# Can Canada Afford A Liberal Government



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

Will Canada be able to withstand Liberal Governments managing our economy? Here is a synopsis of the economic management of 3 Liberal Governments

Pierre Trudeau’s Economic Management As Prime Minister

Eric Margolis quantified the economic results of Pierre Trudeau's legacy of Big Government upon Trudeau’s death in 2000. Here is his summary from the 2000 article:

Under Pierre Trudeau’s Economic Leadership:

· The national debt grew from $11.3-billion in 1968 to $128-billion in 1984 (that is a 1048% increase).

· The annual federal deficit went from zero to $25-billion.

· Ottawa's spending rose from 30% of Canada's total economic output to nearly 53%

· The Canadian dollar plummeted from around US$1.06 in 1970 to 66 cents.

· The unemployment rate ran between three and five percentage points higher in Canada than in the United States

· Canada reduced itself from being one of the world's three richest nations 30 years ago (along with Switzerland and the U.S.) to one of the three leading debtor nations in the West, alongside Belgium and Italy.

Where are we now under Justin Trudeau’s Leadership:

· The combined federal and provincial net debt is $1.3 trillion. The combined debt equals 64.8% of the economy or $35,827 for every man, woman or child living in Canada

· Spending on interest payments consumes government revenues and leaves less money available for other important priorities such as spending on health care and education or tax relief. Canadian governments (including local governments) collectively spent an estimated $60.8 billion on interest payments in 2014/15. That works out to 8.1% of their total revenue that year

· Justin Trudeau ran an election campaign of increasing deficits and ultimately increasing the federal debt.

· Trudeau is jet setting around the world spending billions of tax payer’s dollars on climate change, foreign aid and refugee resettlement.

· He has only been in power for 3 months and with Canada’s economy in a steep nose dive he claims that his election promise of running $10 billion deficits was only a guideline. He claims that in reality the deficits will likely be much larger. 

And How About Kathleen Wynne’s Economic Leadership:

· Ontario is the largest sub-national debtor in the entire world, just one alarming distinction. Its debt is more than twice that of California, a state with three times the population and one that has its own severe fiscal problems.

· Ontario’s debt is $294 billion, or over $21,000 per capita.

· In 2015 the Ontario deficit was larger than the deficit of the federal government and the other 9 provinces combined.

· Ontario’s net debt to GDP is up 48 per cent in the past 10 years to almost 40 per cent.

· Last year’s interest obligations totalled $11.4 billion, about the same as the cost of community and social services.

· Not surprisingly, Standard and Poor’s downgraded Ontario’s bond credit from AA- to A+, citing a very high debt burden and very weak budgetary performance

Hold onto your hats – Canadians will suffer very tough economic times under Justin Trudeau’s and Kathleen Wynne’s “tax and spend” governments. We cannot afford a Liberal government in Ontario and a Liberal government in Ottawa bankrupting our future for their own political gains.


----------



## lost in space (Aug 31, 2015)

Can anyone say Stagflation?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The "tough economic times" come from global factors, namely crashing commodity prices and a slowing global economy with credit contraction.

It has nothing to do with the government in power. Canada's previous growth had nothing to do with Harper, either.


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

I fully agree that "tough economic times" come from global factors.

However the Liberals (specifically Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau, McGuinty and Wynne) have a track record of big government spending on borrowed money. Our federal and provincial deficits and debt are now so large that the interest payments alone are drowning us. 

There is a snow balls chance in hell that either Wynne or Trudeau will ever balance their budgets by the end of their 4 year terms.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

*Liberal government*

One can only hope that Justine has good advisers. Ontario Liberals have wracked havoc on our economy. Their energy policy has been a particularly dumb effort to waste taxpayers money.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

That's why I had to laugh when JT said on the campaign that "Liberals know how to balance budgets", or words to that effect.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

^ He said that budget will balance itself.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

I would suggest that you take a look at the two largest deficit incurring Federal Goverments of late...both by a very wide margin.

Who were they?

The Conservatine Governments of both Btrian Mulroney and Stephen Harper.

Paul Martin looked cheap and miserly compared to Jim Flarherty. Martin was left with Mulroney's financial mess. Flarherty was left with a balanced budget and a significantly reduced level of federal debt.

Yet people still believe that the Liberals are free spenders and the Tories better money managers. The facts do not reflect these perceptions. It is early days yet.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

fraser said:


> Paul Martin looked cheap and miserly compared to Jim Flarherty. .


Remember the world recession? Remember how Liberals were screaming that the government should spend more money faster? 

Looking at numbers, Harper's government increased debt by 12% to 542 billion and left a balanced budget which isn't bad compared to the rest of the developed world. What's more, debt growth was same as GDP growth, so the level of debt as proportion of the economy has not changed. Paul Martin/Chretien left a debt of 482 billion; almost unchanged from what they inherited which is a good performance. Mulroney increased debt by 67%; not great. 

The one who stands out is Trudeau - the daddy. He increased debt by a whopping 740%. Future generations had to pay for his "generosity". Early indications for Trudeau-the-son are not so good.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

If "spending our way out of debt" was a legitimate tactic, or even just "deficit budgets" we're legit, how come the government doesn't ban foreclosures, repossession, or other similar things for the individuals who try to mimic the government...after all, individual spending is an ecconomic driver...repayment of debt is bad for the economy.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada has the lowest debt to GDP level by far for the G7 countries. 

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2015/docs/plan/anx2-eng.html

View attachment 8090


There is no better time to spend than at a time when the world is teetering on the brink of recession, people need jobs, interest rates can be locked in long term for historically low rates, and Canada badly needs to upgrade transit and infrastructure to accommodate future economic expansion.

As noted by some economists, Canada could have 50 Billion dollar annual deficits for 10 years and still wouldn't match the US or UK, which are also increasing every year.

The US is spending 1 Trillion a year in deficit spending. That is equivalent to 100 Billion for Canada, and nobody is proposing anywhere near that amount of spending.

The Trudeau government proposed 10 Billion in deficit spending and it is likely to grow to 25 Billion. That is still well below what Canada can "afford" to spend.

Government spending increases GDP, so if the government spent $50 Billion into the economy, it would increase the GDP and has a "multiplier" affect.

The spending would increase government revenues and therefore lessen the impact on government finances.

It isn't as though the government is going to set CAD on fire. It flows through the economy and back to the government.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

^ You can't ignore provincial debt.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

fraser said:


> I would suggest that you take a look at the two largest deficit incurring Federal Goverments of late...both by a very wide margin.
> 
> Who were they?
> 
> ...


You conviniently forgot that Mulroney inherited Trudeau's mess. 

Canada Government Spending
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-spending

Hit MAX above the chart.

See the huge spending jump in the early 80s? That's Trudeau.

You also conveniently forgot that Mulroney introduced the GST. Mulroney's GST is a big reason why Martin was able to balance the budgets. Who is supposed to get credit for that? Mulroney or Martin?


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Take a look at the Mulroney deficits. They were HUGE. 

I am not saying that the Liberals were good managers. What I do believe is that when the rubber hits the road there has not been much discernable difference between Liberals and Tories. More a case of Mutt and Jeff than anything else. I certainly had. no confidence in Harper's economic policies. Jane dis zero for us in Alberta and central Canadian manufacturing has been on the decline for at least a eight years.

Canada is deeply in debt. The comparison stats we see compared to other countries typically do not include the Provincial debt. Taken together, the total is not a pretty picture.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

GoldStone said:


> ^ You can't ignore provincial debt.


Or Provincial "assets" to offset the debt.

Or outstanding pension liabilities, which put Canada in a net "positive" position, the only G7 country with more assets in pension funds than liabilities.

No matter what metric is used, Canada's debt position is grossly overstated by Conservatives when compared to other countries in the world.

The other countries will fail long before Canada would, and if that happens there will be plenty to worry about.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

fraser said:


> Take a look at the Mulroney deficits. They were HUGE.


He inherited YUGE spending commitments from Trudeau. Take a look at the chart I posted.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Bottom line...both Liberals and Conservatives will remain very close to the centre on all policies-including fiscal. Fric and Frac.

Harper strayed away from centre to right on social issues and got toasted because of it. He fell into the old Reform Party hole of social policies that were unacceptable to most centre thinking Canadians. 

Let's hope the Conservatives manage to elect a leader that does not come from this side of the party. It is good to have strong competition at election time.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

They started off by sending a jumbo jet full of bureaucrats to Paris to figure out how all the CO2 is getting into the atmosphere. Then gave away $3 billion to foreign countries getting nothing in return. So yes I would say there was a chance the Liberal government will piss it away the way they always do.

In short, we can't afford a Liberal government but that never stops us from electing them.


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

Canada sent 383 people to the UN climate conference, more than Australia, the U.K. and U.S. combined.

Not a bad turnout for a country that emits just 1.6 per cent of the planet’s greenhouse gases.

Justin Trudeau spares no expense when finding ways to waste tax payer's dollars.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Can Canada Afford A Liberal Government


 NO

Leberals only good in wasting taxpayers money!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau decided the Canadian delegation should include the partners the government would have to work with regarding our climate change policy.

Perhaps the cost will be a mistake..........or perhaps not. Time will tell if policy is more easily developed with partners, or would have been better served by top down government edicts.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Sags, just my opinion but posting up our debt to GDP as being lower than other dangerously and ridiculously indebted countries doesn't do a lot to convince me it's fine for us spend our way to prosperity with enormous deficits and a growing debt. And Provincial debt has to be considered too. Can anyone show this works? 

If the public spent and borrowed the way our governments do - (although many certainly seem to be trying), I'm not sure what would be left of the country. Governments NEVER plan to pay back principle. This is the way it is, but it seems wrong and where does it end? Maybe it would be beneficial to enact laws to ensure all deficit money must be paid off before the term of the government/election and tell people exactly what it will cost them each year in extra taxes.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Actually Canada did not send all those people. The Provinces were invited and they decided who to send. That is why the numbers are so high. My understanding is that the Provincials paid their own freight.

I am very happy to have a Liberal Gvoernment. Not because it is Liberal but because I strongly believe that more than 10 years in power corrupts most Governments and makes them take us luckless taxpayers for granted. I was happier to see the back of Harper than I was to see the Liberal win.

I was sitting in Calgary listening to Rona Ambrose go on about the Energy East Pipeline. Strange, she never said a peep about it during the last few years when she was in Cabinet.
Harper would not let her...the duct tape was firmly over her mouth. I just about choked when I heard her spouting off. ZERO credibility.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> Remember the world recession? Remember how Liberals were screaming that the government should spend more money faster?
> 
> Looking at numbers, Harper's government increased debt by 12% to 542 billion and left a balanced budget which isn't bad compared to the rest of the developed world. What's more, debt growth was same as GDP growth, so the level of debt as proportion of the economy has not changed. Paul Martin/Chretien left a debt of 482 billion; almost unchanged from what they inherited which is a good performance. Mulroney increased debt by 67%; not great.
> 
> The one who stands out is Trudeau - the daddy. He increased debt by a whopping 740%. Future generations had to pay for his "generosity". Early indications for Trudeau-the-son are not so good.


Canada's federal debt went from $450 billion to $600 billion under the CPC government, which is a ~33% rise.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> Canada's federal debt went from $450 billion to $600 billion under the CPC government, which is a ~33% rise.


Debt went up from 481.5 bn to 541.9 bn. 12.6 pc. https://www.taxpayer.com/media/CoverStory24-27WEB.pdf


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Don't worry, be happy, budgets will balance themselves.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canada gets it's mojo back..........

I_n the months since his election, Mr. Trudeau, 44, the 6-foot-2 self-described feminist, who has been a television actor, snowboarding instructor and amateur boxer, has assumed the role of world leader with a heart. In December, to the delight of the Twitterati, he welcomed a planeload of Syrian refugees with the phrase “You’re safe at home now,” while helping them into warm coats.

Vogue magazine wasted no time anointing Mr. Trudeau the “New Young Face of Canadian Politics,” noting that “the new prime minister is dashing in his blue suit and jaunty brown shoes.” Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post could not resist running a 2006 photo of a louche Mr. Trudeau, in torn bluejeans and an unbuttoned black chemise, with the headline “Hunky Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Is the JFK Jr. of Canada.”_

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/15/style/canada-justin-trudeau-cool.html?_r=0


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sags said:


> Canada gets it's mojo back..........
> 
> I_n the months since his election, Mr. Trudeau, 44, the 6-foot-2 self-described feminist, who has been a television actor, snowboarding instructor and amateur boxer, *has assumed the role of world leader* with a heart. In December, to the delight of the Twitterati, he welcomed a planeload of Syrian refugees with the phrase “You’re safe at home now,” while helping them into warm coats.
> 
> ...


the key words in the story being: "has assumed the role of world leader" ...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

How did the Harper Conservatives manage to _increase_ the federal debt during boom years and strong commodity prices?

Didn't corporate taxes bring in more than enough revenue?


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

My point was that people seem to assume that Liberals run deficits and Tories balance the budget. This is just not so.

Harper ran deficits for ten of his eleven years. The only one he balanced was the first one that was actually inherited from the previous Government.

In some years Harper was running deficits in boom commodity years because like so many other politicians of all stripes he was buying votes by reducing taxes. They all do it.


----------



## Woz (Sep 5, 2013)

mordko said:


> Debt went up from 481.5 bn to 541.9 bn. 12.6 pc. https://www.taxpayer.com/media/CoverStory24-27WEB.pdf


The net debt in 2014/15 is $612.3B, an increase of 27%. That $541.9B number you quote is from a 2009 report which showed the forecasted debt in 2014. It looks like they underestimated.

Source:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2015/report-rapport-eng.asp#toc5 (Table 8)

Also from the same source you quoted, but more up to date (they forecasted $618.9B in 2014/15 so it looks like they over estimated):
http://www.taxpayer.com/media/Total Accumulated Deficit - Federal.pdf


----------



## Barwelle (Feb 23, 2011)

sags said:


> Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post could not resist running a 2006 photo of a louche Mr. Trudeau, in torn bluejeans and an unbuttoned black chemise, with the headline “Hunky Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Is the JFK Jr. of Canada.”[/I]


In case anybody else can't resist wanting to see the picture in question... 

(It's a link, couldn't figure out how to imbed the image in a post)


----------



## Woz (Sep 5, 2013)

Barwelle said:


> In case anybody else can't resist wanting to see the picture in question...
> 
> (It's a link, couldn't figure out how to imbed the image in a post)


Oh man, that's funny. I also like his "party trick" of pretending to fall down the stairs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRnwK01n904


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Woz said:


> The net debt in 2014/15 is $612.3B, an increase of 27%. That $541.9B number you quote is from a 2009 report which showed the forecasted debt in 2014. It looks like they underestimated.
> 
> Source:
> http://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2015/report-rapport-eng.asp#toc5 (Table 8)
> ...


Good point, thanks.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Barwelle said:


> In case anybody else can't resist wanting to see the picture in question...
> 
> (It's a link, couldn't figure out how to imbed the image in a post)




at least it's not a selfie ...

.


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

More waste characterizes Trudeau’s first month in office

Prime Minister Trudeau has wasted no time in quickly dolling out public funds in an extremely wasteful manner. In just over a month, Canada’s new Prime Minister has enacted the following policies that blatantly disregard the value of hard earned tax dollars:

A $2.65 Billion cheque for aid to developing nations to combat climate change
A $13 Million cheque for Vietnamese farmers
A $15 Million cheque for job training in Africa
A $14.25 Million cheque for infrastructure in Indonesia
In his first month in office, Prime Minister Trudeau has sent over $3 Billion of your tax dollars overseas through new foreign aid 
promises. 

THE INTERESTING NOTE IS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO BORROW THIS MONEY WHICH ADDS TO OUR DEFICIT AND DEBT. CANADIANS WILL PAY INTEREST ON THIS DEBT FOR DECADES TO FOLLOW.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

bariutt said:


> More waste characterizes Trudeau’s first month in office
> 
> Prime Minister Trudeau has wasted no time in quickly dolling out public funds in an extremely wasteful manner. In just over a month, Canada’s new Prime Minister has enacted the following policies that blatantly disregard the value of hard earned tax dollars:
> 
> ...



What is wasteful about helping the poor? I am all for this. Time to clean up Canada's tarnished image.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1266433/canada-cuts-aid-as-other-nations-push-assistance-to-all-time-high/


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

Trudeau should be on one life to live or something lol
Why did he make it so tough on himself
Anybody calling salt and pepper hair in 4 yrs?haha


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Let him help the poor with his own money. To give away Canada's money and take the credit himself is beyond hypocrisy. Especially when Canadians are losing their jobs, losing their homes and suffering the high cost of the depreciating loony.

He is NOT the Prime Minister of Africa, Viet Nam or Indonesia. He is the Prime Minister of Canada. His job is to work for Canada not throw our money away to feed his own ego.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Hawkdog said:


> What is wasteful about helping the poor? I am all for this. Time to clean up Canada's tarnished image.
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/news/1266433/canada-cuts-aid-as-other-nations-push-assistance-to-all-time-high/


Canada's image is only tarnished among dictators and terrorists. Neither Vietnam nor Indonesia are among the poorest countries in the world.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

Hawkdog said:


> Time to clean up Canada's tarnished image.


What tarnished image??? Just because you hated Harper doesn't mean that the rest of the world did.

Canada's reputation takes top spot in international survey - CBC News - *Jul 16, 2015*


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Interim PC leader Rona Ambrose said today there is $1 Billion for Alberta that wasn't spent by the Harper government and she thinks that should be sent immediately.

When times are tough, balanced budget ideology and a toonie will buy a Tim Horton coffee.

Run Forrest Run.............er..........Spend Justin Spend !!


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

How did Canada end up with a Prime Minister who -

- never really held a job until he was 41 (and then worked as a substitute teacher)
- lived off of a trust fund (family inherited money) invested in numbered companies
- education is a BA (literature and drama major)
- was at best a mediocre student who dropped out of more programs than he completed. Justin studied engineering (dropped out - probably could not make the grade) and then studied Environmental Geography (unfinished)

It is very scary to believe that an individual with these qualifications is running our economy and making major financial decisions for the country


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

We had one before him that never had a for profit job or even practiced as a real economist. His name was Stephen Harper.

And are you saying that you have factual information about the PM's personal financial affairs is this purely conjecture on your part?
I certainly do not.

Fortunately, except for the previous PM, we currently have a PM who believes in the team approach. Getting the best talent possible and actually letting them talk. I hear that sales of duct tape in Ottawa are significantly down since Harper was punted.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Canada cant afford the bankers profits. The compounding of interest is going into the bankers pockets. If roads, bridges etc need to be built borrow from the tax payer with no interest charged to tax payers.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

fraser said:


> We had one before him that never had a for profit job or even practiced as a real economist. His name was Stephen Harper.
> 
> And are you saying that you have factual information about the PM's personal financial affairs is this purely conjecture on your part?
> I certainly do not.
> ...


FWIW

http://o.canada.com/news/justin-tru...-inheritance-and-successful-speaking-business


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

fraser said:


> We had one before him that never had a for profit job or even practiced as a real economist. His name was Stephen Harper.
> 
> And are you saying that you have factual information about the PM's personal financial affairs is this purely conjecture on your part?
> I certainly do not.
> ...


Pierre Trudeau inherited a share of his father’s money, split with his own siblings. Later in life, he prepared to portion it out to his sons.
The boys were given shares in 90562 Canada Inc., the federal corporation that held Trudeau’s portfolio of securities, managed by Montreal investment firm Jarislowsky Fraser.
The succession plans were set up to transfer the company’s assets to the Trudeau sons over time, to guard against the possibility the money would vanish in a spending binge in their wild 20s. This scheduled transfer concludes only when Justin reaches age 45 in 2016.
In 2010, the holdings in Pierre Trudeau’s original numbered company were “butterflied” and split into separate companies.
Justin’s company, had assets worth $1,242,522 as of August 2011, according to a statement prepared by accounting firm BDO.
Of this amount, $958,154 was held in short-term investments and $255,455 in cash.
The Trudeaus are also beneficiaries of another numbered company that receives royalties from their father’s autobiography and other sources — about $10,000 a year, Trudeau estimates.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Is there something inherently wrong with having money or inheriting money.

I would guess that there are many people whose parents own homes in Toronto or Vancouver are set to inherit million dollar plus estates. Does this bar them from political office or should we only allow those from humble backgrounds run for public office?

My son is a high school teacher. He will inherit a similar amount or more when we die. Have we ruined any aspirations he may have of running for public service?


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

GoldStone said:


> What tarnished image??? Just because you hated Harper doesn't mean that the rest of the world did.
> 
> Canada's reputation takes top spot in international survey - CBC News - *Jul 16, 2015*


Obviously most of Canada disliked Harper as well based on the election results.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...world-influence-has-declined/article26556418/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/stephen-harper-master-manipulator



In 2010, Canada and the Conservative government were humbled when it lost out in voting to win a temporary seat at the UN Security Council, a failure critics blamed on the Tories’ unflinching support for Israel, its reduction in the number of African countries receiving aid and what they called its foot-dragging approach to fighting climate change.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

mordko said:


> Canada's image is only tarnished among dictators and terrorists. Neither Vietnam nor Indonesia are among the poorest countries in the world.


No, things like ignoring climate change and gagging government scientists tarnish Canada's image. Here is a list:

Other hallmarks of the past decade?
Spurning progressive diplomatic or developmental initiatives of any description
Sidelining the public service and imposing drastic reductions to international capacity through cuts to DFATD, CIC, science-based departments and agencies, and international NGOs
Centralizing, controlling and censoring all international communications, while concentrating decision-making in the PMO
Failing to win election to the UN Security Council, while opting for a photo-op at Tim Horton’s over attending the UN General Assembly
Refusing to attend multilateral meetings, and rejecting or withdrawing from a variety of international agreements
Bungling Canada’s relationship with the Asia-Pacific region, the rising centre of the world political economy
Adopting a highly skewed set of policy positions on issues involving, variously, Iran, Israel, the Palestinians, and issues of Middle East peace
Shuttering the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, the Canadian Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, and North-South Institute
Withdrawing Canada from the Kyoto Protocol, while promoting the tarsands, pipelines, resource and extractive industries
Pursuing free trade and promoting commercial and corporate interests at public expense
The Harper government’s record of contempt for Parliament, due process (Afghan detainee hearings) and civil liberties (Bill C-51) is exceeded only by its contempt for diplomacy and multilateralism.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

OTTAWA -- Call it Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's secret stash. A new report from CIBC World Markets says Canada's federal and provincial governments could reap as much as $5 billion annually in tax revenues from the sale of legal marijuana.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fraser said:


> Is there something inherently wrong with having money or inheriting money.
> 
> I would guess that there are many people whose parents own homes in Toronto or Vancouver are set to inherit million dollar plus estates. Does this bar them from political office or should we only allow those from humble backgrounds run for public office?
> 
> My son is a high school teacher. He will inherit a similar amount or more when we die. Have we ruined any aspirations he may have of running for public service?




i recall that a couple of years ago, trudeau's office-in-waiting released his private wealth or "blind trust" statement. It showed a net worth that was surprisingly low, about $1 million CAD. This was all that was left from the small fortune amassed by the entrepreneurial car-dealer grandfather. The financial manager was the montreal firm of jarislowsky, fraser.

i also recall that, when Justin was first elected to ottawa as MP for papineau riding, his 2 small children stayed behind & continued to live in montreal with their mother, for the simple reason that the young family could not afford to buy a 2nd home in ottawa until they had managed to sell their first house in outremont.

other prime ministers - brian mulroney & paul martin for example - have been far wealthier. All were beneficiaries of blind trusts, ie private trusts that were blinded & made public when the beneficiaries first ran for political office.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

I think politicians should have to make public there credit score along with info if they have declared bankruptcy & or in debt before they run for office. If they are over spending in their private lives how will be able to balance the budget of the country ?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Hawkdog said:


> No, things like ignoring climate change and gagging government scientists tarnish Canada's image. Here is a list:
> 
> Failing to win election to the UN Security Council,.


Looking at the plot showing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, one sees straight away that Harper and Harper alone is responsible for all emissions.








Then let's see who is in the Security Council:

- Angola
- Egypt
- Venezuela
- Malaysia
- Senegal
...
Not to mention wonderful democracies of China and Russia. Then we have Saudi Arabia chairing UN Human Rights Council. 

Frankly, not being elected to a UN club is a badge of honour.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The people responsible for excess CO2 emissions are not Canadians...it is the people of the world that buy and use our oil. Of course that would be inconvenient for fools like DiCaprio to admit.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Hawkdog said:


> What is wasteful about helping the poor? I am all for this. Time to clean up Canada's tarnished image.


 Social programs to turn the poor into leaches to live off the productive is going to solve nothing. Kings from years ago never had it as good as the poor today.


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

Sinking economy may lead to Trudeau ouster: O'Leary


http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/27/sinking-economy-may-lead-to-trudeau-ouster-oleary


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I thought Trudeau got out of the gate pretty well. He quickly got the government going on the Syrian refugee project and there was a short flurry of achievements.......tax cut for middle wage earners and abandoning legal appeals to the SCC.

But lately, it seems to have bogged down in a somewhat continuing conversation of "we will discuss it with our partners, work with the Provinces, set up a committee" on almost everything.

From changes to unemployment rules to marijuana legalization to pipeline issues to doctor assisted suicide to the TPP to expansion of the CPP to changing pardons to CPP expansion ...............it is a growing list of items being shunted off almost on a daily basis for later consideration. A government can get mired down in "consensus seeking".........as the Obama administration found itself doing.

The government will get away with some of it, but as economic conditions deteriorate.........I would have to agree with Kevin O'Leary, if the government fails to act promptly their support will fade quickly.

This is especially true as Thomas Muldair, an early choice for Canadians during the election who faded later, drills the government every day on economic issues.

Voters will start to think..........maybe we should have stuck with the NDP instead of moving to the Liberals.

Trudeau needs to light a fire under his Cabinet Ministers to come up with at least temporary solutions on such things as unemployment insurance. The government could add a temporary "top up", extend benefits, or eliminate the 2 week waiting period on an emergency basis without a year of consulting with the Provinces. If they need help setting it up, they can consult with the Unifor union who have a "sub" program already set up that does exactly that.

It wouldn't hurt for Trudeau to stick to his knitting, and concentrate on the problems at home, setting trips outside of Canada to one side for awhile.


----------



## bariutt (Feb 2, 2013)

Jughead Trudeau is all about self gratification. He is Prime Minister "Selfie". To date he has jet set around the world giving out tax payer's hard earned money like it was candy. How much will implementing every one of the 94 Truth and Reconciliation Committee recommendations cost Canadian tax payers.

In his first 4 months as Prime Minister he has already handed out billions - none of which will stimulate the Canadian economy one bit. The Canadian economy is headed down the toilet but all he concerns himself with is photo ops. There is only so much money to go around and so far this lad has proven that he will be a spend thrift. I think Jughead will prove to be a one term wonder and then will go back to living off of grampa's trust fund invested in numbered companies.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

bariutt said:


> Sinking economy may lead to Trudeau ouster: O'Leary
> 
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/27/sinking-economy-may-lead-to-trudeau-ouster-oleary


Canada's GDP grows by 0.3% in November
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cdp-canada-november-1.3425091

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/10...under-harper-government#.ViCA1t50sdo.facebook


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

lonewolf said:


> Social programs to turn the poor into leaches to live off the productive is going to solve nothing. Kings from years ago never had it as good as the poor today.


Ya and we should take away women's right to vote as well. Seems the camp where a statement like this would come from.

Spending 15 million on job training in Africa is not turning the poor into leaches. 
If you haven't noticed China is spending Billions in Africa to gain political good will. 
http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...china-commits-billions-aid-africa-interactive


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

bariutt said:


> Sinking economy may lead to Trudeau ouster: O'Leary
> 
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/27/sinking-economy-may-lead-to-trudeau-ouster-oleary



gotta love KOL. He wants to be the prime minister but believes a strong majority new government means the party leader is going to be replaced soon?

he craps poison all over canada while saying he's the "best salesman" the country has got?

the good thing about political wannabes like donald trump & KOL is that they can't win. Every time they open their mouths, they author their own downfall.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

mordko said:


> Looking at the plot showing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, one sees straight away that Harper and Harper alone is responsible for all emissions.
> View attachment 8122
> 
> 
> ...


Before 2006 no Canadian prime minister — indeed no head of government in the Commonwealth — had ever been found in contempt of Parliament. It has happened twice on Harper’s watch. The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the government lied to Parliament and refused to release public documents. These actions contravene the principles on which responsible government is built.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

bariutt said:


> Jughead Trudeau is all about self gratification. He is Prime Minister "Selfie". To date he has jet set around the world giving out tax payer's hard earned money like it was candy. How much will implementing every one of the 94 Truth and Reconciliation Committee recommendations cost Canadian tax payers.
> 
> In his first 4 months as Prime Minister he has already handed out billions - none of which will stimulate the Canadian economy one bit. The Canadian economy is headed down the toilet but all he concerns himself with is photo ops. There is only so much money to go around and so far this lad has proven that he will be a spend thrift. I think Jughead will prove to be a one term wonder and then will go back to living off of grampa's trust fund invested in numbered companies.


I suppose you like this guy as well?


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

bariutt said:


> Sinking economy may lead to Trudeau ouster: O'Leary
> 
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/27/sinking-economy-may-lead-to-trudeau-ouster-oleary


http://www.nationalobserver.com/201...-shocking-story-kevin-olearys-business-career

O’Leary’s popularity and persona as a business guru soon drove investors to his mutual funds, with O’Leary Funds roaring to as much as $1.5-billion in assets (and probably more). O’Leary boasted of being an investing whiz, with access to the movers and shakers in the business and political worlds — those ties giving him unique insider knowledge.

The reality was quite different. O’Leary was not even licensed to manage or invest other people’s money. Instead, he hired Connor O’Brien, a former Wall Street investment banker, to run O’Leary Funds. Moreover, by 2012, the funds were in trouble, falling to $1-billion in assets by the end of that year.

This past fall, when he finally sold his company to Canoe, the funds were down to $800-million in assets. This was due to redemptions — investors pulling their money out because of the funds’ performance. “The majority of the funds performed poorly for an extended period of time and the majority of (Bay Street) brokers refused to sell any new funds,” says Mark McQueen, CEO of Wellington Financial LP, a $900-million Bay Street finance firm and one of O'Leary's long-time critics. “It’s not personal. The industry lives and dies on performance.”

Yet the demise of the O’Leary Funds is, in fact, just the latest in a series of failures in Kevin O’Leary’s business career.

*While O’Leary recently grabbed headlines with his promise to invest $1-million in Alberta if premier Rachel Notley stepped down, and is toying with running for leadership of the federal Tory party, these stunts overshadow a history of ineptness as a businessman.*


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

*10 Canadian government properties you’d swear belonged to the rich and famous*
_The Canadian government will hold on to Villa Grandi — its official residence in Rome — after all, according to a news report.

A spokesman for Stéphane Dion confirmed to the Globe and Mail that the property was taken off the market and would stay as it was for the time being. The newspaper reported that other properties that the previous government planned to sell were under review and could also end up going off the market, according to a government source.

The decision counters the efforts of the former Conservative government to offload the Rome property, along with many others owned by Canada. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper argued that the upkeep costs for Villa Grandi and other properties were too high to justify holding on to them._ 

The properties included 4 Counsel-general residences in Miami, Atlanta, Denver and Dallas.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/liberals-take-official-canadian-residence-in-rome-off-the-market/article29783373/


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

under review, sounds fair, after all, the previous gov't is not exactly known for smart business decisions


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Must be a reaction to the large cheque I just wrote to the taxman :upset::

*Trudeau, ministers to hold second, pricey cabinet retreat in mountain resort*
Taxpayers forked out almost $150,000 for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his 30 cabinet ministers to hole up for several days at a swanky, seaside New Brunswick resort where they pondered weighty matters of state. And now they’re poised to do it again, this time at a mountain resort in Kananaskis Country, 85 kilometres west of Calgary. The retreat, which officials argue is an important exercise in regional outreach and bonding for Trudeau’s still relatively new ministers...
Former prime ministers have held cabinet retreats in or around the national capital but Trudeau believes it’s important for ministers to get outside the Ottawa bubble, officials say.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Kevin O'Leary reminds me of Peter Pocklington.

I would not have voted for him, nor would I vote for KOL.

Not even if he/they were running for dog catcher.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Hawkdog said:


> Ya and we should take away women's right to vote as well. Seems the camp where a statement like this would come from.
> 
> Spending 15 million on job training in Africa is not turning the poor into leaches.
> If you haven't noticed China is spending Billions in Africa to gain political good will.
> http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...china-commits-billions-aid-africa-interactive


Job training isn't handouts. 
A minimum income is a good idea, we don't want people living in poverty.
But I can just imagine people sitting at home smoking pot on the minimum income and thinking things are good, we have to ensure there is some benefit to getting out of bed every day to do a job.
I make good money, but some days I'd rather stay in bed too.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Hawkdog said:


> OTTAWA -- Call it Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's secret stash. A new report from CIBC World Markets says Canada's federal and provincial governments could reap as much as $5 billion annually in tax revenues from the sale of legal marijuana.


Now I get how the budget will balance itself. Forgot to account for the marijuana revenue. Silly me. 

By the way, governments don't really see debt in terms of absolute numbers. They see it in terms of % of income. Sort of the same way mortgage companies see your mortgage payment as a % of your income. Also governments use inflation to "pay off debt", while nominally increasing spending. For example, if real GDP was 3% in a given year, spending went up nominally by 1.5%, and inflation was 2%, the debt actually went down as a % of GDP....or something like that. 

Too, post WW2 government debt was something like 120% of GDP, while the 50's and 60's are considered times of increasing prosperity. there is life after debt. If I am not mistaken, at one point during the Harper years debt got as low as 30% of GDP. 

Also in the 1970's inflation was horrible, so increased debt during those Trudeau years isn't as bad as it looks if one adjusts the absolute numbers for inflation. 

My main point is if one looks at the debt as a % of GDP, one gets a different perspective.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Another key parameter is growth. If there is large debt but the economy is growing fast then it's not a problem. If the economy is stagnating then we are screwed. The general expectation is that the growth rate will be low.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Now I get how the budget will balance itself. Forgot to account for the marijuana revenue. Silly me.
> 
> By the way, governments don't really see debt in terms of absolute numbers. They see it in terms of % of income. Sort of the same way mortgage companies see your mortgage payment as a % of your income. Also governments use inflation to "pay off debt", while nominally increasing spending. For example, if real GDP was 3% in a given year, spending went up nominally by 1.5%, and inflation was 2%, the debt actually went down as a % of GDP....or something like that.


That's a "numbers game" the gov't can play to hide the true debt expressed in dollars.


> Too, post WW2 government debt was something like 120% of GDP, while the 50's and 60's are considered times of increasing prosperity. there is life after debt. If I am not mistaken, at one point during the Harper years debt got as low as 30% of GDP.
> 
> Also in the 1970's inflation was horrible, so increased debt during those Trudeau years isn't as bad as it looks if one adjusts the absolute numbers for inflation.
> 
> My main point is if one looks at the debt as a % of GDP, one gets a different perspective.


Well, somebody has to hold onto that the debt and the gov't has to pay interest on that debt in real (Cdn) dollars.

http://www.debtclock.ca/


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Also, the equalization payments between the federal gov't and the provinces has a lot to do with debt and deficits.
Some of the provinces and perhaps Alberta, if the oil revenue doesn't pick up soon, could be considered have-not provinces.



> In Canada, the federal government makes equalization payments to less wealthy Canadian provinces to equalize the provinces' "fiscal capacity" — their ability to generate tax revenues. A province that does not receive equalization payments is often referred to as a "have province", while one that does is called a "have not province". In 2013–14, six provinces will receive $16.105 billion in equalization payments from the federal government.
> 
> Because all the resource-rich provinces -- British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador -- are now lined up on one side of the equalization divide. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba--and now Ontario, are on the other.Jan 21, 2014


The statement above is rather dated. Because of dropping oil revenues, NFLD and Labrador can be included back into the "have not" fold as
the Hibernia oil field is not generating the revenue it did back in 2014.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

carverman said:


> Also, the equalization payments between the federal gov't and the provinces has a lot to do with debt and deficits.
> Some of the provinces and perhaps Alberta, if the oil revenue doesn't pick up soon, could be considered have-not provinces.



alberta was, i believe, a chronic have-not province, up until the 1950s when the Leduc discoveries began paying the first oil revenues.

another freaky thing about history is that, long before Leduc, the fathers of Confederation had structured mineral rights to belong to the crown in most cases.

not the federal crown. The provincial crown. The oil belonged, in most cases, to the gummint of alberta. It was a freak accident that would benefit alberta royally for more than half a century. Alas albertans soon learned to spend their birthright, swagger around like lords of the isles & jeer at eastern canada.

now the shoe is on the other foot. Ottawa has already dispatched $700 million for infrastructure rebuild to Ms Notley & will no doubt listen respectfully to her pleas for a pipeline.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good news.......the government found an extra $7 Billion or so, and there is a monthly surplus building so far this year.

Evidently, the budget already balanced itself, although Bill Morneau cautions that it is a temporary blip.

Trudeau looks like one of those lucky people who win multiple lotteries. Everything is going right for him.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

sags said:


> Good news.......the government found an extra $7 Billion or so, and there is a monthly surplus building so far this year.
> 
> Evidently, the budget already balanced itself, although Bill Morneau cautions that it is a temporary blip.
> 
> Trudeau looks like one of those lucky people who win multiple lotteries. Everything is going right for him.


Not really. This is a Conservative surplus. This would push the debate back to the side that the Conservatives were right regarding the economy and the Liberals are pushing the country to deficit. The Liberals didn't really have much influence on the 15-16 budget.

As it is, I believe the GDP shrank in Feb by 0.1%, so we really have to wait and see.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

bariutt said:


> Will Canada be able to withstand Liberal Governments managing our economy? Here is a synopsis of the economic management of 3 Liberal Governments
> 
> Pierre Trudeau’s Economic Management As Prime Minister
> 
> ...


Well Justin blew these numbers right out of the ball park.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

The thing is many Canadians don't know how to manage money.
Many are only a hundred dollars from major financial problems, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/200-financial-insolvency-2019-1.4986586
That was before COVID19, I don't imagine it's better.

Lots of people think the government should just "print money".
They honestly don't understand how any of this works.

So they think that Trudeau helping them is good, and they'll vote for it.
they don't understand enough to see how destructive his plans are.

Just like Daddy, he's a wannabe socialist dictator. I just wish he wasn't so politically capable.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau and Morneau did a good job of having Canada in great financial shape to deal with the pandemic spending. We are the envy of the world.

Unfortunately, the wealth and income gaps continue to create widening disparities and they have reached a critical point.

It was a situation that was predicable and well understood by economists. Wealth gaps are a natural side effect of any capitalist system.

That doesn't mean capitalist systems are inherently bad, but rather that they need adjustments to offset the known negative side effects.

Some economists have suggested a tax on production, instead of labor. Others have suggested a universal basic income as a solution.

Still others have proposed wealth taxes, changes to capital gains taxes and exemptions, and other redistribution measures through the tax system.

It will be interesting to see if November's financial budget provides some insight into how the government plans to address the problem.

They may choose to sweep the problem under the rug, as past governments have done for decades, or they may boldly initiate a solution.

Any changes will no doubt spark considerable debate and may be the basis for policy platforms in the next election.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Trudeau and Morneau did a good job of having Canada in great financial shape to deal with the pandemic spending. We are the envy of the world.
> 
> Unfortunately, the wealth and income gaps continue to create widening disparities and they have reached a critical point.
> 
> ...


You fail to explain why weath or income gap is a problem.

If someone does something more valuable, why shouldn't they get paid more?

I'm sorry, but it's a lot of work to become a doctor, I think they should have a higher income than some unemployed pothead. That's just me.

The thing with people who complain about the "wealth gap", they're just jealous that others have more. It's simple envy.

It's like "student loan debt", do you know how much debt I had when I graduated? 
None.
It was simple, I saved during HS (ie no car)
I then worked while at school, and lived really really cheaply.
My wife went to school, and did the same thing.

The thing is I wonder how many of these "wealth gap" whiners actually have multiple jobs, or a side hustle, or do they just complain about it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

When you complain about rising insolvencies and that people don't have $200 a month in discretionary income, you are identifying the problem of wealth and income gaps.

Canada's economic system is a consumer driven economy. The economy depends on consumers having discretionary income to buy goods and services.

When people don't have money to spend, the economy goes into a a self fulfilling downward spiral.

The solution isn't a "side hustle". It is working people earning enough to support themselves and the economy.

People work to live. They don't live to work.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The US has 10 times the population of Canada.

The US national debt is $30 Trillion dollars, and they have an additional unfunded liability of Trillions more for their bankrupt Social Security program.

Canada has a national debt of $1 Trillion and the CPP is stand alone and fully funded.

If people want to worry about national debt......they should worry about the US.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> When you complain about rising insolvencies and that people don't have $200 a month in discretionary income, you are identifying the problem of wealth and income gaps.
> 
> Canada's economic system is a consumer driven economy. The economy depends on consumers having discretionary income to buy goods and services.
> 
> ...


No I'm identifying that they aren't making good financial choices.

I know people who live paycheck to paycheck, they still have a big screen TV, and expensive cable packages.
You cancel cable, or don't buy that TV, and you'll have your $200 very quickly.

It is about choices and trade offs, not a lack of money.
People make enough to support themselves, they just spend it poorly.

I know many people who declared bankruptcy.
They ALL have newer more expensive cars than I do, they all have a bigger TV, and fancy cable packages.
They spend like maniacs, and wonder why they're in debt. They honestly don't see it.

It's a failure to accept responsibility for your choices.


I'm not saying there aren't those in need. But I am saying most Canadians have sufficient money to live comfortably, they're just making bad choices.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The statistics don't support your view. If "bad choice spending" were a significant problem, the economists would be already taking that into consideration.

The rising cost of the basics of shelter, food, utilities are outstripping any wage gains and working people are falling further behind year after year.

People have supplanted debt for insufficient wages, but that isn't a viable solution for the long term.

It has only created a bigger problem with diminishing disposable income due to debt repayment from earnings.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The statistics don't support your view. If "bad choice spending" were a significant problem, the economists would be already taking that into consideration.
> 
> The rising cost of the basics of shelter, food, utilities are outstripping any wage gains and working people are falling further behind year after year.
> 
> ...


What stats?


Yes lots of poor people file bankruptcy, but many don't, I didn't when I was poor.
But many people with higher incomes also file bankruptcy.
I'd bet most people here didn't declare bankruptcy when they were lower income either.


If it was _just_ a lack of income, you'd see bankruptcies disappear at a certain income level, but they don't.
I contend that higher income bankruptcies are largely due to bad decisions.

while some people simply don't have enough, and I can accept that, many Canadians have enough, they just manage it very poorly.
As I've stated, if you're $200 from insolvency, and you have cable TV, or even a physical TV, you're making bad choices.

I saved up my full emergency fund (3+ months of living expenses) before I replaced my TV.
If you didn't do that, it's a choice, and IMO a bad choice.


----------



## Emjay85 (Nov 9, 2014)

sags said:


> The US has 10 times the population of Canada.
> 
> The US national debt is $30 Trillion dollars, and they have an additional unfunded liability of Trillions more for their bankrupt Social Security program.
> 
> ...


When looking at debt to gdp, according to the article below, canada is in worse shape that the US.









Posthaste: Canada is leading the 'debt tsunami' now sweeping the world


'Global debt will smash through records to hit $277 trillion by the end of the year'




financialpost.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Emjay85 said:


> When looking at debt to gdp, according to the article below, canada is in worse shape that the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is the "rise" in debt to GDP during the pandemic.

It is true that Canada provided more financial support to Canadians than the US did for it's citizens.

Maybe that is why there are tens of thousands lined up in the US for food handouts. They are still arguing about a support package in the Congress.









Thousands in Texas line up in cars to receive food before Thanksgiving


The North Texas Food Bank distributed 600,000 pounds of food, including 7,280 turkeys, during the event.




www.cbsnews.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> What stats?
> 
> 
> Yes lots of poor people file bankruptcy, but many don't, I didn't when I was poor.
> ...


That is exactly why the Liberals have discussed a targeted financial support program for low income working folks.

The Federal government is only able to provide support within it's jurisdiction, so a hike in the minimum wage is not possible.

Raising the minimum wage is also hard on struggling small businesses. It is a better plan to get revenues from major corporations that pay no taxes in Canada.

Let's start by taxing the freeloaders and go from there.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

Wealth gap and the income gap are not Canadian made, they are due to forces we cannot control: 

Globalization forces average wages of the middle class down in developed nations and up in undeveloped nations (Capital moves freely) 
Technology also has the same trend line driving down average wages in the middle. (Who has an admin, when Microsoft has a calendar?)
Particular to Canada, the rise of the income gap in the US (much bigger divide) has a downward pressure in Canada (The upper middle move to the higher incomes in Canada as well). 
Current businesses in Canada are largely based on Commodities exports or individual (CCPC) where production outputs are falling due to the lack of technology investment 
No amount of taxation or wealth distribution will fix this problem. 

Canada needs to pull up its big boy pants and create a better capital growth environment, one where entrepreneurship is leading the way along with production improvements by adoption of technology. Canada needs to grow the capital and income pie.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree it is a global problem, and companies should "pull on their big boy pants" as GM just did in negotiating new truck production in Oshawa creating thousands of good paying jobs.

Some of the largest corporations in the world have taken advantage of manufacturing in low wage countries and selling their products in higher wage countries.

If those companies depended on selling within the markets where they manufacture their products, they would go bankrupt.

It has been a good "gig" while they got away with it, but the time has come for it to stop.

Canada loses an estimated $8 billion to $25 billion a year from corporations hiding their profits. 

That would pay for a small targeted UBI to low income folks that would be spent and circulate through the economy.

Instead, the CEOs of these corporations and wealthy people wave at us from their island paradise tax haven in Bermuda.

The least we can expect from them is that they pay a "fair" share of taxes in Canada.......where they peddle their goods.





__





Tackle tax havens


Governments around the world lose over US$600 billion in tax revenues every year from international corporate tax dodging – and many billions more from use of tax havens by wealthy individuals.




www.taxfairness.ca


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

afulldeck said:


> Wealth gap and the income gap are not Canadian made, they are due to forces we cannot control:


yes, it's called reality.
The reality is that different people provide different amounts of value.
What we CAN do is try to help people create more value.

Punishing the rich because we're envious is just evil, and counter-productive.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> yes, it's called reality.
> The reality is that different people provide different amounts of value.
> What we CAN do is try to help people create more value.
> 
> Punishing the rich because we're envious is just evil, and counter-productive.


Agreed. And that is why I said 

"...No amount of taxation or wealth distribution will fix this problem..."


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

afulldeck said:


> Agreed. And that is why I said
> 
> "...No amount of taxation or wealth distribution will fix this problem..."


Yes, but I think the issue is even more fundamental.

Some people think it's an artificial factor that's driving differential outcomes.
The truth is that there will always be differences, and you can't and don't even want to eliminate them.

We're richer and better than ever before, yet people keep pretending things like our abundant wealth is somehow a problem. It really shows an astonishing level of ignorance and lack of perspective.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If the asset owners "deserve" their wealth, do not the workers deserve their "share" for creating that wealth ?

Unless the wealthy person is a sole proprietor with no employees, they are depending on the work of others to earn their wealth.

There is no logic that the owner should always own an increasing share while the workers split a decreasing share.

If capitalism was founded on that ideal........they might as well stayed in Europe and lived under the feudal system.

Please kind sir....might I have some more ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> If the asset owners "deserve" their wealth, do not the workers deserve their "share" for creating that wealth ?


Well I think if you create an asset, you should own it.
I also think if you work on creating an asset, you should be compensated it. That's actually the underlying concept behind paid work.

I think owners and workers both deserve a share of the value they create.

I've never really understood this "worker vs owner" thing, it's really quite weird.
The owners need workers, and the workers need owners. They can be the same person, or different people.
Under our current system, you can be either or both, it's YOUR CHOICE.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

And when things get extreme, like in revolutionary France, the workers put the owners' heads on sticks.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> If the asset owners "deserve" their wealth, do not the workers deserve their "share" for creating that wealth ?


To the risk takers (who created the asset) goes the spoils. The worker (human tech) is only a byproduct of fluctuating need of the asset owner that could be discarded at any time. It is unfortunate, that workers can be found nearly anywhere for lower and lower prices or replaced by non-bio tech, but true. You cannot stop the world at the border. This is why I believe entrepreneurship is the only way out of this dilemma. Canada workers need to walk away from the traditional/regular employment" of working for someone/megacorp" and created their own money making asset. Sounds easy, but it is not. Short term support by the government would be useful during that transition. 

In the not too distant past, I was listening to a podcast where Craig Alexander (former chief Economist at TD) made the point that one of the reasons Canada has been a productivity laggard was that asset owners in Canada unexpectedly shared their wealth with the workers at the expense of productivity. 

So are we forgetting history? One thread to the luddite movement, two hundred years ago, was the fight against technology because it was tearing apart how people lived in favour of working 6am to 10pm during the industrial revolution. I find it rather ironic, from that point of view of a luddite today might be able to have the cake and eat it to. The great, great, great grand sons/daughters of a luddite father now can use technology ironically, to create their own assets (cake) and still live in mom's basement and eating that cake.

All that needs to happen is today's human tech needs to use their brains for themselves rather than renting them to someone else for exploitation.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Small business owners haven't fared well. They have been crushed by mega-corporations like fast food companies and large store retailers. Now the large store retailers are under attack from huge online retailers like Amazon. Starting a small business is almost impossible today. There is no funding available and unless a person has their own or family assets it isn't going to happen. There are a fortunate few who manage to become successful, but if you look at the origins of many successful small businesses today, they were started many years ago and passed on to the family members who are operating them today. The same is true in the farming sector.

A few years ago, we considered starting a company with our son, who is a skilled tradesman. After investigating, we discovered there is no financial aid available for startups and without financial aid to purchase the necessary equipment to do the job......it is a pointless exercise. It takes time and money to build a business......lots of money in his case.

I know there are some who say.....just go start a business, but it is hardly that easy to support yourself and family, while trying to build a business.

I don't necessarily disagree that the situation is going to get worse with the development of technology.......but there is still the million dollar question.

As full time well paid jobs disappear for whatever reason........how are people going to make money to live, pay taxes, and save for retirement ? 

Maybe we will just pretend all those unemployed people don't exist.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> Small business owners haven't fared well. They have been crushed by mega-corporations like fast food companies and large store retailers. Now the large store retailers are under attack from huge online retailers like Amazon. Starting a small business is almost impossible today. There is no funding available and unless a person has their own or family assets it isn't going to happen. There are a fortunate few who manage to become successful, but if you look at the origins of many successful small businesses today, they were started many years ago and passed on to the family members who are operating them today. The same is true in the farming sector.
> 
> A few years ago, we considered starting a company with our son, who is a skilled tradesman. After investigating, we discovered there is no financial aid available for startups and without financial aid to purchase the necessary equipment to do the job......it is a pointless exercise. It takes time and money to build a business......lots of money in his case.
> 
> ...


I'm sad for you, you've lost before you even started. 

Starting a business is hard work. When your poor, its extremely difficult, but not impossible. I know from experience. Pulling yourself up by your own boot straps, may permit you the luxury to live in a tent for a year-and Canada isn't that cold if you get a couple of sleeping bags. Too many people want the big hat, but are unhappy trying to earn the hat pushing the manure out of the way. Why should anyone feel entitled to magically be a winner without failing? Being hungry has its benefits and being driven by a hungry family perhaps even more benefits. 

But all is not lost, companies can grow quickly if you put in the work. Shopify built itself into a mega corporation in less than 16 years from a dead start in 2004 after failing selling their snowboards....Right now I'm betting some of the most successful companies are being built in basements and behind garages during this pandemic. Its a great time to start a business, when everyone claims its too hard.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

COVID certainly hasn't been kind to small businesses, while at the same time many large corporations have been posting record profits. They have the resources to adapt in ways that small business owners just can't compete with. They also operate at a scale that allows them to offer goods and services for less than the independent entrepreneur, so they will continue to fill the majority of the demand. The idea of everyone being an entrepreneur sounds great, but in reality most will be unable to find a niche where they can actually compete. We've already seen many people leaving traditional employment and working in the gig economy, but they often end up worse off than before. There is only so much demand for these services, and plenty of people wanting a piece of the pie. These "side hustles" are really meant for students or to supplement a regular income, not replace it.

Other ideas for income, such as being a landlord, only work well until lots of people start doing it. What happens when you have 10 million landlords but only 9 million potential renters? And the typical landlord will need multiple properties in order to make enough income to replace a job.

The top percentile of people in IQ or ability will almost always find a way to be sucessful at business or do something unconventional, the rest of the population will end up fighting for whatever good jobs are left... and those who lose will end up in the gig economy, minimum wage jobs, or social assistance.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I can think of 350+ billion reasons to say no, we can’t afford them. Then again, I’m not sags.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I prefer to think of it as..........I am not you.


----------



## Emjay85 (Nov 9, 2014)

You guys are the cutest


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Walmart made $129B in profit last year, but at least 14,500 of their employees receive SNAP (food stamps) benefits. 

McDonald's made $11B in profit, but at least 8,780 employees receive SNAP (food stamps) benefits. 

The next companies with large number of workers on federal benefits include Dollar Tree, Dollar General, Amazon, Burger King and FedEx, the GAO found. (Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)



https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/18/food-stamps-medicaid-mcdonalds-walmart-bernie-sanders/


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Walmart made $129B in profit last year, but at least 14,500 of their employees receive SNAP (food stamps) benefits.
> 
> McDonald's made $11B in profit, but at least 8,780 employees receive SNAP (food stamps) benefits.
> 
> ...


How many hours did those staff work?
Were they even available for full time work?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Wow, more debt








Federal deficit on track to exceed $381B, as spending increases in wake of second COVID-19 wave


The federal government is unveiling a new round of financial supports to respond to the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, as the latest projections show the national deficit is projected to hit a new high: at least $381.6 billion this fiscal year.



www.ctvnews.ca





That's $10k debt per person, or about $15k per employed person.

If every working person worked 2000hours/yr (approx full time), they'd have to pay $7.5/hr to the government to cover the deficit this last year.

The Liberals are clearly out of control.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

MrMatt said:


> The Liberals are clearly out of control.


MrMatt, you're going to have to start telling us stuff we don't already know.

ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> MrMatt, you're going to have to start telling us stuff we don't already know.


No kidding ... going into debt while in a pandemic ... shocking!


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

cainvest said:


> No kidding ... going into debt while in a pandemic ... shocking!


There's a difference between a reasonable debt and ridiculous debt.

I realize the left has trouble with that concept. 

It's like Cainvest going out and financing a brand new Bugatti Veyron for 2 million dollars when he should have bought a Ford for $30K.

Do you see the difference now?

ltr


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> There's a difference between a reasonable debt and ridiculous debt.
> 
> I realize the left has trouble with that concept.
> 
> ...


Ya, I know the difference ... they're all going to suck (PC, Liberal, NDP) just in different ways. In any case, someone is always going to whine (some continuously) that their party didn't get in. FYI, I didn't vote Liberal.


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

Very concerned at this Fall fiscal update. Why is it necessary to use words like feminist and intersectional? Have the Woke Left overtaken the Liberal Party of Canada? Are there no males suffering in the COVID world?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> MrMatt, you're going to have to start telling us stuff we don't already know.
> 
> ltr


Well they just announced these numbers in the latest update today. 
While you already know that the Liberal spending is out of control, it is at a higher level.

Of course the announcements that they want to embark in even more massive programs we couldn't afford in good times, and we definately can't afford now.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> Walmart made $129B in profit last year


Wrong. 2019 net income was 15B.



> McDonald's made $11B in profit,


2019 net income was $6B.

You're looking at gross profit, which is wrong. It is actually so wrong that in Walmart's case, you used the number _before they paid their employees._ Selling General and Admin expense includes the cost to run their stores, pay their staff,etc. and it cost them $109B of that $129B gross profit (just the money they made over the purchase price of the goods they sold).

I wonder how much of this kind of 'burn the rich' socialist talk is motivated by fundamental lack of understanding of how businesses work and financial reports. Walmart made a net income of $15B on 523B in revenue. That's just 2.86% net income margin. You can only raise their SG&A (~cost to run their stores) by about 14% before they start to lose money, or need to raise prices/eliminate jobs to stay in business.

It's fine to say you want $25/hr minimum wage, but realize it won't be the evil capitalists that will eat that increase. You will start paying $3.50 for the Timmies double double etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

robfordlives said:


> Very concerned at this Fall fiscal update. Why is it necessary to use words like feminist and intersectional? Have the Woke Left overtaken the Liberal Party of Canada? Are there no males suffering in the COVID world?


Why use words like "woke left" ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Wrong. 2019 net income was 15B.
> 
> 
> 2019 net income was $6B.
> ...


My post was accurate, but you did prove my point.

Of course Walmart's accountants deploy all kinds of tax dodges and loopholes, legal and often illegal, to reduce their taxable income to the lowest possible number. It is a testament to their skills that they can turn $169 Billion in profits into $6 Billion in "net" income. That is the game they play.

That is nothing new for Walmart. They have been doing it for years. Any google search shows they got caught in Mexico, set up shady corporations in Hong Kong and have offshore accounts in tax havens all over the world, and no doubt there is a lot more that hasn't been found.

I don't pretend to understand Walmart's balance sheet. That would take teams of expert forensic accountants to dig through it and follow the money trail.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Finance Minister Freeland said......

_"Spending roughly three to four per cent of GDP, over three years, our government will make carefully judged, targeted and meaningful investments to create jobs and boost growth."

Freeland said the stimulus program will help guard against long-term damage to the economy. She said government debt is *highly affordable* now, due to Canada's strong past economic performance and low interest rates._

Canada restructured the national debt for longer periods at lower interest rates. The cost of servicing the debt is lower today than it was before the pandemic.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> My post was accurate, but you did prove my point.
> 
> Of course Walmart's accountants deploy all kinds of tax dodges and loopholes, legal and often illegal, to reduce their taxable income to the lowest possible number. It is a testament to their skills that they can turn $169 Billion in profits into $6 Billion in "net" income. That is the game they play.
> 
> ...


You claim they had 169 billion in profit, but you don't understand their balance sheet?
Since when is paying staff a "tax dodge" or "loophole"?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Why use words like "woke left" ?


To differentiate between the crazy racist/sexist left, and normal lefties.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> You claim they had 169 billion in profit, but you don't understand their balance sheet?
> Since when is paying staff a "tax dodge" or "loophole"?


I don't thinks sags is interested in factual information, just attention grabbing numbers like many bad reporters use. In this case he should have just stated Walmart "raked in 514 billion last year" or "takes about 1 trillion dollars from people every two years".


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

If half the working class is on food stamps today it is because liberals sent all the good union manufacturing jobs overseas in the seventies and eighties, and were proud of it.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> If half the working class is on food stamps today it is because liberals sent all the good union manufacturing jobs overseas in the seventies and eighties, and were proud of it.


And they cut patent protection for pharmaceuticals, then act surprised that the vaccine capacity left the country.
They need to realize their actions have consequences.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> Of course Walmart's accountants deploy all kinds of tax dodges and loopholes, legal and often illegal, to reduce their taxable income to the lowest possible number. It is a testament to their skills that they can turn $169 Billion in profits into $6 Billion in "net" income. That is the game they play.


You need to take an accounting course....and pass.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I need to get Walmart to do my taxes and reduce my "net" income from $xxx,xxx to $x.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I need to get Walmart to do my taxes and reduce my "net" income from $xxx,xxx to $x.


That's easy, hire someone and pay them for the work they do, maybe even health insurance.

Those are the "accounting tricks" that Walmart uses.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> My post was accurate, but you did prove my point.
> 
> Of course Walmart's accountants deploy all kinds of tax dodges and loopholes, legal and often illegal, to reduce their taxable income to the lowest possible number. It is a testament to their skills that they can turn $169 Billion in profits into $6 Billion in "net" income. That is the game they play.
> 
> ...


No, you're wrong.

$129B gross profit is not real money in their pocket. They buy XBoxes and Corn flakes for $500 (money that goes to Microsoft and Kelloggs) and sell them for $600=$100 gross profit. That is before they pay a dime for the store that they sold the product in, before they paid for the cashier operating the register, the clerk who put it on the shelf, the truck driver who delivered it, the warehouse workers who handled it, the merchandizers who worked with the vendor to buy the products, the advertising to bring the customers in the store, the software developers and IT staff that make all the systems work,. etc. etc. etc.

At best you could look at EBITDA. Gross profit is just wrong. EBITDA is their profit after they pay all their bills and staff but before they set aside money for income taxes, replacing their worn out equipment/systems/stores, and paying interest on their debts. If you don't replace your worn out equipment, pay your taxes or your debt interest, you don't have a sustainable business either. 

Using gross profit is laughable.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> And they cut patent protection for pharmaceuticals, then act surprised that the vaccine capacity left the country.
> They need to realize their actions have consequences.


Those don't follow each other.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> I need to get Walmart to do my taxes and reduce my "net" income from $xxx,xxx to $x.


I think part of the problem is you don't understand accounting so conclude it must be all voodoo and manipulation. It's not magic. Sure, accountants/lawyers can make a difference on the margin with some aggressive strategies to reduce taxable income, but they can't just make stuff up. Beyond that, all those strategies are to reduce taxable income on their tax filings with the government, which is a separate set of books from their financial reports that they report to investors (and where you plucked the gross profit number from). Generally, companies want to make their net income look bigger, if anything. That's what supports a higher share price through Price/Earning ratio and what executives get compensated for.

So Walmart's 2.86% net income margin was them trying to make their income look as good as they can get away with under accounting principles. It is nonsense that a company would want to hide profits from their current/prospective investors.


I would also say that you don't need a university degree or even an accounting course to understand the basics of this. You could watch a youtube video that would give you a pretty good explanation of all this in under an hour, if you cared to learn. I always found that learning how the world works is very empowering.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Tax evasion 101.









The Walmart Web - Americans For Tax Fairness


How the World’s Biggest Corporation Secretly Uses Tax Havens to Dodge Taxes A groundbreaking report reveals that Walmart has built a vast, undisclosed network of 78 subsidiaries and branches in 15 overseas tax havens, which may be used to minimize foreign taxes where it has retail operations and...




americansfortaxfairness.org


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

DId you even read what you linked?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yes, it is informative but only the tip of the iceberg.

Walmart borrows from itself and pays interest to itself.

Walmart rents property from itself.

Walmart creates a ficticious company in China to avoid billions in taxes.

Walmart cheats local municipalities and States out of tax dollars.

The Walton family created tax dodges to avoid estate taxes.

And on and on and on........



https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walmart-dodged-2-6-billion-151531554.html



If anyone feels obligated to defend these corporate pirates..........have at it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm not defending them, I am pointing out blatantly incorrect interpretations of financial reports.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Those don't follow each other.


If one country gives you 10 years of patents and the other


sags said:


> Yes, it is informative but only the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> Walmart borrows from itself and pays interest to itself.
> 
> ...


Well they could always fix the tax laws.
The problem is that the government creates all sorts of unfair rules to encourage/discourage particular behaviour, and the companies use the laws to their benefit.

The problem is that the governments are scheming to benefit friends, and steal the business or tax revenue from each other, without breaking the various agreements with each other.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The fiscal update by FM Freeland has raised criticism and condemnation by conservative politicians and conservative media alike.

So much so, that conservative politicians question her background and competence and conservative supporters have taken to criticizing Freeland's gender, stature, the clothes she wears, her hair and hand gestures and even the size of her booty.

But, when asked by the media what their solution would be, the conservative politicians respond with "we aren't the government so we don't need a plan".

I find that an unacceptable answer from a political party that hopes to become the government. If they have an alternative solution..........let's hear it.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> The fiscal update by FM Freeland has raised criticism and condemnation by conservative politicians and conservative media alike.


Not the conservative media at all...








Liberal economic statement an act of deception


In Chrystia Freeland’s fall economic statement, the Liberal government fails to confront two truths that undermine their commitments




www.theglobeandmail.com





And with the deputy minister, with a long history of working with reds and blues walk away immediately. You know they are also criticizing it. 








Finance Canada’s deputy minister Paul Rochon announces departure day after fiscal update


In a Tuesday email sent to finance department staff, which was obtained by The Globe, Mr. Rochon said he would leave effective Dec. 14




www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think companies make vaccines where it is most cost effective to do so (good infrastructure, availability and cost of skilled workers, tax and regulatory regime, proximity to markets) and not based on patents, which would apply whether they make the vaccine there or not. I don't think big businesses like pharma make decisions out of spite when it hurts their pocket book.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> The fiscal update by FM Freeland has raised criticism and condemnation.................


Seriously sags, you should take a pause when you read that Finance Canada's top bureaucrat announces departure a day after the government's fall economic update. Even with your devout socialist blinders on, you have to take notice when Finance Canada’s highest-ranking bureaucrat for the past six and a half years, announced he's leaving with less than 2 weeks notice immediately after Freeland's speech. 

Fine, Bill Morneau resigns as finance minister and you can somehow justify this, but this latest exit must create some small doubt in your mind about how bad things have gotten in this completely inept government? 

You're a smart guy - wake up.........

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I doubt Mr. Roche left because of the fiscal update, as it says in the article that he helped develop it.

Morneau......perhaps he was unhappy with the direction of the finances. Or, since he resigned as an MP maybe he didn't like the public scrutiny of politics.

I liked Morneau, but it doesn't appear that he was particularly interesting in helping people living in his riding as an MP. 

He just said......adios and left.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> No, you're wrong.
> 
> $129B gross profit is not real money in their pocket. They buy XBoxes and Corn flakes for $500 (money that goes to Microsoft and Kelloggs) and sell them for $600=$100 gross profit. That is before they pay a dime for the store that they sold the product in, before they paid for the cashier operating the register, the clerk who put it on the shelf, the truck driver who delivered it, the warehouse workers who handled it, the merchandizers who worked with the vendor to buy the products, the advertising to bring the customers in the store, the software developers and IT staff that make all the systems work,. etc. etc. etc.
> 
> ...


My kids run a small business, I remember last year my 7yr old having a discussion with a business professor about product margins and inventory management. These aren't difficult concepts.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> I doubt Mr. Roche left because of the fiscal update, as it says in the article that he helped develop it.


Its Paul Rochon, not Roche. And he was extremely unhappy with the "...future stimulus package worth up to $100-billion.."-----er slush fund.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

afulldeck said:


> Its Paul Rochon, not Roche. And he was extremely unhappy with the "...future stimulus package worth up to $100-billion.."-----er slush fund.


See they learned from the WE scandal.
You don't just give a billion dollars to your friends, you give out a hundred billion dollars, and make sure your friends get it.

How much do you want to bet that there will be lots of "good government & Union jobs" with this plan?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> ...How much do you want to bet that there will be lots of "good government & Union jobs" with this plan?


and you can bet that nothing will be tendered because it is a "national emergency".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rochon's departure has been planned since last September. He stayed on to work closely with Freeland on the financial update spending.

_In his note, the deputy minister highlights the department’s work that he says allowed Canada to: “escape the ravages” of the 2008 financial crisis, enter the COVID-19 pandemic “in a strong fiscal position,” have a highly regarded public pension system, and put in place policies “that lessened the build-up in household indebtedness thereby avoiding potentially devastating impacts on households.” _

Rochon's likely replacement also resigned from the Bank of Canada. There is nothing that says Rochon was unhappy with the spending.

_But his resignation did not come as a surprise to some sources on Tuesday, who pointed to a September National Post report on speculation that Freeland might be replace Rochon with Carolyn Wilkins, then senior deputy governor at the Bank of Canada. _

The conservatives continue feeble attempts to spin the government spending into an ominous adventure.

The spending will come before Parliament for passage and the Conservatives have a chance to show Canadians where they stand.









Finance Canada's top bureaucrat announces departure a day after the government's fall economic update


Rochon’s departure means that the Liberals will have changed both their finance minister and the head of the finance department in the span of a few months,…




nationalpost.com


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

kcowan said:


> and you can bet that nothing will be tendered because it is a "national emergency".


National emergency is that normal Canadians are furious with Trudeaus ineptitude, and that without significant bribes to special interest groups they might not win the next election.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Except that....."normal" Canadians give the Conservatives an 8% chance of winning the next election.

My only quibble with the Liberals is they aren't spending enough. Now is the time to put the foot on the throttle and build back better.

Maybe the Liberals are holding back on the "big" spending for a future election platform.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm not a conservative, but I think O'Toole has been decent so far. It is easy to take pot shots, of course. I will reserve judgment until the next election. I fear he will have to pander too much to social conservatives and the energy sector to earn my vote. I am deeply concerned about the fiscal hole we find ourselves in, as someone who pays much more tax than he receives in benefits.


----------



## afulldeck (Mar 28, 2012)

sags said:


> My only quibble with the Liberals is they aren't spending enough. Now is the time to put the foot on the throttle and build back better.


If by better, you mean smaller. I can agree with that. If by better you mean bloated government not a chance. We have way too much government now.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I'm not a conservative, but I think O'Toole has been decent so far. It is easy to take pot shots, of course. I will reserve judgment until the next election. I fear he will have to pander too much to social conservatives and the energy sector to earn my vote. I am deeply concerned about the fiscal hole we find ourselves in, as someone who pays much more tax than he receives in benefits.


I am hopeful that O'Toole will be able to deal with them by being honest and pragmatic about what they can reasonably do. Worked for Harper.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Harper ruled the party with an iron fist-that's how he kept the social conservatives under control. Not sure O'Toole has that streak in him. To be fair, I don't know if there are any big social progressive objectives that haven't been achieved yet, so I guess all O'Toole needs to do is keep his party from challenging the status quo (trying to recriminalize marijuana, etc.). O'Toole might have some luck trying to bury climate science (Harper was big on this) or generally be anti-science (underfunding basic research, being anti-statistics/anti-census). Maybe some 'tough on crime' posturing like mandatory minimums that take away discretion from judges and drive up prison costs and lead to high recidivism (criminal university).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Harper ruled the party with an iron fist-that's how he kept the social conservatives under control. Not sure O'Toole has that streak in him. To be fair, I don't know if there are any big social progressive objectives that haven't been achieved yet, so I guess all O'Toole needs to do is keep his party from challenging the status quo (trying to recriminalize marijuana, etc.). O'Toole might have some luck trying to bury climate science (Harper was big on this) or generally be anti-science (underfunding basic research, being anti-statistics/anti-census). Maybe some 'tough on crime' posturing like mandatory minimums that take away discretion from judges and drive up prison costs and lead to high recidivism (criminal university).


Harper delivered elections, so they let him have tighter control.
Trudueau rules with tan iron fist as well, even worse than Harper, and they again tolerate it because he delivered wins.

I think the PMO has become way too powerful, particularly under Harper and Trudeau.

Yeah marijuanna is a lost cause, legalizing was a bad idea that ran contradictory to the science, but hey they won an election.

I can accept that prison doesn't make thing better.
But we have a crime problem, and it isn't getting resolved.
It's so bad the police often don't even respond to break ins in many cities.

Tough on crime might not work, but soft on crime is worse.


----------

