord Faunteroy of a Prime Minister. Hopefully others will manage to make the changes.

Hey it only took this PM a year to concede skilled immigrants are not in the same category as refugees.

The only thing in this current regime which I agree with is the mission in Iraq. I think in hindsight focusing on the ground as trainers has proved much more helpful than bombing runs. Also with due respect that worked through the international deal with the EU which was not easy and of course Justin took credit for it.

That said globally we have a cascading tide of new displaced refugees that are going to flow out of the Middle East at a time when China. India and Africa are producing  tens of millions of refugees mostly wanting to go to the US and West Europe.

Our government will come up with feel good exercises to distract from its true agenda which won't be that much different than their predecessor's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Rue

[PIK]

Welcome to ontario , canada. Now everyone will know what us poor people of ONT are going thru. 

[Boges]

He actually has done very little. And the stuff he has done are largely continuations of CPC policies. CETA, Climate Targets etc. 

A lot of the stuff attributable to him is fluff like the "Senate" reform or the Pot Legalization that probably will never materialize. 

I heard on the radio this morning, that good chunk of these deficits are for operating costs and not new infrastructure spending. So are they really trying to spend our way to growth? Seems like "The Budget Will Balance Itself" gaffe is hilarious now than it was when he said it. 

[Smallc]

Actually, most of the deficit spending comes as a result of a worse fiscal climate, not because of a large increase in any kind of spending.  Still, there is $186B for infrastructure that wasn't there before.  That, along with bigger child cheques and better EI should help the economy.

[andromeda]

if we want infrastructure let's start with a few pipelines.   and it won't cost taxpayers nothing.

[poochy]

It's of course a lie that this spending is about the economy.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-liberal-spending-spree-because-they-want-to

 

All that liberals do is lie, they seem to be genetically predisposed to it.

"On average, annual revenues for the current and next three fiscal years are now expected to be $12 billion less than the track the Conservatives laid out in their last budget. Of that, about $2 billion is accounted for by the Liberals’ middle-class tax cut — you’ll recall, the one that was supposed to be revenue neutral.

The rest is higher spending: about $19 billion more, every year."

 

It's good for them, they don't care.

 

"They will spend more next year, after inflation, after population growth, than the Harper government did at the height of a world-wide financial crisis."

 

They demanded more spending during the crisis, then complained about the debt, now they are spending more and for less reason than Harper had, if you support this behavior you have no honor.

[Smallc]

Wait, are you complaining that the Liberals - lowered - taxes? 

[?Impact]

20 hours ago, Rue said:

I started a previous thread

...I've been told calling Justin, Justine is inappropriate on this forum

...In the last week did any of you notice they are scaling back on refugees to a level they once attacked the Conservative party for?He thinks he will by spending like an ass in the short term prevent an economic collapse by selling away the future. He's nothing but  some jack ass

...Mr. Feelgood generated a $648 million taxpayer deficit to bring in 25,000 people  and  many of these people have serious psychiatric and social issues that will require a lot of long term care and prevent them from ever contributing.

...Hey it only took this PM a year to concede skilled immigrants are not in the same category as refugees

...at a time when China. India and Africa are producing  tens of millions of refugees

...Our government will come up with feel good exercises to distract from its true agenda which won't be that much different than their predecessor's.

 

I'm really trying to understand what your rant is all about. About the only thing I take out of it is you don't see a big difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Is that a good thing or not? Are you expecting some radical change? If so, what is that change you are looking for?

You point out problems with refugees, although I don't see much support for your contentions. You also say there are tens of millions of refugees in China and India, can you tell us who else calls these refugees? Certainly there are countries in Africa that are producing refugees. I don't think the PM ever said that skilled immigrants and refugees are the same, there was nothing to concede because that was never the picture to begin with. Yes there are often additional challenges that face us when integrating refugees into Canadian society, but I expect the vast majority will integrate well and become contributing members; where is your evidence to the contrary. Is the purpose of this thread to discuss refugees and skilled immigrants?

Nice of you to slip in a Justine and jackass, perhaps you thought that a long rant could disguise them.

Edited November 3, 2016 by ?Impact

[PIK]

Harper was at least a steady hand on the rudder, he would not have panic and went on a spending spree. 

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Smallc said:

Actually, most of the deficit spending comes as a result of a worse fiscal climate, not because of a large increase in any kind of spending.  Still, there is $186B for infrastructure that wasn't there before.  That, along with bigger child cheques and better EI should help the economy.

This is absolutely untrue. Most of the money for 'fiscal spending' has not been allocated yet. Most of the growing deficit is because of higher program spending by the Liberals.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Smallc said:

Wait, are you complaining that the Liberals - lowered - taxes? 

A real conservative doesn't believe in lowering taxes while increasing borrowing, especially for program spending which is insane. 

[Smallc]

I didn't hear you complain before.

[Smallc]

47 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is absolutely untrue. Most of the money for 'fiscal spending' has not been allocated yet. Most of the growing deficit is because of higher program spending by the Liberals.

What did I write that was untrue? 

[overthere]

My favorite Trudeauism so far is 'social infrastructure'.  This is NewSpeak for classic Liberal  program spending.  Orwell would approve.   Program spending never ends, because then Trudeau would make somebody unhappy that he had previously made happy by gifting them money.

It just goes on year after year indefinitely until the economy starts to buckle under the double weight of the ongoing program spending and the cost of borrowing more and more and more and more money to fund the programs.  Oh, and what happens when the cost of that debt starts to rise dramatically when interest rates rise, which they undoubtedly will?

 

Justin is starting to  closely resemble old Dad: socially an activist, while at the same time fiscally disastrous.

[Smallc]

Who needs hospitals, schools, or jails, anyway? 

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Smallc said:

I didn't hear you complain before.

Yes, you did.

[Argus]

22 hours ago, Smallc said:

What did I write that was untrue? 

You said most of the deficit spending is because of a worsening economic climate. It's not.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, Smallc said:

Who needs hospitals, schools, or jails, anyway? 

Building hospitals, schools and jails are provincial responsibilities, and the government has not greatly increased transfers to the provinces, which means the deficit is not being caused by that. Further, despite the insistence of you Liberals about how massive the infrastructure spending is I can't help noticing that all the companies which would benefit from huge infrastructure spending have seen their stock going nowhere. I guess investors think such promises are pretty much hot air.

[Smallc]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

You said most of the deficit spending is because of a worsening economic climate. It's not.

Specifically, half. Most of the amount over the promised $10B deficit is because of the worsening economic.

[Smallc]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Building hospitals, schools and jails are provincial responsibilities, and the government has not greatly increased transfers to the provinces, which means the deficit is not being caused by that. Further, despite the insistence of you Liberals about how massive the infrastructure spending is I can't help noticing that all the companies which would benefit from huge infrastructure spending have seen their stock going nowhere. I guess investors think such promises are pretty much hot air.

 

Almost all infrastructure is a provincial responsibility.  Money is allocated by project with these programs, not in bulk transfers. 

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Specifically, half. Most of the amount over the promised $10B deficit is because of the worsening economic.

That's a total lie, as Coyne easily points out.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Smallc said:

 

Almost all infrastructure is a provincial responsibility.  Money is allocated by project with these programs, not in bulk transfers. 

If the numbers guys on Bay Street thought there would be a huge boom in infrastructure spending then the stock of companies like Aecon, Stantec, Bird Construction, WSP Global and Brookfield Infrastructure Partners would be rising, not falling. It's mostly smoke and mirrors.

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

That's a total lie, as Coyne easily points out.

 

Thats not a lie - the worsening economic conditions are responsible for $12B of the current deficit.  The original deficit was projected at $10B.  That means that more than half of the larger deficit amount and half of the total deficit amount are attributable to the worsening economic conditions. Count forgot to account for the fact that the economy is smaller than the 2015-2016 budget projected, meaning that the weaker 2016 growth numbers started from an already weaker 2015 number.  Those are the budget projections that the parties based their campaigns on.

[Smallc]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

If the numbers guys on Bay Street thought there would be a huge boom in infrastructure spending then the stock of companies like Aecon, Stantec, Bird Construction, WSP Global and Brookfield Infrastructure Partners would be rising, not falling. It's mostly smoke and mirrors.

Infrastructure is the best way to promote growth:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/morneaus-economic-growth-council-calls-for-national-infrastructure-bank/article32461740/

 

[Rue]

On ‎2016‎-‎11‎-‎03 at 9:43 AM, ?Impact said:

 

I'm really trying to understand what your rant is all about.

Nice of you to slip in a Justine and jackass, perhaps you thought that a long rant could disguise them.

Rant? Me rant? I engage in political discussion and discourse.

Slip in what did you say?    Justine and  jack ass?  You think it was slipped in and not intentional?  O.k. sure.

As for putting an e at the end of his name he is in favour of transgender rights so I am sure he would not be offended by being called Justine since  the name "Justin" assumes male identity only and he stated he is comfortable with his female side and being called a feminist. So I think you should understand my calling him Justine is a progressive attempt to shatter gender identity discrimination and my attempt to suggest we all have unisexual names, i.e., Dawna Trump, Hill Clinton.

And do note my name ends in an e. R (as in grrrrrrr) , U as in the second word after the word that sounds like puck), E (as in teeeeeeeeheeeeeeee).

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2016 by Rue