Federal Government & Politics II

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

Post-budget polls starting to trickle out, and things are not improving at all for the Liberals. Leger has them a whopping 21 points behind the CPC.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uplo...h-2024-NEW.pdf

Once you get beyond the top line it's interesting to see that over the padt 30 days, the real loser of "who would make the best PM" is Jagmeet, who is down 6 points from March, whereas Trudeau is down only 1. PP is up 3.

Hopefully he gets tossed by his party after the next election, like his buddy Justin.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's not how government spending works though. Tax revenue and spending are independent. The net result is a deficit or surplus.

More or less agree on them being independent, you know as well as I do that in practice they aren't fully independent: if there are massive surpluses all the time then the govt will find ways (good ones, ideally) to spend them, and if spending > revenues then the actual revenues are the factor that limits the ability to spend (as financial markets won't tolerate just any infinitely-large deficit, deficits have to be in reasonable proportion to revenues).

Anyway, the net result as you say is clearly an inflationary budget, as many of us keep pointing out to you

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

Also 46% of 18-34 year olds voting CPC? sheesh.

Normal. The LPC (a.k.a. the "Let's Create and Exacerbate an Housing Crisis" Party) has turned into a seniors' party. The Party of the Greatest Generational Inequity We've Ever Seen; that's Team Red and they're not even ashamed of it. Kids are going to want to vote these guys out -- and I can't blame them.

[WarrenC12]

OTTAWA — Testy exchanges between the prime minister and his chief opponent ended with the Opposition leader and one of his MPs being ejected from the House of Commons on Tuesday — and the rest of Conservative caucus walking out of the chamber in protest.

The unusually tense events saw Speaker Greg Fergus caution both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to rephrase their comments to avoid making direct accusations about the character of another MP.

Fergus issued a warning to Poilievre after he referred to Trudeau as "the guy who spent the first half of his adult life as a practising racist," referring to photos that emerged during the 2019 election of Trudeau dressed in black and brown face.

Fergus warned Trudeau after he said Poilievre was "showing us exactly what shameful, spineless leadership looks like," and accused him of shaking hands with "white nationalists."

The tense back-and-forth came as Poilievre and the Conservatives were attacking the Liberals for having allowed British Columbia to allow the decriminalization of hard drugs like heroin and fentanyl in public places, which the provincial NDP government is now asking Health Canada to reverse.

The Conservatives argue the policy has caused great harm.

Trudeau ignored that issue completely, responding to each question about drugs by accusing Poilievre of associating with far-right extremists.

He said a person who does so is not fit to be prime minister.

He made the remarks after videos circulated online of Poilievre last week stopping at what protesters described as an anti-carbon price protest in Atlantic Canada.

Immediately before the events, Justin Trudeau had accused Poilievre of associating with far-right extremists and said a person who does so is not fit to be prime minister.
The scene featured expletive-laden flags bearing Trudeau's name.

At one point, videos show Poilievre exiting a trailer belonging to one of the protesters. Its exterior featured many images, including a symbol belonging to the far-right online group Diagolon.

The trouble in the House began to escalate when Fergus ejected Conservative MP Rachael Thomas after she said he was "acting in a disgraceful manner."

The tense exchange continued after her departure, with Trudeau saying Poilievre is a "19-year" politician who made a choice to associate with that encampment.

"Any leader that needs the support of a far-right white nationalist group to fundraise and get closer to power does not deserve elected office," the prime minister charged.

Poilievre said the prime minister's words were only his "latest distraction" from his own "extremist policies."

"When will we put an end to this wacko policy by this wacko prime minister?"

Fergus then drew the line.

"No, no," he said. "That is not acceptable."

He asked Poilievre to withdraw his comments, saying they were unparliamentary.

Poilievre didn't withdraw, but said he would replace the word with "extremist," which Fergus also rejected.

He then said he would replace it with "radical," which Fergus did not accept either.

He asked the Conservative leader to "simply withdraw" the comment.

When Fergus asked Poilievre for a final time to take back his comment, the Conservative leader said, "I simply withdraw and replace with the aforementioned adjective."

Fergus then ordered him to leave the chamber and not participate in further debate Tuesday, either in person or virtually.

Much of the Conservative caucus exited at the same time, and all of them eventually left before question period was over.

Government House leader Steven MacKinnon emerged from the House a few moments later, calling what had just unfolded a "disgrace."

"It's a disrespect for our institutions, a disrespect for the Speaker," he said.

After leaving, Poilievre posted on X that Fergus "censored" him for calling Trudeau's drug policies "wacko." The Conservatives also launched a fundraiser off the incident within an hour of Poilievre's ouster.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...lling-pm-wacko

Do dumb things. Refuse any chance to save yourself. Play the victim. Grift the base. The PP playbook.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

Anyway, the net result as you say is clearly an inflationary budget, as many of us keep pointing out to you

My comment was on taxes alone. You move the goalposts to suit yourself and claim victory.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

Post-budget polls starting to trickle out, and things are not improving at all for the Liberals. Leger has them a whopping 21 points behind the CPC.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uplo...h-2024-NEW.pdf

Once you get beyond the top line it's interesting to see that over the padt 30 days, the real loser of "who would make the best PM" is Jagmeet, who is down 6 points from March, whereas Trudeau is down only 1. PP is up 3. Also 46% of 18-34 year olds voting CPC? sheesh.

I think even more problematic for the Liberals in that poll is that women are:
42% CPC
24% LPC

If this government is losing women by that much it's basically over. It's basically their entire schtick.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

Post-budget polls starting to trickle out, and things are not improving at all for the Liberals. Leger has them a whopping 21 points behind the CPC.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uplo...h-2024-NEW.pdf

Once you get beyond the top line it's interesting to see that over the padt 30 days, the real loser of "who would make the best PM" is Jagmeet, who is down 6 points from March, whereas Trudeau is down only 1. PP is up 3. Also 46% of 18-34 year olds voting CPC? sheesh.

Very satisfied with Trudeau's government - 4%
Very dissatisfied with Trudeau's government - 46%



JT has got to go.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

Post-budget polls starting to trickle out, and things are not improving at all for the Liberals. Leger has them a whopping 21 points behind the CPC.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uplo...h-2024-NEW.pdf

Once you get beyond the top line it's interesting to see that over the padt 30 days, the real loser of "who would make the best PM" is Jagmeet, who is down 6 points from March, whereas Trudeau is down only 1. PP is up 3. Also 46% of 18-34 year olds voting CPC? sheesh.

Why don't these 18-34 year olds want a "Just Transition" to a more green future? Are they gazing over the sea of fairness and equity that Justin Trudeau has created for us over the past 9 years and just spitting in it? Ingrates.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

My comment was on taxes alone. You move the goalposts to suit yourself and claim victory.

I've addressed your comment on taxes. You haven't demonstrated that grabbing money from people's nest eggs is deflationary. For me to agree with that then the proceeds from the new tax grab would have to come with a commitment to use the $ on debt reduction, for example.

You were essentially saying that a dollar in the hands of Justin Trudeau / Jagmeet Singh is deflationary compared to having that same dollar in the hands of MonctonRad.

I simply don't agree with that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by theman23

Why don't these 18-34 year olds want a "Just Transition" to a more green future? Are they gazing over the sea of fairness and equity that Justin Trudeau has created for us over the past 9 years and just spitting in it? Ingrates.

I'm amused at how identical satire posts by people like you and I are to dead-serious ones by casper and his "Team Red Mailboxes" buddies

Like, you hide the username who posted, and we could run a quiz, "was this content seriously posted by casper, or sarcastically by theman23, place your bets guys!"

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

Post-budget polls starting to trickle out, and things are not improving at all for the Liberals. Leger has them a whopping 21 points behind the CPC.

https://leger360.com/wp-content/uplo...h-2024-NEW.pdf

Once you get beyond the top line it's interesting to see that over the padt 30 days, the real loser of "who would make the best PM" is Jagmeet, who is down 6 points from March, whereas Trudeau is down only 1. PP is up 3. Also 46% of 18-34 year olds voting CPC? sheesh.

The provincial breakdowns are even worse than headline. 47 to 25 lead in Ontario and 50 to 15 in BC (NDP 27 and 19 respectively). Both of these are worse than 1984 numbers. (Liberals won 14 seats with 30% vs 47 in 1984)

[ssiguy]

I heard last night about PP being thrown out of the House but it was too late and I just went to bed. This morning I looked into what all the fuss was about and much to my surprise he was evicted due to calling Trudeau a whacko..............seriously?

Our Liberal Cabinet Minister..........oops, I meant our Speaker of the House, Fergus found this unparliamentary language and PP refused to withdraw but did say he would restate it using the words "extremist or radical" and yet apparently those words are too much for Fergus but somehow Trudeau uses them all the time to describe PP but is never rebuked by the Speaker.

I have been watching politics for over 40 years and I have never, ever seen a Speaker that is so blatantly biased as our current one. He has consistently shown that he is nothing but a Trudeau backer and should be forced to resign. The man is a complete affront to our most important democratic institution.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by lio45

Actually, thinking out loud about it, when it's a tax grab from people's nest eggs, I would say it's neutral inflation-wise, because whether that's inflationary or not depends on what the government will do with that money. If it reinjects that $$$ into the economy faster than you and everyone else in your situation would have done with your own nest eggs, it might actually be inflationary. If the government grabs MonctonRad's money to prevent him from buying a yacht, a new pickup and a new skidoo, and uses the money to pay down the federal debt, then that's deflationary.

We can't tell, but I'd bet on the Libs blowing the money on whatever. One random app and that's already $50+ million down the drain...

The Liberals are also increasing taxes, so that they can multiply leverage and increase the borrowing base. Essentially, the federal government's ability to borrow and issue more Treasury bonds is backed up by its tax receipts, present and future. If tax receipts drop, then the money man will come knocking at the door, and we'd see higher and higher risk premiums priced into the GOC bonds.

That's why the deficit projections keep going up in every Trudeau Budget, because the pace of borrowing is outpacing the growth in tax increases.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by theman23

Why don't these 18-34 year olds want a "Just Transition" to a more green future? Are they gazing over the sea of fairness and equity that Justin Trudeau has created for us over the past 9 years and just spitting in it? Ingrates.

Well, I know if I couldn't afford a home I would totally welcome policies that would drive up the cost of everything else. What is wrong with young people today?!

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Well, I know if I couldn't afford a home I would totally welcome policies that would drive up the cost of everything else. What is wrong with young people today?!

Well before the 18-34 year old crowd had the idea only corporations and oil workers would pay for our plan to solve climate change. Now they see how inflation impacts everyone (even if our hardly robust carbon tax is mostly irrelevant to that)

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Solid anecdotes. As I mentioned before, we have multiple 6 figure job openings here we can't find people for.

The labour market appears stronger in the US for sure. But Canada's doesn't seem that weak (yet).

Gee, maybe you can't find candidates for those 6 figure jobs because at that level of education prospective applicants can see how ridiculously overpriced and expensive it would be to live in Vancouver.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

I've addressed your comment on taxes. You haven't demonstrated that grabbing money from people's nest eggs is deflationary. For me to agree with that then the proceeds from the new tax grab would have to come with a commitment to use the $ on debt reduction, for example.

What does that even mean? Are you in the "all taxation is theft" camp?

Originally Posted by lio45

You were essentially saying that a dollar in the hands of Justin Trudeau / Jagmeet Singh is deflationary compared to having that same dollar in the hands of MonctonRad.

I simply don't agree with that.

I get you're trying to make an inflammatory comment, but increasing taxes is deflationary. That's the whole concept. Nothing more.

Decreasing taxes is inflationary. Increasing Government spending is inflationary. Decreasing Government spending is deflationary. It doesn't matter who is being taxed or where spending is changing.

These are all macro economic concepts, nothing fancy.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

increasing taxes is deflationary. That's the whole concept. Nothing more.

Increasing taxation should be deflationary, but, as usual, the devil is in the details.

If the tax is broadly based (like an increase in the HST), then you are essentially removing discretionary spending from the economy. People will stop buying, and retailers will have to respond by lowering prices (if possible). Your rule applies in this circumstance.

JTs capital gains grab however is targeted at only a fraction of the population (supposedly less than 1%, but, I think more people than that will be affected). As such, most people will carry on as before. The capital gains tax also does not affect discretionary spending, even for high income earners, because the money being targeted is held in mutual funds and stocks to provide retirement income for professionals without pension plans. In other words, you are taxing future spending capability potentially decades down the road. JTs tax therefore is neither inflationary or deflationary, just punitive.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Gee, maybe you can't find candidates for those 6 figure jobs because at that level of education prospective applicants can see how ridiculously overpriced and expensive it would be to live in Vancouver.

I missed that response from Warren. I suspect you're right and those 6-figure jobs he keeps touting are low six figures, so hardly enough to entice anyone to live in Vancouver.

Of course my actual point was that our immigration program has done nothing to address our actual labour shortages, but instead put a tremendous amount of pressure on cost of living and wages for those at the bottom of our labour market (which is now 2-3 million larger thanks to Justin Trudeau).

A perverse effect of the international student fiasco is also that CRS scores have been gamed. They don't distinguish between scam schools and real ones, and are now higher than ever before thanks to the amount of newcomers with dubious Canadian qualifications and work experience. It's gotten to the point that people with legitimate qualifications from out of the country are getting passed over for express entry in favor of burger flippers with degrees. It's very likely that this has made it harder for Warren's employer to fill those job vacancies.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by theman23

A perverse effect of the international student fiasco is also that CRS scores have been gamed. They don't distinguish between scam schools and real ones, and are now higher than ever before thanks to the amount of newcomers with dubious Canadian qualifications and work experience. It's gotten to the point that people with legitimate qualifications from out of the country are getting passed over for express entry in favor of burger flippers with degrees. It's very likely that this has made it harder for Warren's employer to fill those job vacancies.

It was interesting seeing the shift in action, or at least I think my experience was related to this. I have interviewed and hired people over the years in a STEM field. Certain degree qualifications used to mean something a few years back but now it's easy to find people with STEM graduate degrees who have basically no knowledge or skills in their field, or maybe a 2nd year undergrad level. I wonder what impact this will have on the reputation of Canadians abroad.

This is completely separate from the practice of accepting good foreign students into grad schools and professional programs, although I always wondered if it was worth it to Canadian taxpayers in the case where they headed to the US upon graduation. The grad students supposedly generate research of value to the public (and faculty) but I doubt this is of much practical value to taxpayers.