PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Benefits the power base in Alberta. That's why.

They have no issues using the powers of the federal government to ram something through if it serves their interest. Imagine how the CPC would react if say a LPO government decided to pass legislation heavily restricting the use of firearms in Ontario. It's the same Republican nonsense you see in the US. "States rights." Only for issues that Republicans care about and can win at the state level. For some reason, the conservatives don't seem to understand, they can actually win and form government more often if they actually act like a national party instead of Alberta's federal representatives.

Exactly. And I find this to be a very disturbing detour for a national government because it openly exacerbates provincial level divisions. There is nothing national about party that want to run like the Bloc.

AoD

 

[Johnny Au]

A Conservative Party that isn't filled with ex-Reformers and their acolytes. This election should have been easy for them. But the CPC has decided to become a regional party, Alberta's version of the Bloc, rather than compete in all of Canada. So where all Canadians care about climate change, the CPC decides that is irrelevant, because it hurts Alberta's interests. Where various provinces consider federal interference offensive, suddenly, it's less so if they have to ram a pipeline through to benefit Alberta. And then Conservatives wonder why they don't do well elsewhere.

We are quickly coming up on a time period where the largest voting cohort age wise will be Millennials. And the Conservative Party seems to entirely ignore so many of their priorities and concerns. Even if they squeak through a minority this election, their long term prospects look worse as the gap between them and the millennial cohort grows.

That is quickly becoming true in the general sense, but I know of some exceptions.

As a Millennial NDPer, I personally know of Millennials who consistently vote Conservative, such as my brother who is one year older than I am (he's more interested in balancing budgets).

 

[BurlOak]

That is quickly becoming true in the general sense, but I know of some exceptions.

As a Millennial NDPer, I personally know of Millennials who consistently vote Conservative, such as my brother who is one year older than I am (he's more interested in balancing budgets).

How could your brother be that way.
Everyone knows the best option is to run up deficits and steal money and quality of life from our children and grandchildren.
Screw the future and party like there's no tomorrow.

 

[kEiThZ]

How could your brother be that way.
Everyone knows the best option is to run up deficits and steal money and quality of life from our children and grandchildren.
Screw the future and party like there's no tomorrow.

If only the Conservatives actually cared about balanced budgets. Scheer could have balanced the budget this term. Instead his tax cuts mean, balancing the budget in 5 years.

As someone not voting Lib this time, I wish I actually had a fiscally responsible option that wasn't a nutter fringe party (PPC). For the life of me, I can't understand why conservative parties always start out by making the hole bigger while claiming the hole needs to be filled in urgently.

 

[BurlOak]

If only the Conservatives actually cared about balanced budgets. Scheer could have balanced the budget this term. Instead his tax cuts mean, balancing the budget in 5 years.

As someone not voting Lib this time, I wish I actually had a fiscally responsible option that wasn't a nutter fringe party (PPC). For the life of me, I can't understand why conservative parties always start out by making the hole bigger while claiming the hole needs to be filled in urgently.

I don't disagree with you that balancing the budget is important, but you have to put it in context.

• The US economy has been outperforming ours over the last 4 years. It seems reasonable to do something about it. And I don't think anyone can argue that the tax cuts proposed will improve our competitiveness with our neighbours.
• I'd like the budget balanced tomorrow, so I have to choose if it's better to balance it in 5 years, or increase the deficit in 5 years and plan on balancing sometimes in the 2050's.
• It appears Scheer is using the similar playbook to Ford - not making cuts but gradually reducing the rate of increase in spending - since we all realize that it is the spending that went up disproportionately in the past few years. And the booming Ford economy is an example of how this strategy can work. I imagine Scheer will show more humility than Ford - which is likely Fords greatest fault.
• It seems some undecided people say they will support the Conservatives if they produce a plan that is 100% agreeable to them - if not they will vote Liberal. Then when the Liberals screw up, they blame the Conservatives for not producing the absolute best platform. I prefer to support the party and platform that will perform the best in the short, mid, and long term and am willing to make some sacrifices because no party can align fully with my ideals.

 

[kEiThZ]

The US economy has been outperforming ours over the last 4 years. It seems reasonable to do something about it. And I don't think anyone can argue that the tax cuts proposed will improve our competitiveness with our neighbours.

I vehemently disagree with this argument. It's as bad as Liberals who try and defend deficit financing of social programs.

The American economy is being propped up by deficit spending. If Trudeau ran a $70 billion deficit (about the same as the 4% of GDP Trump is running for 2019), our economy would perform fantastically too.

I feel like I'm losing my mind when people who call themselves conservatives defend insane levels of deficit spending while unemployment is low and GDP is growing.

 

[BurlOak]

I vehemently disagree with this argument. It's as bad as Liberals who try and defend deficit financing of social programs.

The American economy is being propped up by deficit spending. If Trudeau ran a $70 billion deficit (about the same as the 4% of GDP Trump is running for 2019), our economy would perform fantastically too.

I feel like I'm losing my mind when people who call themselves conservatives defend insane levels of deficit spending while unemployment is low and GDP is growing.

Isn't that best case - you get the USA to ring up the deficit, and allow it to pull up the Canadian economy.
But philosophically, it's a very bad sign when a government rings up deficits (or increases their magnitude) in a strong economy.

 

[kEiThZ]

Isn't that best case - you get the USA to ring up the deficit, and allow it to pull up the Canadian economy.

No. Because when they crash, and they will, we need to have enough room to recover. The reason Harper had so much room to play with was because of Martin and Chretien's cuts. Trudeau's deficit will hurt us next recession. And weirdly, we have the Conservatives prioritizing tax cuts over balanced budgets. They could have argued that they were being the adults in the room. Instead, they seem to think the Doug Ford playbook would get them to power. Gross.
.
I'm also sick of ignorance of how poor the situation actually is in the US. Social security is facing insolvency in 2035. For comparison, CPP is actuarially sound through 2050. Their total public debt-to-gdp is higher than Spain when they had their crisis. And Trump is running massive deficits trying to keep the economy afloat till the election, while opponents propose a whole bunch of new spending. The Americans are in for a massive reckoning next decade. I'd rather not join them.

 

[BurlOak]

No. Because when they crash, and they will, we need to have enough room to recover. The reason Harper had so much room to play with was because of Martin and Chretien's cuts. Trudeau's deficit will hurt us next recession. And weirdly, we have the Conservatives prioritizing tax cuts over balanced budgets. They could have argued that they were being the adults in the room. Instead, they seem to think the Doug Ford playbook would get them to power. Gross.

I don't deny that Martin left things in much better shape that Trudeau has left it.
But Harpers GST cut in 2006 helped provide taxpayers the needed money to maintain enough spending through the tough times.
Assuming Trump wins, I think the next crash may be far enough into the future that Scheer would have had the deficit down close to single digits.

 

[kEiThZ]

Assuming Trump wins, I think the next crash may be far enough into the future that Scheer would have had the deficit down close to single digits.

1) Trump ain't winning. He won by the skin of his teeth last time. Literally three states decided the electoral college with ~80 000 votes. Those three states had a combined population of 28 million. I don't think there's even actually been an American election this close in the Electoral College, in their history. The Green Party actually won more votes than the margin of victory in those three states.

In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Ms Stein got 51,463, 49,678, and 31,006 votes respectively, whereas Mr Trump won by a margin of 10,704, 46,765, and 22,177 in the same states, new figures show.

How Gary Johnson and Jill Stein helped elect Donald Trump

Neither Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson nor the Green Party's Jill Stein managed to make a dent in the Electoral College, but they did post a significant enough showing in several states arguably to help elect Donald Trump.

www.cnn.com

I doubt people get duped like that again. It's as though someone got lucky on the Lotto once and think they are sure to win it again. I'd believe he had a better shot if he had actually done more to grow his base. But that ship has sailed.....

2) The recession is not that far off. Manufacturing has started contracting. Agriculture is seeing bankruptcies and delinquencies going up. These are all leading indicators. Which means, whatever happens today in our election, Scheer or Trudeau will probably be dealing with a US recession in the next 2 years. So acting like they can run up huge deficits is adding to the irresponsibility of Trudeau's $80 billion cumulative deficits in this term.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

2) The recession is not that far off. Manufacturing has started contracting. Agriculture is seeing bankruptcies and delinquencies going up. These are all leading indicators. Which means, whatever happens today in our election, Scheer or Trudeau will probably be dealing with a US recession in the next 2 years. So acting like they can run up huge deficits is adding to the irresponsibility of Trudeau's $80 billion cumulative deficits in this term.

Ironically the only way out of that would be through debt (and possibly pension-fund) financed infrastructure spending - which will require racking up deficit almost by default. We all know the consumer is pretty maxed out by almost a decade of low-interest rate borrowing.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

Ironically the only way out of that would be through debt (and possibly pension-fund) financed infrastructure spending - which will require racking up deficit almost by default. We all know the consumer is pretty maxed out by almost a decade of low-interest rate borrowing.

AoD

Yep. Which is why I've never been happy with Trudeau financing so much of his social (non-infrastructure) spending. So what happens if there's a recession? Are Trudeau and Scheer going to run 50+ billion annual deficits for 3-4 years to keep their existing promises?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yep. Which is why I've never been happy with Trudeau financing so much of his social (non-infrastructure) spending. So what happens if there's a recession? Are Trudeau and Scheer going to run 50+ billion annual deficits for 3-4 years to keep their existing promises?

Raise the GST - the 2% reduction did almost nothing.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Raise the GST - the 2% reduction did almost nothing.

AoD

Remember though, that reduction only really occurred from Ontario west; in Quebec and the Maritimes, the provinces took up that space, raising their provincial taxes to 10% so the HST has remained 15%.

I think its Ontario that should be raising the HST before the Feds.

I'd rather see the feds modestly increase corporate tax, as collected. Since Canada has among the very lowest effective corporate tax rates in the world.

We could do that by raising the rates; or by removing some of the credits/dedudctions that lower the effective rate, such as a accelerated capital cost depreciation, R&D credits that aren't very effective, the Business entertainment deduction, or capital gains as they apply to Business.

I'd also like to see streamlining of personal income tax, but more on a revenue-neutral basis. Eliminating deductions and raising capital gains inclusion but off-setting that with a much higher basic personal exemption.

I think if the Feds raise their portion of HST (raising sales tax to 17% in Quebec and points east) the would have to offer a considerable increase in transfers to provinces and a very tangible program gain. (as opposed to using the revenue to manage the deficit).

 

[BurlOak]

This is funny - even on election day Trudeau break the law while voting. Is there no law the Trudeau respects or is he above them all?
First, bringing kids into the voting "booth". Second, having kid deposit ballot into box.
It looks like the worker at the desk is torn whether to tell Trudeau.
(couldn't figure out how to post only the lower video).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1186322833988820992