Author Topic: Politics in 2017  (Read 76440 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,330
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #50 on: January 11, 2017, 10:04:46 »
It would seem that with Trudeaunomics, the PM will make all Canadians equal for generations to come.  Equally impoverished.  Thanks for nothing, all you Harper haters that brought this crowd into power.

So it seems the "Department of Fiscal Projections" is betting that the liberals will be in Power until 2051?   :o
Optio

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,292
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,513
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2017, 10:34:40 »
God, it wouldn't surprise me.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline captloadie

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 32,873
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 563
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #52 on: January 11, 2017, 10:39:44 »
One issue is how well she (as well as her boss) can navigate the Russian position given 1)  her history w/Russia and 2)  PEOTUS's suggestions to date that he can make a "deal" with Russia.Agreed.  That said, I don't know about her competence one way or another, but I know she's been pretty anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine, and my only question is how her boss will manage all of that in dealing with Russia and the U.S. down the road.
But unless we reverse current policy, we have already made our choice. We are currently pro-Ukraine/anti-Russia, put in simplified terms. That's why we have trainers in the Ukraine and will be a leading nation in Latvia.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 473,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,934
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #53 on: January 11, 2017, 10:50:06 »
My only beef with the entire shuffle is Monseif but I did hear at least one credible explanation that I'm willing to accept for now as to why she stayed.
   Do tell.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,432
  • Crewman
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #54 on: January 11, 2017, 10:53:13 »
   Do tell.

"Quota"

Trudeau wants to fill quotas.....Not select on merit......Although he really doesn't have much to work with.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,428
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,430
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #55 on: January 11, 2017, 10:53:48 »
   Do tell.

I'm guessing to keep the gender and minorities rep.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 93,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,812
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #56 on: January 11, 2017, 11:01:13 »
Don't act daft, Remius. You know very well that is not what this graph shows.

What we have to look at is that, in 2014, the Harper government had a plan for dealing with public finances that would have seen surpluses small at first, then increasing, that would have wiped the national debt by 2038, based on current projections.

Then, the Trudeau government came along and introduced a new, high spending plan. That plan, when projected in the future would not reduce, but rather double the national debt in the projection horizon of 30-33 years.

The important figures to keep in mind in our shorter term horizon of one to three election cycles is that, by the end of their current mandate, the Liberals will have added 146 more billion dollars to the national debt than the Conservatives would have under their plan.

Second thing to realize is that, if a new government wanted to go back to the Conservative plan's level after next election, they would have to be able to generate an average of $55 billion $ surplus in each year to do it in a 5 year horizon or a 45 billion$ in each year to do it over a 10 years horizon.*

Another way to look at what the Liberal plan is doing is the following: Imagine that after the next election, the new government wants to make debt reduction an issue again. First, they would have to eliminate the operation deficit in the budget (i.e. "balance" the budget). Then debt reduction can slowly start. To imagine, mentally move the Conservative plan line down to the Liberal debt level for say 2023 (balanced budget 1) and, because we are staring from a greater debt and the greater, the harder to get out of it, flatten the Conservative curve somehow: then look how far to the right the "zero" debt intersection occurs in terms of years. It's probably somewhere around eight to ten years later.

There will be pain and suffering all over again and bigger than what it has been under Harper (because most of the pain had already been inflicted by the Harper government to get to this debt free status).

* The calculation is actually a matter of differential equations resolution as we are dealing with two curves and the difference in the surface between the two curves. However, an easy and quite valid evaluation is to do the following, which is what I did: (1) take a given period; (2) calculate the difference between the number generated by each plan at the beginning and then at the end of the period; (3) average the two numbers; and (4) divide the resulting average by the number of years in the period. This gives you the "average" surplus that must be generated to reduce the debt to get from one plan to the other (smaller debt) one.

In my case, I took the following  "differential" figures: in 2021, 150 billion more $; in 2026, 400 billion more $; and in 2031, 750 billion $ more.

So: 5 years horizon: $(150b + 400b)/2 = $275b, over 5 years (divide by 5): $55b.
10 years horizon: $(150b + 750b)/2 = $450b, over 10 years (divide by 10): $45b

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,330
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #57 on: January 11, 2017, 11:08:41 »
Don't act daft, Remius. You know very well that is not what this graph shows.

Don't act so offended.  It was meant in jest. 
Optio

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,330
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #58 on: January 11, 2017, 11:14:46 »
   Do tell.

Well aside from the gender parity issue, some pundits have guessed that this was a bit of a take the blame moment for Trudeau or at least as close as it will come to that.  Basically he made a campaign promise on electoral reform with no real plan and essentially told her to make it happen with no real road map on how to achieve it.  So sort of a his mistake/her fault sort of thing or whatever. 

So moving her to something else so as to not punish her.  he basically let her flail in the wind with no real direction. 

Does not mean she isn't to blame for what happened just that it's a convenient way to let her off the hook for something he is ultimately responsible for.

I didn't see it that way at first but it sort of makes sense.

 
Optio

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,467
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #59 on: January 11, 2017, 11:48:25 »
But unless we reverse current policy, we have already made our choice. We are currently pro-Ukraine/anti-Russia, put in simplified terms. That's why we have trainers in the Ukraine and will be a leading nation in Latvia.
Agreed -- she'll get to manage any friction from the U.S. & Russia, then, if this isn't the deal PEOTUS decides to go with.  How will she do with such friction?  How will her boss do?  Have to wait & see ...
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 222,051
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,984
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #60 on: January 12, 2017, 16:57:26 »
You have to hand it to our jet setting prime minster;he just doesn't give a crap.

He comes up with this whole ethics and conflict of interest thing then constantly **cks it off like no one's business.

There's the whole lying about discussing political matters at $1500  up to $4500 a seat parties and now this.


Quote

Trudeau took Aga Khan's private helicopter to island vacation.

PM says he doesn't see an issue but 'we look forward to discussing' it with ethics commissioner

 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/trudeau-aga-khan-helicopter-1.3932827

He's likes a pretty honey badger.

I read else where he took 10 vacations in his first year of office,  that's pretty sweet.  Even if it's only half accurate and he only took 5 good for him and his family.  They deserve a break from their grueling schedule. 
« Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 17:00:14 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,432
  • Crewman
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #61 on: January 12, 2017, 18:46:35 »
You have to hand it to our jet setting prime minster;he just doesn't give a crap.

He comes up with this whole ethics and conflict of interest thing then constantly **cks it off like no one's business.

There's the whole lying about discussing political matters at $1500  up to $4500 a seat parties and now this.

 
 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/trudeau-aga-khan-helicopter-1.3932827

He's likes a pretty honey badger.

I read else where he took 10 vacations in his first year of office,  that's pretty sweet.  Even if it's only half accurate and he only took 5 good for him and his family.  They deserve a break from their grueling schedule.

He did take 10 vacations....But....Talking about the Ethics Commissionaire......She is also in a Conflict of Interest.....She was investigating Trudeau, and he extended her tenure another six months........Hmmmmmm?  Are we near the seashore?
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,432
  • Crewman
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2017, 19:23:57 »
From the Fraser Institute:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Quote
Trudeau gets a lesson on energy poverty by Ontario resident
— January 13, 2017

In a video now circulating around the Internet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gets an earful from a distressed Ontarian over the insane cost of electricity in the province.

Holding a hydro bill of more than $1,000 in her shaking hands, and explaining that her power bill is now more than her mortgage, the disabled grandmother tearfully relates the hardships of living in energy poverty. Hot summer days without power, having to work 75 hours a week just to pay her bills, and living on instant oatmeal and Campbell’s soup. The story is simply heartbreaking, and the applause of others at the town hall meeting shows she’s not the only one feeling the pain of Ontario’s power fiasco.

Indeed, as of 2013 (most recent data available), 7.5 per cent of households in Ontario meet the definition of energy poverty. A household enters into energy poverty when it spends more than 10 per cent of household expenditures on energy used within the home (electricity, natural gas, etc.). If you put gasoline into the mix, then 19.2 per cent of households fit the definition of energy poverty.

Given the hardships many Ontarians face, Prime Minister Trudeau’s response was deeply, deeply unsatisfying. First, he threw not one, but two of his own party’s premiers under the bus, attributing most of the problem to provincial policies. Chief among those policies is the Green Energy Act (GEA), introduced first by former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, and carried on by current Premier Kathleen Wynne. The results of the GEA—higher electricity prices, paying to export energy to the U.S. at a loss, etc.—have been disastrous for Ontario families and businesses. It’s a shame that the prime minister could not even recognize some of these consequences, particularly given that fact the Premier Wynne has even begun to do so.

But what was more deeply disturbing was that the prime minister showed absolutely no willingness to flex on his plan to bring in a national price floor for carbon that will rise by $10.00 per year starting in 2018, hitting $50.00/tonne of carbon by 2022. His response to having that tax challenged directly was a sermon on the need to stop using fossil fuels, which one presumes includes Alberta’s oilsands and British Columbia’s natural gas.

Perhaps the most ridiculous element of his answer was his observation that the federal government will leave the administration of the new carbon price floor to the provinces—in this case, the very same government that has shown gross ineptitude and outright negligence in managing its energy systems, and this according to its own auditor general!

It’s time for governments across the country to start recognizing that their “green dreams” have serious consequences for ordinary Canadians. If they don’t, Canada will find itself moving upward in the standings of a group it wants no part of—developed countries with high rates of energy poverty.

 
Author: Kenneth P. Green



More on LINK.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 99,876
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,968
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #63 on: January 14, 2017, 20:16:41 »
I hope Trudeau does more of these town hall things before the 2019 election...
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,845
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #64 on: January 14, 2017, 20:18:56 »
I hope Trudeau does more of these town hall things before the 2019 election...

Guessing that some folks are organizing more vacations.....
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,845
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #65 on: January 15, 2017, 10:55:39 »
Now THIS is surprising - considering the source:

 LeDrew is a lawyer, broadcaster and former party president whose job it was to tell Prime Minister Jean Chretien that it was his time to leave office

He was as loyal a pitbull as the Liberals had.



Quote
Everyone knows that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s reconnect tour is his effort to show Canadians that he is not just a privileged Canadian, but also is capable of understanding what the average citizen is thinking.

But more importantly, it is also designed to change the channel from a disastrous cash-for-access program that defies all rules and common sense (which the PM still will not abandon), and from an elite private island-in-the-sun fiasco, replete with private helicopters and a retinue of friends.

It is clear, after more than a week of hard work by some terrific reporters to get the details, why the Prime Minister’s Office tried to keep this trip a secret — the Christmas holiday was at the private island of someone to whom the PM gave $50 million of taxpayers’ money to last year alone.

It does not matter that Aga Khan Foundation Canada does terrific work — or that the Aga Khan is a revered man whom Trudeau has known his whole life.

It just looks really bad — and does not pass the smell test — and it brings the reputation of both the PM AND the Aga Khan into disrepute. It should not have occurred, and did not need to occur.

In a well-functioning PMO, someone should have had the good sense to tell Trudeau just so — before the trip. Every elected official needs someone to give him or her the unvarnished truth.

In this case, the president of the Liberal party could have passed along the views of the rank-and-file of the membership — except she was also on this trip! Anna Gainey should have seen it coming.

Is there no one who has the good sense to tell the PM what works, what is defensible, what flies (or more importantly, what shouldn’t be flying? ), or is the arrogance of Trudeau’s Ottawa so pervasive that it is above the law, the rules, and above what most Canadians call “common sense”?

If the first explanation is the case, there is still time to fix it — get someone in there who does not suck up, or is at least not bowled over by the Majesty of the First Selfie.

If the second explanation is the reason for these stupendously inane mistakes, suck it up Canadians, only a few more years.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/14/wheres-the-common-sense-in-the-pmo

I can't find a single passage to highlight - because every word hits the mark.

If Trudeau can't carry LeDrew I sense trouble.





"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 167,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,822
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #66 on: January 15, 2017, 11:10:52 »
Quote
In a well morally properly-functioning PMO, someone should have had the good sense to tell Trudeau just so — before the trip. Every elected official needs someone to give him or her the unvarnished truth.

One could posit that PM JT's Office (the PMO) was never intent on doing anything other than facilitating the PM's (and Butts' and Telford's) will.

Offline captloadie

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 32,873
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 563
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2017, 09:05:14 »
It has become a sad reality that everything a high ranking politician does is now put under a microscope and criticized in every aspect. The PM visited a family friend, without incurring cost to the taxpayer, and he is taken to task for it. This age of needing to know every little detail of what is happening is why nothing ever gets done any more, because individuals always have to evaluate every step they make to ensure it passes some fictional sniff test. What if the trip was more than just a holiday? What if he was meeting to bring some sort of behind the scenes peace agreement to fruition? Or working on a beneficial trade agreement? Contrary to popular belief, I think there is still a place for behind closed doors talks.

 

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 473,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,934
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #68 on: January 16, 2017, 09:11:06 »
What if he was meeting to bring some sort of behind the scenes peace agreement to fruition? Or working on a beneficial trade agreement?
Do you honestly believe either of those things were happening... or are you just tired of people picking on Justin Kardashian?

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 106,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,414
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #69 on: January 16, 2017, 09:25:51 »
It has become a sad reality that everything a high ranking politician does is now put under a microscope and criticized in every aspect. The PM visited a family friend, without incurring cost to the taxpayer, and he is taken to task for it. This age of needing to know every little detail of what is happening is why nothing ever gets done any more, because individuals always have to evaluate every step they make to ensure it passes some fictional sniff test. What if the trip was more than just a holiday? What if he was meeting to bring some sort of behind the scenes peace agreement to fruition? Or working on a beneficial trade agreement? Contrary to popular belief, I think there is still a place for behind closed doors talks.

 

Well, there is the small matter of the Law. You know- the conflict of interest legislation. Which categorical states that no minister shall accept a ride on a privately owned aircraft. Which, if the Liberals were unhappy with, it was well within their ability to rescind, in their first year in office.

But, since they were too busy doing other things, well, it sucks to be Justin Trudeau.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 63,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,330
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #70 on: January 16, 2017, 09:34:06 »
It has become a sad reality that everything a high ranking politician does is now put under a microscope and criticized in every aspect. The PM visited a family friend, without incurring cost to the taxpayer, and he is taken to task for it. This age of needing to know every little detail of what is happening is why nothing ever gets done any more, because individuals always have to evaluate every step they make to ensure it passes some fictional sniff test. What if the trip was more than just a holiday? What if he was meeting to bring some sort of behind the scenes peace agreement to fruition? Or working on a beneficial trade agreement? Contrary to popular belief, I think there is still a place for behind closed doors talks.


I actually agree with the first part of your statement.  However, the fact that the PMO kept this a secret and in all likelihood knew that the helicopter issue would be a problem and chose to ignore that they should have consulted with the Integrity commissioner is the problem.  Regardless of his intentions.  Now I am willing to  accept that maybe the Pm wasn't aware and the PMO decided to do whatever with the expectation of better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.  But...

Many people gave the last PM a really hard time in regards to the actions of his staff in the PMO and held him ultimately responsible.  I was one of them back then and I'm one of them now.  The rules were broken by HIS office and he has to accept some responsibility for it.  the optics are very bad and they know it.
Optio

Offline captloadie

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 32,873
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 563
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2017, 09:44:28 »
No, I don't think any of that was happening. But I also don't think he was working to better the position of the Aga Khan or his organization. I think he was lazing around on the beach and enjoying the sun and the sand. Ack the breach of the legislation, but the PM has few options to travel, (he should have used a private charter to make the trip or taken a Challenger and "ruined" the aircrews Christmas ;))

And to be clear, I don't think JT is the best thing since sliced bread. I also don't see the need to vilify him just because he is the head of the LPC.




Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,467
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #72 on: January 16, 2017, 09:52:26 »
One could posit that PM JT's Office (the PMO) was never intent on doing anything other than facilitating the PM's (and Butts' and Telford's) will.
:nod: - like all PMO's past & future.
Many people gave the last PM a really hard time in regards to the actions of his staff in the PMO and held him ultimately responsible
That's a reasonable place for the buck to stop, no matter what colour the team jersey is.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,292
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,513
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #73 on: January 16, 2017, 09:53:30 »
You know, someone at the office pointed out that the British PM flies commercial on British Airways.  He pondered why the hell if it is good enough and safe enough for the British PM to fly commercial then why couldn't the Sun King or any of his successors do the same on Air Canada.  It would damn well give him a taste of what the rest of us endure and let him get closer to those he rules over.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 93,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,812
Re: Politics in 2017
« Reply #74 on: January 16, 2017, 09:58:00 »
There is more than the helicopter ride at issue.

There is also the "small" matter of accepting hospitality of any kind from a registered lobbyist. Can anyone honestly tell me that your island getaway for free and free helicopter ride is below the acceptable gift level you can accept from a lobbyist? And can anyone tell me that no business/politics occurred? Really: You visit with an MP of your party who is not a close friend and with the president of your party! $1500 buys you an hour or so to bend the ear of the PM - how much time did the Aga Khan have to bend his ear over the course of a week? Oh! I forgot: Trudeau will listen, but not talk business himself, except to advance his agenda for the middle class.

Personally, I have no   sympathy for  the Trudeau's personal friendship with the Aga Khan. Trudeau wilfully decided to become PM of Canada - no one forced the job on him. He has to accept the limitations that come with the job, and one of those limitations is that you have to park your friendships at the door while you are in the job if those friends are lobbyists or get money from the government. And you have to make sure you are completely removed from any decision involving these friends. Interestingly enough, member of he government are supposed to disclose these potentially problematic friendships, confidentially of course, to the office of the Ethics Commissioner and Justin admitted to NOT having done that, allegedly to 'protect" the private life of his friends.

Finally, considering Trudeau himself decided to recruit Chrystia Freedland because he admired her thesis in "Plutocrats, the Rise of the New Global Super Rich" describing the 0.1% and how they jet around the world, above everybody else in every sense, how stupid (sorry no other possible word here) is he to think that a trip like this would not squarely put him in the plutocrats camp in the public eye? I think it was only exceeded in stupidity by his belief that he could actually not tell anyone and it would not be discovered in today's 24 hours a day news world.   

/RANT OFF