Jump to content

Wynne offers billions and billions


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, H10 said:

Harris and Harper ran debts for almost every year they were in power

Harris inherited a financial disaster after the NDP and Liberals plunged the province into deep deficits. You don't simply take over and slash spending to no deficits overnight. But he did slash spending year by year to reach a surplus position. When Chretien took over he ran up huge deficits for the first several years in office, too. Harper ran surpluses until the worsts economic downturn in decades and the opposition (then the majority in parliament) demanded a massive economic spending program. That is the time to run deficits if you must. What's Trudeau and Wynne's excuse now?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You know - now that Doug Ford has offered to cut taxes for minimum wage earners, you can stop repeating this Mitt Romneyism.

Yes, he's playing the game. I guess he feels he has to. He may be right. There are just too many voters who pay little or no taxes.

Mitt Romney was crucified for stating the obvious. There is a big chunk of voters, close to 50% now, who pay nothing or almost nothing in taxes and who are unlikely to find much appeal in a government promising to cut government spending vs one promising more goodies.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, H10 said:

So why would whites fromd eveloped nations want to leave there white majority nations to immigrate to a failing nation like Canada which will be overrun by brown people?

 

And by having large numbers of whites leave Europe, wouldn't that only hasten their demise?  I mean if you have another 10 million browns coming into France, and 10 million whites leaving France for Canada, won't that only make France become white minority faster?  So why would a French person abandon their own nation, culture and traditions to save Canada? I couldn't imagine being a white person in Norway, which is over 90% white, and moving to a multicultural failed state like Canada, if I really cared about preserving Norwegian culture.  There are only what 3-5 million whites n Norway.  If too many leave then there is nothing stop muslims from complete takeover.

There are plenty of white people still immigrating to Canada. But those numbers have been limited because Canada has a policy of wanting more non-white immigration than white. Why would non-white people want to immigrate to Canada if it is a failing nation than? So why would the non-whites go from a failing nation to another failing nation? Explain that one to me if you can?

I don't believe that one million french people are going to want to come to Canada. Maybe a thousand or so but not millions. Besides, the way Canada keeps bringing in way more non-whites than whites into Canada why would they want to come to Canada? They would be walking into the same non-white immigration mess. 

So you do admit that Canada is now a failing multicultural state all thanks due to multiculturalism and thus by bringing in more non-whites things can only get worse, right? There is no concern that millions of Europeans are going to immigrate to Canada every year. It may and could happen but it won't happen. Our politically correct and pro-multicultural non- patriotic leaders are dedicated to seeing that more non-white come to Canada than white people. Like I already said just look at some citizenship ceremony and you will see that there are more non-whites than whites in the crowd. I would like to have millions of Norwegians move to Canada but I also would not want to see millions of Norwegians leaving Norway. That would open the door for the Muslims to take over. Europe does not need an Islamic country in it's midst. That would be a recipe for disaster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2018 at 10:31 PM, H10 said:

No different than the conservatives, just the opposite direction.  Conservatives run massive debt to cut taxes for the wealthy.  NDP run massive debt to provide services to the poor.

Why do we peons even bother to vote anymore? We always will get screwed by our dear leaders one way or the other. They don't listen to we the people. Canada needs a taxpayer party that will cut taxes big time and get rid of big government. Until that party comes along, we peons are going nowhere fast.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Argus said:

Harris inherited a financial disaster after the NDP and Liberals plunged the province into deep deficits. You don't simply take over and slash spending to no deficits overnight. But he did slash spending year by year to reach a surplus position. When Chretien took over he ran up huge deficits for the first several years in office, too. Harper ran surpluses until the worsts economic downturn in decades and the opposition (then the majority in parliament) demanded a massive economic spending program. That is the time to run deficits if you must. What's Trudeau and Wynne's excuse now?

 

No he didn't he left the province with double the debt he inherited, he never ran a surplus at all.  Harper took the largest Surplus into Canadian history and turned them into the largest deficits.  Harper destroyed the nation by cutting too much taxes for the mega rich, so now the Liberals are trying to clean up his mess to restore financial order.  Same for Wynne.  Harris destroyed the province, which is why it took decades for anyone to even begin to trust conservatives again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, taxme said:

There are plenty of white people still immigrating to Canada. But those numbers have been limited because Canada has a policy of wanting more non-white immigration than white. Why would non-white people want to immigrate to Canada if it is a failing nation than? So why would the non-whites go from a failing nation to another failing nation? Explain that one to me if you can?

Canada's immigration policy prefers white immigrants over others.  Just look at how they are going to France for French teachers, even though most French teachers are actually in Africa not France.  There is a lower standard of living in India, Africa, China than Europe, so they are more likely to leave a poorer country to come to Canada, despite all the drawbacks.  If you are making $30 a week as a teacher in India, it makes sense to move to Canada and make much more.  If you are making $50,000 a year in France, why move to canada for the same pay?

 

15 hours ago, taxme said:

I don't believe that one million french people are going to want to come to Canada. Maybe a thousand or so but not millions. Besides, the way Canada keeps bringing in way more non-whites than whites into Canada why would they want to come to Canada? They would be walking into the same non-white immigration mess. 

Exactly, they aren't dumb, so this is the real issue.

 

15 hours ago, taxme said:

So you do admit that Canada is now a failing multicultural state all thanks due to multiculturalism and thus by bringing in more non-whites things can only get worse, right? There is no concern that millions of Europeans are going to immigrate to Canada every year. It may and could happen but it won't happen. Our politically correct and pro-multicultural non- patriotic leaders are dedicated to seeing that more non-white come to Canada than white people. Like I already said just look at some citizenship ceremony and you will see that there are more non-whites than whites in the crowd. I would like to have millions of Norwegians move to Canada but I also would not want to see millions of Norwegians leaving Norway. That would open the door for the Muslims to take over. Europe does not need an Islamic country in it's midst. That would be a recipe for disaster. 

You are demanding an impossible scenario.  If whites mass leave Europe to try to keep Canada's white numbers up, the whites back in Europe will become numeric minorities.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, H10 said:

Canada's immigration policy prefers white immigrants over others.  Just look at how they are going to France for French teachers, even though most French teachers are actually in Africa not France.  There is a lower standard of living in India, Africa, China than Europe, so they are more likely to leave a poorer country to come to Canada, despite all the drawbacks.  If you are making $30 a week as a teacher in India, it makes sense to move to Canada and make much more.  If you are making $50,000 a year in France, why move to canada for the same pay?

 

Exactly, they aren't dumb, so this is the real issue.

 

You are demanding an impossible scenario.  If whites mass leave Europe to try to keep Canada's white numbers up, the whites back in Europe will become numeric minorities.

 

The only way that Canada can keep up it's majority white population is by cutting back on non-white immigration. It is said that the reason for Canada's decline in white population is because white people are not having that many children anymore. I think that white people are doing their fair share of having enough white children but what is probably off setting that is that there are massive amounts of non-whites than whites immigrating to Canada that is making appear as though whites are not having children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, H10 said:

No he didn't he left the province with double the debt he inherited, he never ran a surplus at all.

Your version of history is at odds with reality.

6 hours ago, H10 said:

Harper took the largest Surplus into Canadian history and turned them into the largest deficits.

No, deficits were bigger under Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien. And it was the recession which turned a surplus position into a deficit.

6 hours ago, H10 said:

 Harper destroyed the nation by cutting too much taxes for the mega rich,

Funny how the Parliamentary Budget Officer said in a report that income inequality in Canada had risen steadily until Harper took over, and then declined steadily throughout his time in office. The PBO credited taxation changes the Harper government made, which benefited poorer and middle class people.

6 hours ago, H10 said:

 Same for Wynne.  Harris destroyed the province, which is why it took decades for anyone to even begin to trust conservatives again.

Wynne's own Auditor General says he's cooking the books, lying about her borrowing and budgets. So does her own Financial Accountability Office. The Liberals have increased program spending over 71% and doubled the deficit, not because of a recession but because of increased program spending.

Thus everything you're saying is demonstrably nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, taxme said:

The only way that Canada can keep up it's majority white population is by cutting back on non-white immigration. It is said that the reason for Canada's decline in white population is because white people are not having that many children anymore. I think that white people are doing their fair share of having enough white children but what is probably off setting that is that there are massive amounts of non-whites than whites immigrating to Canada that is making appear as though whites are not having children. 

Who will pay for all the old white people's social security and retirement?  You know the government run ponzi scheme needs tax payers.  Also if you stop letting in non-whites just know that you are going to have many school closures and teacher's being laid off like we seen in Toronto.  The high prices have basically barred most non-whites who weren't in the market 5 years ago from buying in there.  So now schools are laying off teacher's because there are no kids in the classes for them.

 

So are you fine with paying their EI, their welfare when they cannot find work and are you fine with schools shutting down and white middle class workers losing jobs, houses, cars etc?

 

Also the real estate market will probably implode without all the foreigners coming in to prop it up, and the cost of transit and basically every shared resource in the city will rise too, including property taxes as there will be fewer payers.

 

White people are not having that many children, the reality is, there are very few whites who have even 3 kids.  The closest I've seen to whites with more than 1-2 kids are white passing conservative jews who don't work, take welfare and have like 8 kids.

bs-md-orthodox-jewish-trends-20150912

 

"Let's see, your great-grandfather was 1 of 7 children. Your grandmother was 1 of 4 children and you are 1 of 3 kids. You are thinking of having 1 or 2 kids, or, if you happen to be a statistician, that's currently an average of 1.61 children per woman."

"Despite some fluctuations, the total fertility rate in Canada has been below the replacement level for over 40 years. In fact, 1971 was the last year the replacement-level fertility of 2.1 children per woman was reached—meaning that couples, on average, had produced enough children to replace themselves."

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm

And back in 1971 Canada was still over 90% white. 

I don't know what planet or stats you have been looking at, but I find it rare to encounter a white couple with more than 1 kid.  1.61 means that the average white family is probably down to 1 kid right now, and the .61 is coming from Natives, Arabs, jews and other immigrants like latinos who come here with 8 kids.  Most white females I know don't want more than 2 kids, and after they have the first one decide it is too hard to raise a 2nd kid and child birth is too difficult.  I also notice many older white females trying to have kids in their 30s after drinking for decades and then can't have kids.  I also notice many women getting c-sections or who are overweight so it becomes physically dangerous for them to even have another child after their first.  I also notice many white females marrying and dating other races so many of them are having non-white kids.  I haven't even counted all the gays and lesbians who are disproportionately white. I know so many white females obsessed with their careers in some big company that they will go infertile before any man ever gets a chance to ever impregnate them.  They think men will want them forever, but it is not true.  Are you going to try to have kids with the 37 year old white female who spent her best years sleeping with every non-white man in town and the entire football team and now has excessive demands due to her "high standards".  I even notice many white men now dating yellow women as a result.

Canada is a failed state for white people, we should just enjoy the decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Argus said:

Your version of history is at odds with reality.

No, deficits were bigger under Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien. And it was the recession which turned a surplus position into a deficit.

deficit-surplus-2.png

Harper ran extremely large deficits, of all the surpluses, all but 2 come under the liberals, and of the 2, they are Harper'sfirst 2 years in minority government, when the liberal-ndp blocked him from insane deficit spending.

 

 

13 hours ago, Argus said:

Funny how the Parliamentary Budget Officer said in a report that income inequality in Canada had risen steadily until Harper took over, and then declined steadily throughout his time in office. The PBO credited taxation changes the Harper government made, which benefited poorer and middle class people.

Show me that link.

harperrecord-top1percent.png

 

My information shows Harper as the 2nd worst.

 

13 hours ago, Argus said:

Wynne's own Auditor General says he's cooking the books, lying about her borrowing and budgets. So does her own Financial Accountability Office. The Liberals have increased program spending over 71% and doubled the deficit, not because of a recession but because of increased program spending.

Thus everything you're saying is demonstrably nonsense.

 

Actually Harris really ruined the economy when you look at how short his tenure was an how he doubled the debt.  The pace of debt growth is the same under the liberals as the conservatives, they been in office twice as long and have done per year, the same as the conservatives, while maintaining a higher service level and not gutting the basic protections.

fe0407_ontariodebt_c_jr.jpeg?quality=60&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2018 at 4:25 AM, H10 said:

Harper ran extremely large deficits, of all the surpluses, all but 2 come under the liberals, and of the 2, they are Harper'sfirst 2 years in minority government, when the liberal-ndp blocked him from insane deficit spending.

Actually, even your own chart points out that he only had one year of bad deficits, and they were lower every successive year. Your own chart also shows that Mulroney's biggest deficit was the year he took over - because of what he inherited from Trudeau. And both he and Harper were dealing with deep recessions. As for your statement the liberal-ndp 'blocked him' from insane deficit spending, that's so much drool on a keyboard. The liberals-ndp actually tried to take over as the government because Harper wasn't spending enough on economic incentives, and their only complaint about his spending afterward was it wasn't high enough. What's more, his deficits dropped every year until balance was achieved.

What's Trudeau's excuse for running deficits again? Oh, right, you got nothing.

 

On 4/22/2018 at 4:25 AM, H10 said:

Show me that link.

Why? Your link proves my point.

Actually Harris really ruined the economy when you look at how short his tenure was an how he doubled the debt. 

Your own link shows net debt skyrocketed under the NDP, then dropped under Harris, then skyrocketed under the Liberals.  But of course, this is somewhat deceptive since it doesn't point out how Harris brought the spending under control and achieved a balanced budget, while the Wynne Liberals increased program spending well above inflation and population growth to pile the debt ever higher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2018 at 12:14 PM, Argus said:

Actually, even your own chart points out that he only had one year of bad deficits, and they were lower every successive year. Your own chart also shows that Mulroney's biggest deficit was the year he took over - because of what he inherited from Trudeau. And both he and Harper were dealing with deep recessions. As for your statement the liberal-ndp 'blocked him' from insane deficit spending, that's so much drool on a keyboard. The liberals-ndp actually tried to take over as the government because Harper wasn't spending enough on economic incentives, and their only complaint about his spending afterward was it wasn't high enough. What's more, his deficits dropped every year until balance was achieved.

Are you reading the same charts?  I think you are reading it incorrectly, read it again.  Harper was handed a gift economy then, he was give a huge surplus in a recession, that just shows how strong the liberals were economically! Mulrooney ran up big deficits from incompetence, while the 80s was booming he found a way to destroy the nation.  Harper shouldn't have had any deficits!! He took a surplus position and destroyed it, then you want to complement him for fixing the mess he created!

 

On 4/23/2018 at 12:14 PM, Argus said:

What's Trudeau's excuse for running deficits again? Oh, right, you got nothing.

There is none, because Trudeau just ran a 2 billion dollar surplus, duh

 

On 4/23/2018 at 12:14 PM, Argus said:

Why? Your link proves my point.

Your own link shows net debt skyrocketed under the NDP, then dropped under Harris, then skyrocketed under the Liberals.  But of course, this is somewhat deceptive since it doesn't point out how Harris brought the spending under control and achieved a balanced budget, while the Wynne Liberals increased program spending well above inflation and population growth to pile the debt ever higher.

The chart showws that the net debt under harris went from 100 billion to 150 billion in such a short time, how is that any success.  Worse of all that was during the booming 90s!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, H10 said:

Are you reading the same charts?  I think you are reading it incorrectly, read it again.  Harper was handed a gift economy then, he was give a huge surplus in a recession,

Drivel. Much of the 'huge surplus' was diminished in a spurt of spending Chretien made before he was replaced by Paul Martin. This was done out of spite, so Martin would have less money to buy votes for. The economy was not in recession when this surplus was run up. In fact, Chretien ran big deficits during the first few years of his reign because of recessions. The economy turned into a deep recession two years after Harper was elected due to the US financial crisis. 

9 hours ago, H10 said:

that just shows how strong the liberals were economically! Mulrooney ran up big deficits from incompetence, while the 80s was booming he found a way to destroy the nation.

This is more nonsensical drivel. Trudeau ran up huge deficits, and handed one to Mulroney - along with sky high inflation and unemployment. That was what Mulroney had to deal with.

 

 

9 hours ago, H10 said:

 Harper shouldn't have had any deficits!! He took a surplus position and destroyed it, then you want to complement him for fixing the mess he created!

Again, you're ignoring the world financial crisis, and also ignoring the had a minority, and that the opposition were united in demanding a huge economic incentive spending porgram.

9 hours ago, H10 said:

There is none, because Trudeau just ran a 2 billion dollar surplus, duh

Trudeau just ran up a deficit. We have had deficits every year of his time in office and even the Liberals admit they have no plans to ever stop borrowing money.

9 hours ago, H10 said:

The chart showws that the net debt under harris went from 100 billion to 150 billion in such a short time, how is that any success.  Worse of all that was during the booming 90s!

When Harris took over he was handed a huge deficit. You don't reduce those overnight. It took a few years of cutting to get to a surplus position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Argus said:

Drivel. Much of the 'huge surplus' was diminished in a spurt of spending Chretien made before he was replaced by Paul Martin. This was done out of spite, so Martin would have less money to buy votes for. The economy was not in recession when this surplus was run up. In fact, Chretien ran big deficits during the first few years of his reign because of recessions. The economy turned into a deep recession two years after Harper was elected due to the US financial crisis. 

This is more nonsensical drivel. Trudeau ran up huge deficits, and handed one to Mulroney - along with sky high inflation and unemployment. That was what Mulroney had to deal with.

 

 

Again, you're ignoring the world financial crisis, and also ignoring the had a minority, and that the opposition were united in demanding a huge economic incentive spending porgram.

Trudeau just ran up a deficit. We have had deficits every year of his time in office and even the Liberals admit they have no plans to ever stop borrowing money.

When Harris took over he was handed a huge deficit. You don't reduce those overnight. It took a few years of cutting to get to a surplus position.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Argus said:

Drivel. Much of the 'huge surplus' was diminished in a spurt of spending Chretien made before he was replaced by Paul Martin. This was done out of spite, so Martin would have less money to buy votes for. The economy was not in recession when this surplus was run up. In fact, Chretien ran big deficits during the first few years of his reign because of recessions. The economy turned into a deep recession two years after Harper was elected due to the US financial crisis. 

This is more nonsensical drivel. Trudeau ran up huge deficits, and handed one to Mulroney - along with sky high inflation and unemployment. That was what Mulroney had to deal with.

 

 

Again, you're ignoring the world financial crisis, and also ignoring the had a minority, and that the opposition were united in demanding a huge economic incentive spending porgram.

Trudeau just ran up a deficit. We have had deficits every year of his time in office and even the Liberals admit they have no plans to ever stop borrowing money.

When Harris took over he was handed a huge deficit. You don't reduce those overnight. It took a few years of cutting to get to a surplus position.

It is obvious you are making up facts that are clearly contradicted by the charts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This latest poll :


 

Quote

 

The Mainstreet Research poll, which was conducted April 16-18, says Doug Ford’s party has the support of 44.9 per cent of decided voters — that’s more than 16 per cent ahead of Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals, who are in second place with 28.2 per cent.

The Mainstreet poll that was done after the Liberals’ budget at the start of the month had the PCs at just over 50 per cent support.

 

The poll also found that the PCs have leading by a large margin in every part of Ontario, except Toronto. In the city, the Liberals have 37.6 per cent support of all voters, while the PCs have 30 per cent.

 

http://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/04/30/mainstreet-poll-ontario-election/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

42 per cent of Ontarians say budget makes them less likely to vote Liberal: Ipsos poll

“While many of the provisions contained within the budget individually are popular, as a package they fail to resonate with Ontarians primarily because most think that it’s not fiscally responsible, and it’s nothing more than a tactic or a ploy to try to buy their vote,” said Sean Simpson, Ipsos vice-president.

The result comes a day after Ipsos polling found that 40 per cent of decided voters support the Doug Ford-led Progressive Conservative party, while the Liberals and the New Democratic Party are statistically tied at 27 per cent and 28 per cent, respectively.

Following the March 28 budget, support for the Liberals has dropped by five points, according to Ipsos.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4137449/ontario-liberal-budget-ipsos-poll/

 

There is hope!  Common sense seems to be prevailing. 

 

Now.....watch out for every dirty tricks to be used!

 

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2018 at 4:14 AM, H10 said:

Who will pay for all the old white people's social security and retirement?  You know the government run ponzi scheme needs tax payers.  Also if you stop letting in non-whites just know that you are going to have many school closures and teacher's being laid off like we seen in Toronto.  The high prices have basically barred most non-whites who weren't in the market 5 years ago from buying in there.  So now schools are laying off teacher's because there are no kids in the classes for them.

 

 

I don't mind immigration.  But the problem with the Liberals, they bring in more to care for than those who'd be productive.  Even someone with a pea-size brain will know it's impossible to find work if you cannot speak English (and/or French).

 

As for refugees, it should be just a temporary status.....unless they meet the criteria to become permanent.

 

Quote

 

The settlement workers and social workers who assist them, many of whom also take a big step back after a year, say that despite the emphasis on Month 13, it's unrealistic to expect refugees to be thriving at that point.

At the end of their first year, most do what Mr. Al Rasoul and Ms. Al Mekhlef do: cover their expenses with welfare and the federal child benefit.

 

Government-assisted refugees in many ways face greater challenges than the privately sponsored cohort: They generally have lower levels of education and bigger families, according to federal figures, but fewer resources and support from volunteers. They struggle more with navigating cultural differences, finding employment, maintaining a social life and finding housing.

 

In March, 2016, Leaside Towers, a high-rise complex, became a hub for more than two dozen government-assisted refugee families. It is now the place where they navigate the struggles of their first unsupported year in Canada. .

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/syrian-refugees-still-struggling-to-settle-in-toronto-after-year-of-governmentsupport/article34785953/

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, betsy said:

I don't mind immigration.  But the problem with the Liberals, they bring in more to care for than those who'd be productive.  Even someone with a pea-size brain will know it's impossible to find work if you cannot speak English (and/or French).

 

As for refugees, it should be just a temporary status.....unless they meet the criteria to become permanent.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/syrian-refugees-still-struggling-to-settle-in-toronto-after-year-of-governmentsupport/article34785953/

Taking in refugees is a not done primarily for immediate economic gain, it is a long term play, their many kids will grow up here and earn incomes and work jobs.

They will learn the language, its easiest to learn through immersion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, H10 said:

Taking in refugees is a not done primarily for immediate economic gain, it is a long term play, their many kids will grow up here and earn incomes and work jobs.

They will learn the language, its easiest to learn through immersion.

That's the problem.  Due to our ageing population - we don't have the time!  We can't rely or gamble on refugees (in the meantime, we'll be supporting parents who can't work)!   We have to get qualified people who can work NOW, through immigration!

Refugees should just be for temporary status unless they meet the criteria to become permanent.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2018 at 2:23 PM, Argus said:

I'm waiting for the offer of a free car for everyone in the province. She's already announced billions for new hospitals and other projects. And today offered billions more for universal daycare between 2 and school age. Deficit? Phhht! What deficit! It's not like Ontario can't afford it! Hey, we'll just raise taxes again!

 

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-2-2b-daycare-announcement-is-kathleen-wynne-at-her-wynnest

I am Canadian, tax me some more. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2018 at 11:28 AM, H10 said:

Taking in refugees is a not done primarily for immediate economic gain, it is a long term play, their many kids will grow up here and earn incomes and work jobs.

They will learn the language, its easiest to learn through immersion.

Maybe taking in refugees will mean more votes for your party? Bringing in over 30,000 Syrian refugees and allowing more refugees to enter Canada illegally could very well mean more voters for your party in the future. Politicians don't care about jobs or who assimilates or not, or for Canada all that much. Politicians just want to be remembered on election day as to who was the nice guy/gal that let them in. Canada's birth rate pretty much matches the death rate. One pretty much replaces the other. The need for all these hundreds of thousands of new legal and illegal refugees/immigrants is all just a bunch of weasel manure. There appears to be a racial suicide issue going on here. 

But why learn the English language all that much anymore when most of these new legal/illegal immigrants are pretty much catered to in their own language by the government. Many have their own TV, radio, churches, community centers, newspapers, schools and so much more handed to them by the government that there really is no need for many to have to learn to speak English all that much anymore thanks to multiculturalism. Our present day Immigration policy is a multicultural farce. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, betsy said:

That's the problem.  Due to our ageing population - we don't have the time!  We can't rely or gamble on refugees (in the meantime, we'll be supporting parents who can't work)!   We have to get qualified people who can work NOW, through immigration!

Refugees should just be for temporary status unless they meet the criteria to become permanent.

No immigrant with qualifications and speaks English is going to come to Canada in large numbers.  It just doesn't make sense for them.  We tried that already but we couldn't hit even 10% of our target for immigrants that way.  Any English speaking educated person will probably be more successful in another country than canada. Canada is not all that developed as many canadians think it is. The standard of living is not as good as other countries, and it is cold.  The only people who are dumb enough to come here in large numbers are people with poor English, refugees, and people who aren't that bright.  If our government could attract first world english speaking smart people in large numbers, they'd do it, they can't, we are not that competitive.  There is a reason why Australia and Canada have almost the same WHITE population.  Canada is behind, even other white nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...