‘Trump takes personal things personally:’ Liberal strategy to compare Poilievre with Trump ‘desperate,’ and a ‘delicate dance’ that could backfire, say political players

Moonbox · February 1, 2024

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Let me ask you... if we have a deficit, do all other issues go to the back burner?

Isn't that a bit of a catfish question?

The answer is no, obviously, but since it was the wrong question it doesn't tell us much.

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I was just looking at deficit per capita. We seem to be lower than the US and UK. But I don't want this to turn into you saying I don't care about the budget. I want a government with VISION is the point.

I'm not saying that you don't care about the budget. I'm saying that most of the comparisons understate the problem, and for various reasons. I've already mentioned CPP being included in the net debt calculation, which is a farce but other things that skew the comparison are things like not including health care or education related debt, which other G7 and OECD countries have on their national (rather than provincial balance sheets.

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Every government since... the Trudeau/Mulroney one two punch...

That seems a uncharacteristically rhetorical.

CdnFox · February 1, 2024

Just now, GroundskeeperWillie said:

Not sure if you are joking or not, but how can Trump be on the ballot? He is not Canadian.

He cant' really but trudeau wants him to be his political opponent essentially. trudeau wants people to think that a vote for PP is a vote for ~~satan~~ Trump and a vote for him will protect people from a trump presidency.

Which is a little weird - trumps election is scehduled for a year before Justin's.

Justin's argument is two fold - "PP is just like trump and voting for him is as if you were voting for trump himself", and "i'm the only one who can stand up to trump so you need me in power".

I believe his plan is probably if the public seems to go for that and trump wins and the conditions are right then Justin will call an election right after or early in the new year when trump is being crowned in January to try to milk that sentiment for a victory.

I mean - it's not like he can run on his record.

The amusing thing is he's kind of already saying he thinks trump will win.' This whole strategy is useless if biden wins again. Maybe if the cards are right he'll try it in october before the election in the states if the polls look like trump will take it.

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2024

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1. The answer is no, obviously, but since it was the wrong question it doesn't tell us much.

2. I'm not saying that you don't care about the budget. I'm saying that most of the comparisons understate the problem, and for various reasons. I've already mentioned CPP being included in the net debt calculation, which is a farce but other things that skew the comparison are things like not including health care or education related debt, which other G7 and OECD countries have on their national (rather than provincial balance sheets.

That seems a uncharacteristically rhetorical.

1. Except that in practice, the answer is yes.

2. Ok but you're also talking about debt not deficit. I did see a debt comparison on YAHOO Finance recently that also put us 18th, behind US, UK and several European countries.

3. I'm saying that a lot of our deep problems have been around for a long time.

OftenWrong · February 1, 2024

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Which is a little weird - trumps election is scehduled for a year before Justin's

Turdeau et al want to americanize Canadian politics. Another reason we really, really need to flush that turd down the toilet.

Speaking of which, I gotta go make a Prime Minister...

GroundskeeperWillie · February 1, 2024

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Turdeau et al want to americanize Canadian politics. Another reason we really, really need to flush that turd down the toilet.

Speaking of which, I gotta go make a Prime Minister...

Lol that's really cute.

eyeball · February 1, 2024

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm saying that a lot of our deep problems have been around for a long time.

That depth is matched by extent - its a global problem that requires a global approach.

Reset. Or keep circling the drain until, well...better bring a plunger.

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2024

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Reset. Or keep circling the drain until, well...better bring a plunger.

Well, what IS going to happen is some kind of revolution which I think will be peaceful. People haven't simultaneously had this much democracy, combined with this much economic disadvantage. To my mind, it will be some kind of Robin Hood government.

It will be mind boggling to the populists who seem to want to elect wealthy demagogues. But we'll see...

Moonbox · February 1, 2024

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Except that in practice, the answer is yes.

The answer is self-evidently no, since we've been running large deficits for the last 15 years, have rapidly expanded them since 2015, and have been financing our public spending for most of the last 50 years. If anything, budget health is what's constantly taking the back-burner, with voters content to ignore it and allow governments to kick the can down the road for future generations to pay.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Ok but you're also talking about debt not deficit. I did see a debt comparison on YAHOO Finance recently that also put us 18th, behind US, UK and several European countries.

The debt is ultimately the number that matters, and it's what we pay interest on. The deficits are a just telling us how much better or worse it's going to get. If we account for the different level of governments that Canada has (but others don't) Canada's 9th worst, measuring up against fiscal basket-cases like Spain and Portugal.

https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-debt.htm

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I'm saying that a lot of our deep problems have been around for a long time.

Okay, but that's vague and subjective, and doesn't give us much to discuss, does it?

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2024

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

1. The answer is self-evidently no, since we've been running large deficits for the last 15 years, have rapidly expanded them since 2015, and have been financing our public spending for most of the last 50 years.

2. If anything, budget health is what's constantly taking the back-burner, with voters content to ignore it and allow governments to kick the can down the road for future generations to pay.

3. Okay, but that's vague and subjective, and doesn't give us much to discuss, does it?

1. We have been warned about much of the problems we see today for decades. Blaming Trudeau for those is musical chairism...
2. Well, I want to separate budget health from paying attention to looming long-term issues but of course they're related.
3. Yes, and here we are...

Moonbox · February 1, 2024

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. We have been warned about much of the problems we see today for decades. Blaming Trudeau for those is musical chairism...

That's a very facile argument, and implies that we can't judge anyone's record unless it's somehow spotless, no matter how much worse they leave things than when they started or how bad their policy is.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Well, I want to separate budget health from paying attention to looming long-term issues but of course they're related.

Inextricably related, with the "long-term issues" relying on the resources that will be available to tackle them.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, and here we are...

Yes, here we are, talking circles around concrete issues while referring ambiguously to long-term "Problems" and a cryptic "lack of vision".

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2024

16 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

1. That's a very facile argument, and implies that we can't judge anyone's record unless it's somehow spotless, no matter how much worse they leave things than when they started or how bad their policy is.

2. Inextricably related, with the "long-term issues" relying on the resources that will be available to tackle them.

3. Yes, here we are, talking circles around concrete issues while referring ambiguously to long-term "Problems" and a cryptic "lack of vision".

1. I'm really only judging 3 PMs here... Chretien, a lot, and Harper and Trudeau but with H&T they had pretty big crises so I might even let them off the hook. Overall, the blame for inaction does sit with them, but also the public and system itself.
2. And the public attention though.
3. I only meant to give a very high perspective. I'm sure many would agree with me although saying it's a casual criticism is fair too.

herbie · February 1, 2024

16 hours ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

I didn't know that TDS also afflicted Canadians.

It doesn't. We're still capable of distinguishing our country's enemies.

I am Groot · February 1, 2024

18 hours ago, GroundskeeperWillie said:

I didn't know that TDS also afflicted Canadians.

It's not derangement if what you say is true.

The deranged ones are Trump's insane fanboys.

CdnFox · February 2, 2024

2 hours ago, herbie said:

It doesn't. We're still capable of distinguishing our country's enemies.

It's you isn't it?

OftenWrong · February 2, 2024

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. We have been warned about much of the problems we see today for decades. Blaming Trudeau for those is musical chairism...

If you are saying he's blameless for our worsening financial situation, that is liberal apologetics.

IE rubbish.

"During Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's tenure, federal per-person debt increased by 35.3 percent between 2015 and 2022."

Another link shows-

"With the election of Justin Trudeau in 2015, the federal bureaucracy started to grow rapidly. By 2022 it had grown 27 percentage points, which put it nine percentage points ahead of population growth. Note that this rapid growth of bureaucracy started well before COVID struck. Anyone who has lived through the last three decades should know about the important role reductions in government employment have played in eliminating the deficits of governments of Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, not to mention Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. The credibility and likely the success of Trudeau’s own policies suffer by the absence of such reductions."

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/one-big-growth-industry-of-the-trudeau-years-the-bureaucracy

Instead of good governance what we have is wasteful, ineffective sloth, run by a useless pretty boy. It is not status quo, not just another Canadian government.

Edited February 2, 2024 by OftenWrong

Moonbox · February 2, 2024

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm really only judging 3 PMs here... Chretien, a lot, and Harper and Trudeau but with H&T they had pretty big crises so I might even let them off the hook. Overall, the blame for inaction does sit with them, but also the public and system itself.

They all had crises to deal with. The Canada that Chretien took over was on the verge of a debt crisis and a currency collapse. He did what he had to in order to restore confidence. He is and he will continue to be reflected on positively for the difficult, unpopular and necessary decisions he made, contrasted with the instant gratification and populism of those that came after.

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. And the public attention though.

Well if you have a solution to get the average voter interested in and informing themselves on politics and government finances, I'd love to hear it.

Michael Hardner · February 2, 2024

23 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

If you are saying he's blameless for our worsening financial situation, that is

..

It's ok. I'm not. If you search for it, you can find me defending Harper for his deficits in the face of the 2008 crisis.

And Covid was the reason for the big deficits this time..

But I'm still not defending Trudeau.

Edited February 2, 2024 by Michael Hardner

CdnFox · February 2, 2024

25 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's ok. I'm not. If you search for it, you can find me defending Harper for his deficits in the face of the 2008 crisis.

And Covid was the reason for the big deficits this time..

But I'm still not defending Trudeau.

well the thing is - it really wasn't.

Lets not forget he racked up near record budgets before then. Remember it was suppposed to be 10 billion deficit for each of the first three years and balance in the forth but 2019 he'd already racked up over 100 billion in deficit spending.

As to covid:

https://nationalpost.com/news/over-60-per-cent-of-federal-budget-deficit-during-pandemic-related-to-covid-spending

Nearly half of federal budget deficit during pandemic not related to COVID spending

Federal spending grew by 73 per cent in 2020/21 to $644.2 billion, according to a new report

Now that's spending increases - that's not including loss of revenues during covid or the like

And since covid he's still racking up massive deficits each year.

You can blame covid for a SMALL amount of the overages for sure. But - the fact is the strong majority of the debt and deficits he racked up had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with covid. Harper's deficits were 100 percent a result of the downturn, but trudeau was already running us deep into the red before covid showed up and then he doubled down.

OftenWrong · February 2, 2024

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's ok. I'm not. If you search for it, you can find me defending Harper for his deficits in the face of the 2008 crisis.

And Covid was the reason for the big deficits this time..

But I'm still not defending Trudeau.

otay...