The "LOLCANADA" thread...again
So what's new?
I've noticed the Liberals are now ahead in all major polls and Trudeau hasn't even started to campaign yet...i'd be shocked if they lost the election now.
Just shows just how incompetent Conservatives are.
Btw your friendly reminder that Poilievre has released almost no details about how he would actually govern but for axing the rebate. Would he cut any other taxes? Income? Gst? Corporate? We have no idea but guesses. Won’t say. Any interview asked about what HE would do he just tells us his twisted anti-Trudeau narrative. But like lozen that way.
he will be less leftist and that's already so much better that people are going to cry of joy for that.
You were “honest” about your feelings that you didn’t care at all of your leader suppresses free speech of his party members and insists on ironclad deference to him at all times. But you were not “honest” about facts when you spouted conspiratorial nonsense that the CBC has some mandate to promote liberals when by law it is non-partisan and this born out in practice. Name the last time they had a panel that didn’t have one person who leaned towards each party
Lol, asking party members to stay on point and walk the party line is not suppressing free speech. Lol if you actually believe the cbc is non-partisan, like come on man, if you want people to take you serious at least be honest.
Lol, asking party members to stay on point and walk the party line is not suppressing free speech. Lol if you actually believe the cbc is non-partisan, like come on man, if you want people to take you serious at least be honest.
History revisionist?
Many in the government and in the party couldn’t even speak to the media .
That far exceed the “maintaining the party line”…
But the whole business flew in the face of the controlled messaging strategy developed by Harper. Information on when the cabinet was meeting was no longer made public, and Commons security guards were ordered to keep reporters from hanging around near the cabinet room. This pattern held true, generally speaking, for all interactions between the Conservatives and reporters. The informal, movable scrums that were a part of life at provincial legislatures and, previously, at Parliament Hill became the exception with the Harper Conservatives.
Aside from leaks by the political arm of the government that were designed to get pro-Conservative coverage, information basically dried up under Harper. Many cabinet ministers — Jim Flaherty and Jason Kenney being exceptions — were reluctant to do interviews or even talk to the media.
In October 2015, Canadian voters elected a Liberal majority government, ousting the Conservative administration of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in power since 2006. Science and *scientists have rarely been Canadian election issues. Under Harper, though, the muzzling of government scientists became known internationally. Now, as journalists gain renewed access to *scientists, Canadians are gaining a glimpse behind a nearly decade-long curtain of tight communication control.
Prior to Harper, journalists could contact Canadian federal scientists directly for interviews. Under Harper, that changed radically.
In 2008, Environment Canada scientists and staff were informed by their executive management that “just as we have ‘one department, one website,’ we should have ‘one department, one voice.’” This was leaked by a senior scientist to journalist Margaret Munro.
At the time, Gregory Jack, acting director of Environment Canada's ministerial and executive services, told Munro and Canwest media that the policy shift was to bring Environment Canada in line with other federal departments. He insisted on 1 February 2008 that “there is no change in the access in terms of scientists being able to talk.”
But according to Stephen Woodley, a 32-year agency veteran and former chief ecosystems scientist of Parks Canada, he and others were not allowed to speak freely to the press, were not invited to meetings, or had budgets taken away. “It was very difficult to do science inside the federal government and in Parks Canada,” says Woodley, adding that difficulties increased after Harper's 2011 reelection.
Reporters often requested interviews with Woodley on “fairly innocuous” topics, he says. To gain permission to speak to the press, he and other scientists had to go through communications staff, guess which questions reporters might ask, and make up answers for approval. It was a process that “just became absurd,” he says.
I mean countless of examples are easily find to counter your ignorance on that subject …
At least you are not one that defend free speech at any corners hypocritically….
So I guess it’s fine for you to find this acceptable.
But just don’t lie about how it really was tho .
Lol, asking party members to stay on point and walk the party line is not suppressing free speech. Lol if you actually believe the cbc is non-partisan, like come on man, if you want people to take you serious at least be honest.
I mean it was your team complaining to the CBC about your guy suppressing their speech, no need to @ me on this one. By any objective measure, the CBC is over-the-top non-partisan. Any news article ALWAYS quote the liberals and the conservatives. Every panel has someone leaning to each party. It regularly critiques Trudeau. The CBC bends over backwards to constantly make sure it is being neutral. Heck if you want a real critique it is that, that instead of accurately calling balls and strikes, it relies way way way too much on being stenographers for both sides. But of course the right has this completely and hilariously ineptly fabricated conspiracy theory about the CBC being "partisan", substantiated by nothing other than fuming any time anyone (in this case his own party members) leaks anything bad about poilievre.
As for walking the party line, let's put it this way. It is a question of degree. Every party does this - to a degree. The rigid, unyeilding absolute control exerted by your guy is not healthy. It's taken to a higher degree than normal, even than under Harper which was pretty bad. You can hopefully see that point and still maintain your cbc conspiracy if you must.
Btw your friendly reminder that Poilievre has released almost no details about how he would actually govern but for axing the rebate. Would he cut any other taxes? Income? Gst? Corporate? We have no idea but guesses. Won’t say. Any interview asked about what HE would do he just tells us his twisted anti-Trudeau narrative. But like lozen that way.
Lol, asking party members to stay on point and walk the party line is not suppressing free speech. Lol if you actually believe the cbc is non-partisan, like come on man, if you want people to take you serious at least be honest.
I mean it was your team complaining to the CBC about your guy suppressing their speech, no need to @ me on this one. By any objective measure, the CBC is over-the-top non-partisan. Any news article ALWAYS quote the liberals and the conservatives. Every panel has someone leaning to each party. It regularly critiques Trudeau. The CBC bends over backwards to constantly make sure it is being neutral. Heck if you want a real critique it is that, that instead of accurately calling balls and strikes, i
The conservatives are in opposition . Rarely does a opposition party put out all their policies till an election that is how it works he has said he would
- Axe the tax making life more affordable for CDN's which the BC Premier will follow saving me $1000's
- drop the GST on new builds under a million . Love that policy as will help my business while Trudeau's housing initiatives do nothing for me
- Tough on gun crime
Lol if you actually believe the cbc is non-partisan, like come on man, if you want people to take you serious at least be honest.
Agreed
Will Trudeau even get to table his GST credit as parliament is stalled because Justin will not turn over documents on his 400 million green slush fund
What’s the difference between reducing tax or giving money away (or in other words , redistributing money) ?
In both cases it cost money to the government shrug
Big difference, when you do it the way have. Reducing a tax they administer would be similar to the rebate. This assinine implementation forces retailers to figure out how to not charge GST on some items while they continue to charge it on other items, all for a short period of time, during the busiest time of the year. And that took me exactly 10 seconds to reason out when I read the headline, not because I'm some kind of genius, but because I have an ounce of common sense. How no one who provided advice on this was able to see that and convince JT that it was a dumb idea is beyond me. And to top it all off, while it was wise to give retailers time to implement this, it creates this weird environment where people may hold off purchases for a few weeks, making planning even more complicated for businesses (would have been much better to have in place before the holiday buying season started). Why not just take this money and increase the $250 "rebate"? Less burden for business, and more of the money goes where it belongs - it can be income tested, rather than the most going to those who spend the most.
And speaking of that rebate, without going into whether or not this is a good idea overall...income of <$150 K??? What. The. ****. Why does someone making $145,000 need $250? Or for that matter, a household making $295 K receiving $500? Decrease the income, increase the amount, IMO.
The whole thing strikes me as way more performative than a genuine attempt to help. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
As someone who voted for JT a couple of times and the Liberals several times (and other parties as well, including Conservative), I can't wait to see Trudeau gone. Not looking forward to Polievre, and I expect I won't be voting for him (won't matter in my riding, it will go Conservative by a healthy margin), but sadly that's the only alternative and at this point there's close to zero chance he won't be our next PM. And it's because of stupid **** like this - he and his government can't even give away $6 billion without completely ****ing it up. Sigh.
Big difference, when you do it the way have. Reducing a tax they administer would be similar to the rebate. This assinine implementation forces retailers to figure out how to not charge GST on some items while they continue to charge it on other items, all for a short period of time, during the busiest time of the year. And that took me exactly 10 seconds to reason out when I read the headline, not because I'm some kind of genius, but because I have an ounce of common sense. How no one who provi
I was referring at the budget in general , not at how it would affect retailers.
Which u seem to agree in the end .
But If we going in all details , we could say the same thing about the carbon tax too and mind as well all the others ….
Big difference, when you do it the way have. Reducing a tax they administer would be similar to the rebate. This assinine implementation forces retailers to figure out how to not charge GST on some items while they continue to charge it on other items, all for a short period of time, during the busiest time of the year. And that took me exactly 10 seconds to reason out when I read the headline, not because I'm some kind of genius, but because I have an ounce of common sense. How no one who provi
Very well said . Also the provinces that have a combined GST and PST called HST are screwed out of money
I never considered how hard this may be to implement for retailers
Well polievre could leave the carbon tax untouched and « axe » the income-tax shrug .
He would have a better perception on the world stage …
Too dumb to do it by ideology principle Instead being pragmatic .
That would do FAR more to save people actual money than axing something that rebates 90% back.
Obviously.
Guys, retailers are praising the gst cut. Remember, they already have to have systems to exempt all the basics that are already exempt. For most, this is just going down the catalogue and flipping the switch on SKUs. There might be some small businesses in general retail that have a lot of SKUs and are small that it matters, but the general retail groups are all positive.
Very interesting development by the right on the pension fund space in Canada.
Alberta said "enough" and fired the whole team putting Harper in charge of the 160 bln CAD fund
No idea why you would like a politician be the head of your pension plan ….
I’m so glad it’s in Alberta and not in Quebec .
For a guy that’s wants the smallest government possible and yet willing to put a politician at such a core position in your retirement plan do seem strange to me .
But not the first time I see you put your principle blinders off for partisanship reasons ..
No idea why you would like a politician be the head of your pension plan ….
I’m so glad it’s in Alberta and not in Quebec .
For a guy that’s wants the smallest government possible and yet willing to put a politician at such a core position in your retirement plan do seem strange to me .
But not the first time I see you put your principle blinders off for partisanship reasons ..
Because investing as everything else can be political. Like a disastrous leftist might choose not to invest in say tobacco or fossil fuels or something else his disgusting morals forbid him to invest in.
Only rightwing people are left around that exclusively care to maximize monetary returns which should be the only axis to decide investments.
Leftism is a religion and they refuse what's not kosher for them. That should be enough to ban leftists from any decision making where money matters.
I'd make pension funds private, all of them.
But if they need to be public as for everything else than is public, only rightwing people can be trusted to manage them
Very interesting development by the right on the pension fund space in Canada.
Alberta said "enough" and fired the whole team putting Harper in charge of the 160 bln CAD fund
No idea why you would like a politician be the head of your pension plan ….
I’m so glad it’s in Alberta and not in Quebec .
For a guy that’s wants the smallest government possible and yet willing to put a politician at such a core position in your retirement plan do seem strange to me .
But not the first time I see you put your principle blinders off for partisanship reasons ..
I agree with Montreal on this i do believe this is the third group hired to manage Alberta's Pension plan. It was originally well managed and doing well . AS for the latest group to get turfed I sold a custom home to the guy hired to manage the fund and he was a dutch guy from England
Im not sure how Lucion would be partisan on this as he doesnt live here
Guys, retailers are praising the gst cut. Remember, they already have to have systems to exempt all the basics that are already exempt. For most, this is just going down the catalogue and flipping the switch on SKUs. There might be some small businesses in general retail that have a lot of SKUs and are small that it matters, but the general retail groups are all positive.
Yeah when you think of all the software out there for a majority of businesses this should be easy. Some of the smaller organizations may struggle
I just do not get the concept of a PM that said he always wanted to targeted relief unlike what Harper did and hand out checks to 17 million CDN's How you justify 6 billion in handouts to folks that were employed and make under $150,000 a year. You could literally have a household making $299,000 a year getting a handout. Yet you leave out the struggling senior, the student that couldn't find employment, folks living on disability .
Now add in the fact you handed out 6 billion $$ but cant meet your NATO commitment. Try selling that to Trump
Because investing as everything else can be political. Like a disastrous leftist might choose not to invest in say tobacco or fossil fuels or something else his disgusting morals forbid him to invest in.
Only rightwing people are left around that exclusively care to maximize monetary returns which should be the only axis to decide investments.
Leftism is a religion and they refuse what's not kosher for them. That should be enough to ban leftists from any decision making where money matters.
I'd mak
Just 3 letters .
LOL .
Ps: managing an hedge fund got nothing to do with politics ….
Your the zealot believing making money or science is stemming from political views …
Maths is maths , political views don’t change 2+2=4 ….
I agree with Montreal on this i do believe this is the third group hired to manage Alberta's Pension plan. It was originally well managed and doing well . AS for the latest group to get turfed I sold a custom home to the guy hired to manage the fund and he was a dutch guy from England
Im not sure how Lucion would be partisan on this as he doesnt live here
Thx and because Luciom is a zealot shrug .
Someone like Luciom who accused everyone not thinking like him to be part of a religion while he himself can’t considered anything in existence not be political, makes me laugh hard .
Can’t see the forest for the trees …
He thinks everyone is like him I guess shrug .
FWIW The only politician I would ever see at the head of a fund like that would of been Jacques Parizeau based of course on qualifications instead of politics …..
Jacques Parizeau
Parizeau was born in Montreal, Quebec, the son of Germaine (née Biron) and Gérard Parizeau, from a family of wealth and privilege. Gérard Parizeau built one of Quebec’s great fortunes and one of the province’s largest financial firms from a brokerage he established in the 1930s. Jacques' great-grandfather was a founder of the Montreal Chambre de Commerce and his grandfather was a doctor of renown and a Chevalier of the Légion d’honneur.[1]
He went on to graduate with a PhD from the London School of Economics in London, England, as well as degrees at HEC Montréal, Paris Institute of Political Studies and Faculté de droit de Paris. Because of a prior commitment to return to instruct at HEC, he left England, where career opportunities were offered in British academia. He served an internship with the Bank of Canada in Ottawa, and directed his brightest students to Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario for postgraduate studies.[1]
He was especially instrumental in the nationalization of Hydro-Québec (a hydro-electric utility) in 1962-1963, the nationalization of the Asbestos Corporation Limited mines in 1982, and worked with Eric Kierans to create the Quebec Pension Plan in 1963-1966.[4]
He created the 2 best Quebec institution (to make money) in history .
Ah yes , ironically the guy was a center leftist ….
Ps: China for the past 4 decades created massive amount of wealth with incredible high gdp yearly , yet they communist ….
I just do not get the concept of a PM that said he always wanted to targeted relief unlike what Harper did and hand out checks to 17 million CDN's How you justify 6 billion in handouts to folks that were employed and make under $150,000 a year. You could literally have a household making $299,000 a year getting a handout. Yet you leave out the struggling senior, the student that couldn't find employment, folks living on disability .
Now add in the fact you handed out 6 billion $$ but cant meet yo
You have it exactly backwards. Trudeau has ALREADY done a tonne of long term structural supports for struggling seniors, people with kids, students, etc. What a lot of those targetted supports have missed, however, is helping middle class working people. Like they don’t get most of the many targetted benefits intended for poorer people or older people etc. so this temporary support is intended to make just a small benefit that applies to that big group of working Canadians who don’t usually get special benefits. And normally I think that’s fair, middle class working Canadians are in a strong world class economy, but these days as inflation winds down just a little boost is probably nice for those people.
Guys, retailers are praising the gst cut. Remember, they already have to have systems to exempt all the basics that are already exempt. For most, this is just going down the catalogue and flipping the switch on SKUs. There might be some small businesses in general retail that have a lot of SKUs and are small that it matters, but the general retail groups are all positive.
Oh, well, gosh, as long as the big chains can handle it, no need to worry about those pesky small businesses, amirite?
You have it exactly backwards. Trudeau has ALREADY done a tonne of long term structural supports for struggling seniors, people with kids, students, etc. What a lot of those targetted supports have missed, however, is helping middle class working people. Like they don’t get most of the many targetted benefits intended for poorer people or older people etc. so this temporary support is intended to make just a small benefit that applies to that big group of working Canadians who don’t
Yeah, thank goodness those middle class Canadian households making $290 K should be able to pay January's pool heating bill now. 🙄
I'm taking the piss here a little bit, and I get that there are some posters ITT that will take anything and everything JT does and try to portray it in the worst possible light and it's good to push back on that. But you know, it's OK to admit that not every plan they have is perfect. And yes, I know you do that sometimes. But if you really can see no flaws in this latest plan of theirs that sounds like it was scribbled out on a napkin in a bar one night, I don't really know what to say.
Oh, well, gosh, as long as the big chains can handle it, no need to worry about those pesky small businesses, amirite?
Yeah, thank goodness those middle class Canadian households making $290 K should be able to pay January's pool heating bill now. 🙄
I'm taking the piss here a little bit, and I get that there are some posters ITT that will take anything and everything JT does and try to portray it in the worst possible light and it's good to push back on that.
Im not sure he has ever done that
Christmas Trees exempt starting Dec 14 th who buys a tree that late . Im going this week to chop mine down
Lets also note the one group that will always get out to vote is seniors and I bet they are pissed
But if you really can see no flaws in this latest plan of theirs that sounds like it was scribbled out on a napkin in a bar one night, I don't really know what to say.
As I said earlier ITT, I'm not a particular fan when - this year - all three of the conservatives, the NDP, and now the liberals have done this trick of a temporary gift. But I'm only mildly opposed. Firstly, fixed payments are progressive, they help poorer people the most (It's the opposite of why fixed taxes help rich people the most). Because of the fixed amount, the cap doesn't really matter imo, but make it 100k if you're mad but it could be a million and barely changes the effects (only the optics change). And temporary helps like this at 10,000m are basically a shift in time. They help right now, but at a long term cost through inflation/debt into the future. So when applied during a time where a LOT of people are really acutely feeling the pinch just as inflation is abating and mortgage rates are about to come down one can make an argument that this IS a good time for a slight temporary help, even though obviously it isn't one that people should do in the long run. So this is why I'm negative but only mildly.
The reason I'm pushing back ITT a bit is because I think it should be evaluated on its own merits and a couple bad arguments against it don't work. The first is critiques that it avoids people who don't work, primarily seniors. But the Liberals were very clear about this which is that they have done a LOT of long term, structural benefits to seniors far beyond the one time 250 payment, as they have for poorer people and people with kids and most groups with a clear disadvantage. But what a lot of "working Canadians" have felt is that everyone on the margins has been helped out by the effect of a bigger and more progressive government, but the middle class folks grinding away haven't gotten a leg up since the income tax reduction back in 2016, and the global economy has made a lot of things worse for them. So this is saying ok we are going to do something temporary to help those folks right now who have been working hard without getting a targeted break. It is for this reason that I think the complaints I'm seeing about like "Trudeau doesn't care about seniors!!" or whatever are just totally missing the entire framing and point of this.
As for implementation, remember Ford already did this in Ontario and it was no big deal and retail groups praise it so I really just don't think it is the burden you suggest. Not zero, sure. But not so bad that retailers in general are not in strong support.
I will confess I was a little surprised when retail organizations came out fairly strongly in favour of this, although as you said, they did mention the challenges. And it's noteworthy that the CFIB (independent businesses) gave it a far more mixed review. The thing is, the businesses for whom this will be most troublesome are the small ones who are least able to absorb the extra burden at an already busy time of year. The retail organizations of course know better than me, so hopefully it's a net positive that even the little guys can roll with.
As for the income test, IDK, I'd rather see it dropped far lower where it really would make a difference. You made an interesting point about where previous assistance has been targeted and that the middle had been mostly missing, I just question how much benefit $250 will really be to them, especially when you could make it more by dropping the income tested amount, so people to whom it would make a bigger difference would then get more.
