Jump to content

More, More Politics (Ot But Relevant)


deicer

Recommended Posts

Guest tailwheel

Again, the Germans knew what the Greeks were like, yet they still pursued their agenda of throwing money at them.

Thank's De-icer,

I do appreciate your statement that the Germans knew what the Greeks were like(which is likely true) and yet continued to throw good hard earned taxpayers money into a bad situation. Of course, you are absolutely correct and we now are seeing the consequences in which the Germans will likely not get a large percentage of their money back.

Would you consider this idea of loaning the Greeks even more money(which they did) to have been extremely irresponsible of the politicians and question their ability to competently handle taxpayers money? Perhaps unfit to govern?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think it’s simply amazing how people here in North America want to criticise others, in this case the Greeks, for their out of control spending habits and resistance to being enslaved by foreign masters.

Has anyone stopped to notice the huge increase in deficits and debt that gets added to our tab each year? Does anyone from Ontario happen to see what’s been going on in this province for the last fifteen years?

So then, when your children are asking you what happened to their opportunity to live the ‘dream life’ just like you did, what’ll you tell them as the banksters are banging down your door? From my pov, we are a collective of idiots on exactly the same pathway to servitude as the Greeks and others, but we’re just too damn stupid and or arrogant to realize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worked very hard for 35 years and for the last 15 with very long hours. Now happily retired . Is this what you call "the dream life"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the Germans knew what the Greeks were like, yet they still pursued their agenda of throwing money at them.

Why?

Portugal and Spain have knuckled under, but the Greeks were defiant......

Spain is having a tremendous economic revival now. The economy there is growing now at a 3.1% clip, and accelerating. The forecast for 2016 is 2.6% GDP growth. Almost all economic indicators are moving in the right direction. So maybe "knuckling under" was smarter than being "defiant".

http://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/34b2bc4ea7e9420b8a44b4870b1107f8

Portugal's recovery is less dramatic, but continuing.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/portugals-recovery-is-on-track-more-reforms-needed-imf/articleshow/48380350.cms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's personal fulfillment Malcolm. You've often described and seem to be proud of your ability to enjoy life, but the pleasure came only because you were able to find happiness through disciplined frugality.

But while you were working your butt off to make ends meet and be a responsible man, others were stacking personal & government debt upon previous debt to provide goods, services amongst other things, that we want, but just cannot afford.

Your grandchildren won't benefit from the lessons of your life experience because theirs will be devoted to repaying the debt your generation has drunkenly accumulated, and with compounding interest you can be sure that said debts will never be paid off.

In the meantime, the children of those that hold the debt note will live the good life, one that ever fewer westerners ever have a hope of enjoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My generation you say "drunkenly accumulated", my generation is pre-baby boom so methinks you need to have your sights adjusted. RE the babyboom generation, again I am not sure how they could so described either. Most I know worked very hard to get where they are today. Now if you hold them responsible for the behavior of their kids then perhaps.

In fact here is an article that does exactly that:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/if-millennials-are-jerks--blame-the-baby-boomers-200028613.html;_ylt=AwrSbmYSx8RVlj8AeJtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByYnR1Zmd1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a late stage baby boomer and I wasn't old enough to vote when governments of the day started running deficits and accumulating debt, so be careful about laying the blame on those younger than you. The problem has been decades in the making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a late stage baby boomer and I wasn't old enough to vote when governments of the day started running deficits and accumulating debt, so be careful about laying the blame on those younger than you. The problem has been decades in the making.

Baby boomers are people born during the demographic post–World War II baby boombetween the years 1946 and 1964

In 1970, a revised Canada Elections Act lowered the voting age and the age of candidacy from 21 years to 18. Seems to me you could have started voting in 1983. :biggrin1:

The key years to have voted were the early 2000s.

Based on the following article, perhaps it will encourage you, me and others to vote the Liberals back in.

In the late fall of 2008, the Harper government was nearly replaced by a Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc Québécois support. This coalition, essentially without precedent in our national politics, was noteworthy in itself. But equally remarkable was that the coalition organized itself according to the position that the federal government should incur a stimulative fiscal deficit to address a rapidly declining economy. Coalition leaders argued that Jim Flaherty’s economic and fiscal statement did not respond to Canada’s economic reality and that the government did not deserve the confidence of Parliament. The government was saved by the governor general’s decision to grant the prime minister a prorogation of the House of Commons, and when Parliament reconvened, Flaherty introduced what he referred to as a stimulative budget that projected deficits worth a total of $64 billion over the next two years.

ADVERTISEMENT

Related Articles

This was a startling turnaround. After years of running from deficits, federal political parties started running to them. The Liberal government had eliminated fiscal deficits in the late 1990s, and Canada’s record of fiscal surpluses over the next decade was singular among the G7 countries. This fiscal record was accompanied by adherence to the principle of balanced budgets, on which Canadian politics and policy was based. As recently as October, Harper had stated emphatically that “we’re not going into deficit” and “we have every reason to believe Canada will stay out of recession if Canada doesn’t start raising taxes and spending itself into deficit.” Yet by early December the balanced budget principle had already eroded significantly.

http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2009/03/anyone-for-deficits/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was born during the first half of the baby boom period and while we’re certainly responsible for learning from our parents and creating a big part of the mess, the trouble in this Country really began when the pre-boomers voted in Trudeau. It’s kind of sadly funny that women voted in large numbers in that election, inspired by the dashing young Trudeau and little else...and here we are today, mired in debt, deficits and social problems as a consequence of misguided liberalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was born during the first half of the baby boom period and while we’re certainly responsible for learning from our parents and creating a big part of the mess, the trouble in this Country really began when the pre-boomers voted in Trudeau. It’s kind of sadly funny that women voted in large numbers in that election, inspired by the dashing young Trudeau and little else...and here we are today, mired in debt, deficits and social problems as a consequence of misguided liberalism.

Much as I was in favour of giving the Liberals a boot, our present problems can not be laid only at their door step. If we only zero in on the deficit, then blame seems to be squarely placed at the doorstep of our present government. To be fair though some of their deficit spending was done to stay in power as a majority government by appeasing enough of the opposition to help them retain power.

Then also of course we do not, as a country, exist in isolation and taking a look at the world in general it would not appear that we are alone in our problems. (a little like the great depression).

We do have to pull out of this mess and the following article may surprise you, it did me.

Fiscal Record of Canadian Political Parties

Posted by Toby Sanger under Conservative government, deficits,election 2011, liberals, NDP.

April 29th, 2011

Comments: 42

With all the recent news stories — as well as alarm raised by other leaders — about the fiscal and economic impact and record of NDP governments, I decided to take a look at and review the fiscal record of all federal and provincial governments in Canada for the past three decades.

These results may be surprising to some: they show that NDP governments have the best fiscal record of all political parties that have formed federal or provincial government in Canada.

Of the 52 years the NDP has formed governments in Canada since 1980, they’ve run balanced budgets for exactly half of those years and deficits the other half. This is a better record than both the Conservatives (balanced budgets 37% of years in government) and the Liberals (only 27%), as well as both Social Credit and PQ governments. See first chart below.

It’s not just the number of years of balance that is relevant: it’s also the size of the deficits or surpluses that are important. For this, the most important figure is the size of deficits as a share of GDP.

For this measure as well, NDP governments have the best record. The average balance (deficit) as a share of provincial GDP for the 52 years of NDP governments in Canada is -0.77%, compared to -1.82% for all Liberal governments and -0.82% for all Conservative governments over the past thirty years. See second chart below.

The first set of figures are for all federal and provincial governments in Canada. It’s a reasonably large sample for the major parties: 157 years of Conservative governments, 106 years of Liberal governments and 52 years of NDP governments represented at one time in all different western, central and eastern regions of Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a lifelong Conservative supporter, especially of Harper. Can you imagine how bad I feel seeing he's turned into all the things Dagger predicted way back.

I can't see much of a future for Canada knowing the Party system is corrupt and the people attracted to them are either greedy self-serving low-lives, or just plain old stupid as The Donald would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that prize would go to Diefenbaker. His cancelation of the Arrow project proved to be the worst single order ever given by a Canadian PM. It affected everything relative to aviation and our technological capabilities and standing in the world. Along with countless other lost opportunities for the Country, his decision pretty much ensured Canada would remain a dependant, loyal and subservient supplier to the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a lifelong Conservative supporter, especially of Harper. Can you imagine how bad I feel seeing he's turned into all the things Dagger predicted way back.

I can't see much of a future for Canada knowing the Party system is corrupt and the people attracted to them are either greedy self-serving low-lives, or just plain old stupid as The Donald would say.

I wish I had been wrong about Harper because that would mean he's motivated by principles, not partisanship and power. If he were a principled fiscal conservative, he would have instituted across the board income tax cuts benefitting everyone, rather than build fiscal policy around boutique tax cuts for hockey and arts programs, or home renovations. Instead of freezing out young people who have a mountain of student debt or single mothers, across the board measures would have had a better stimulative character, creating more good paying jobs for those young people and single parents. There are so many people trying to scrape by on part time work or self-employment that want full time work. Instead, Harper put all of his efforts into creating the energy super power because it would have consolidated his hold on western electors. No national or rationale economy strategy that would have benefit all Canadians.

He'd rather quarrel with provincial premiers rather than work with them. Can you remember a federal-provincial conference during his tenure? He doesn't like collaboration, but sometimes compromise and collaboration are needed to move the country forward. Harper basically emasculates the federal government and tells the provinces, you go solve the problem. But some problems require federal mediation, even if the federal government doesn't spend money on the solution.

Basically, everything he does is an electoral calculation. Foreign policy? Let's hug Netanyahu for sake Jewish votes. Let's hug Ukraine for sale of Ukrainian votes. We no longer have na independent foreign policy or foreign respect.

He could have done bold things, like scrap supply management instead of being forced into it by the US and Southpac countries as seems to be the case with current trade negotiations. He's too worried about dairy farmer votes, and not enough about millions of Canadians paying too much for milk, butter and eggs. It's an electoral calculation. He doesn't need everyone's vote, just the select few to cobble together a win against a divided centre-left opposition.

Don't get me wrong. I believe both the NDP and Liberals have some flawed policies as part of their electoral package. I'm not at all enamoured about more tax cuts for small businesses, many of which are numbered companies uses as tax dodges by rich professionals. And I think the Liberals tax the rich strategy will yield too few dollars and fosters the notion that we can all have a free lunch., But on balance, those two parties seem to stand for something broader than the 30% mosaic Harper governs for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dagger, not saying you are 100% correct but if you are re his principals then as the election day gets closer and if the polls show the Conservatives are in bad shape to win, will we see the PM recant on filling the vacant Senate Chairs and do a preemptive filling of the positions so as to ensure the Conservatives will continue, no matter what, to control the upper chamber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tailwheel

He could have done bold things, like scrap supply management instead of being forced into it by the US and Southpac countries as seems to be the case with current trade negotiations. He's too worried about dairy farmer votes, and not enough about millions of Canadians paying too much for milk, butter and eggs. It's an electoral calculation. He doesn't need everyone's vote, just the select few to cobble together a win against a divided centre-left opposition.

Don't get me wrong. I believe both the NDP and Liberals have some flawed policies as part of their electoral package. I'm not at all enamoured about more tax cuts for small businesses, many of which are numbered companies uses as tax dodges by rich professionals. And I think the Liberals tax the rich strategy will yield too few dollars and fosters the notion that we can all have a free lunch., But on balance, those two parties seem to stand for something broader than the 30% mosaic Harper governs for.

I have to say that this is the most accurate part of your post and I agree with you. There is little doubt that the electoral game is being played as much as possible when it comes to dairy supply management. I think Harper supports dismantling it(and so do I) but is playing the waiting game based on votes. However, the opposition parties, especially the NDP would likely continue the present system of, as you stated, millions of Canadians paying too much. But as you said, an electoral calculation has been made on this.

Basically, everything he does is an electoral calculation. Foreign policy? Let's hug Netanyahu for sake Jewish votes. Let's hug Ukraine for sale of Ukrainian votes. We no longer have no independent foreign policy or foreign respect.

I do disagree with much of the earlier portion of the post which is mostly generalizations but you were quite detailed on this subject. It is the assumption that the only reason Harper supports Israel is for the Jewish vote.

Without getting into an argument on Middle East politics, I would expect that there are as many muslim votes to lose as there are Jewish votes to gain. As far as I'm concerned, the government supports the idea what Israel represents overall when all good and bad has been taken into account rather than what the alternative has to offer when all is taken into account. That is a principled stand regardlees of how much you may disagree with it.

The same could be said for the only country in Europe since WWII to have its land seized and then a civil war started inside it. I am not sure of the Russian/Ukranian ratio of voters in Canada but the government has made a principled stand regardless of whether or not you agree with it. To be honest, it is not much different than most other countries in the west with sanctions on Russia.

I do happen to support both of these foreign policies which have been independently created in Harper's mind. Taking a stand does not mean a loss of an independent foreign policy. In the same manner, if the opposition were to get in power and reverse these two policies, I may disagree with them but it doesn't mean we have no independent foreign policy.

One final note, you say that this country now has no respect from others. Well, here is what Forbes magazine stated recently:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2015/07/15/the-worlds-most-reputable-countries-2015/

"Which countries have the best reputations? What does that even mean? Reputation Institute, a global private consulting firm based in Boston and Copenhagen, has just released its sixth annual Country RepTrak of what it calls The Worlds Most Reputable Countries, a tool the firm uses to help it advise countries on how to bolster their reputations around the globe. It also counsels companies that want to know how their country of origin influences their reputation overseas, and companies interested in doing businesses abroad.

The list ranks the 55 countries with the highest GDPs. In the No. 1 slot this year: Canada, which has been the winner four out of six times. The other two years, in 2014 and 2010, it was No. 2. This year Norway moved up to second place from sixth in 2014 and Sweden is third, as it was last year. The Scandinavian countries and Finland have ranked in the top 10 all six years, as have Switzerland, Australia and the Netherlands. The U.S. is down in 22nd place, behind Thailand and just above Poland (more on the U.S. below).

To compile its data, RI ran online surveys of 48,000 consumers in G8 countries from February through April of this year. To flesh out the data, it interviewed 30,000 additional people in the 12 non-G8 countries with the biggest economies, including China, India and Brazil.

To compile its rankings, it asked three broad questions about countries overall reputations: Did the respondents have a good feeling about the countries, did they admire or respect the countries, did they trust the countries and did they think the countries had a good overall reputation? The rankings are based on those questions alone."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not quite politics but close. How many rights should criminals have when in prison?

Talk about a waste of our tax money to argue this case.

A Federal Court judge has ordered a new review of a Quebec prisoner's grievance over access to TV channels showing late-night pornography.

Forty-six-year-old Haris Naraine filed a complaint after corrections officials cancelled two cable channels in March 2013, saying he and other inmates at the Montreal-area Archambault Institution paid for them.

The channels were cut after Correctional Service Canada instructed prisons across the country to remove all sexually explicit material from facilities and to block X-rated television content.

Naraine argued corrections had no right to censor what the inmates legally bought and said limiting access violated their charter right to freedom of expression.

The service denied his grievance in March 2014, saying the right to access the material was not absolute and that banning the channels helped maintain a safe environment, especially for female correctional officers who expressed concern.

In an affidavit, Naraine said he spent time in two other prisons where he had access to pornographic movies without any complaint from correctional officers.

Nothing to suggest sexual harassment, judge rules

Federal Court Justice Jocelyne Gagné said in her decision that she agreed there must be a zero tolerance policy toward inmates sexually harassing correctional officers. But she said there is nothing to suggest that inmates who had access to sexually explicit television content were sexually harassing employees.

"There is no evidence that the safety and healthful working environment of female correctional officers at Archambault is jeopardized," she said in her written ruling.

Gagné said there are "significant gaps" in information provided by Correctional Service Canada, making it difficult to support its decision to deny the grievance.

"There is no specific evidence relating to the conditions or circumstances of Mr. Naraine's own institution, nothing about the management issues discussed in the impugned decision."

She also said the service did not provide enough information about whether it would be possible to limit only sexually explicit content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any 'good' reason that supports the decision of the prison industry to allow female employees to enter into any situation in which they come into direct contact with maximum security male prisoners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any 'good' reason that supports the decision of the prison industry to allow female employees to enter into any situation in which they come into direct contact with maximum security male prisoners?

Defcon: Part and parcel of "equalization" .... The prison industry would likely have not had any say.

Here is the latest from their union: http://www.ucco-sacc-csn.ca/2015/06/27/inmates-sexual-harassment-on-correctional-officers-working-group-report/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the Germans knew what the Greeks were like, yet they still pursued their agenda of throwing money at them.

Why?

I am afraid that your suggestion for a change of government may be a poor idea. Here is what the other two parties had for a policy for taxpayers money. You decide if you really want the change. This decision on managing Canadians money happened a few years back if you read the article.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/tories-attack-mulcair-over-push-to-rescue-european-economies

June 11, 2012

Tories attack Mulcair over push to rescue European economies

Thomas Mulcair takes heat over push to aid European countries in financial crisis

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair was the target of Conservative criticism in Question Period on Monday over his apparent support of Canada coughing up money to help European nations on the brink of financial collapse.

The exchange between the parties began last Wednesday when Mr. Mulcair criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his governments reprimand of European nations and his unwillingness to work with other G20 countries to come up with a plan to weather Europes worsening financial crisis.

'Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister pretends to be concerned now, but two months ago in Washington the Conservatives were singing a different tune..

'At the G20 meeting in April, the Minister of Finance led the effort to block an international plan to resolve the European economic crisis. He told European countries to step up to the plate and fix the problem on their own, as if our fate were not intimately connected to theirs, and he gets applause for that from the peanut gallery.'

'When will the Conservatives stop lecturing European countries and put forward a real plan to protect and create jobs here in Canada?

The Tories pounced on his question, calling it proof the NDP leader wants to take Canadian tax dollars and send them abroad.'

An International Monetary Fund proposal would see G20 nations, the majority of which support the idea, contribute to an emergency fund to help stave off Europes financial collapse.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told reporters last week the Conservative government wont go along with the proposal. The U.S. has also refused to contribute.

Related

Harper tells Europe it should look to Canada for practical economic management

Europe running out of time to fix economic crisis, Stephen Harper says

[Mr. Mulcair] wants us to send billions to bail out Spanish banks, to bail out Greek banks, said House leader Peter Van Loan on Monday.

We believe that our answer for the economy here [is] by an Economic Action Plan 2012 and delivering for Canadians right here in Canada.

Mr. Mulcair didnt deny he supported an emergency fund for Europe, instead emphasizing Canada will be impacted by whatever happens in Europe.

Our fate is intimately tied to what happens in Europe, Mr. Mulcair said. The Canada [the Conservatives] are projecting onto the world stage is unrecognizable to Canadians and unrecognizable to the world. Thats the shame of the Conservatives.

The battle between the two parties came the same day Mr. Harper delivered a speech at an international conference in Montreal, urging other countries to look to Canada as a model for practical economic management.

He urged other governments to avoid the politically motivated false choice of assuming they have only one option to rescue their faltering economies: austerity or prosperity.

Canadas image on the world stage is that of an economic leader with the lowest deficit of major developed countries, Mr. Van Loan said in Question Period.

I appreciate [Mr. Mulcair] sees were interconnected. I think the best way for us to help out the global economy is by ensuring the Canadian economy remains strong not by sending our tax dollars abroad.

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae castigated Mr. Flaherty for failing to acknowledge that a Canadian transfer to the International Monetary Fund is not a tax transfer or an expenditure transfer.

It may be a convenient cartoon for the Minister of Finance to say that anybody is suggesting transferring tax dollars to European banks. Nobody is suggesting that, Mr. Rae said.

I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance what makes him think for a moment that Canada in fact is the island that he talked about on June 7?

Canada is an island of stability because of its job growth and low deficit numbers, Mr. Van Loan said in the House of Commons.

He also criticized the Liberal partys support of a Canadian contribution to help out European countries in crisis banks and Mr. Raes past performance as the premier of Ontario.

With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, we dont agree, Mr. Van Loan said. That might be the kind of approach that worked in Ontario to get them into one of the deepest debts ever under the leadership of that member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evidently the conservatives have a campaign plane, Who is providing it? Can not say from the picture....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-election-2015-how-the-parties-are-running-their-campaigns-1.3185858?cmp=rss

Harper is certainly setting the pace, both in terms of campaigning and spending so far. Exactly one week into the election, the Conservatives took to the skies on a campaign plane, showing off their financial advantage over the NDP and Liberals who are still travelling by bus or commercial air.

OTTK108_FedElxn_Harper_20150809.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...