2024 Canadian Political Thread

[madjay]

Using "unborn" in place of "preborn" is one issue. That you connected that issue with (your argument) that (paraphrasing) "therefore it is a foundation for future anti-abortion legislation" is false.

You forget that the people writing these Bills are all trained in legal writing to some extent. They know, or ought to know, better than to use multiple words to convey the same meaning. When they deviate from this convention, it is almost invariably with some ulterior motive.

In this case, as I've already stated, the term "preborn" is used exclusively by anti-abortion advocates — in fact, they coined the term. So anyone attempting to give that particular term legislative credence must inherently have an anti-abortion agenda, especially considering the term "unborn" already exists in the legislation to say the same thing as "preborn" is being used to say in this Bill. It makes no sense to include new terminology unless there is an intent for that terminology to take on a different meaning from the existing terminology.

These people clearly want their term codified in law so that it is available for use in future legislation, and the most effective way to do so is to introduce it in a piece of legislation, like C225, that is inoffensive to the layman, who does not understand these particular nuances of law.

I can say that with a fair degree of certainty because, I suspect that those opposed to C225 would still be opposed to it (on erroneous grounds of "abortion rights") if the Bill actually used the term "unborn" instead of "preborn". I would wager (if I were a bettting man) that you would also agree that such would be the case (i.e. those opposed to C225 would oppose it regardless of word choice). So, with respect, your argument is one of pure semantics for the sake of saying "you are wrong" while making a false assertion that word choice (i.e. "preborn" instead of "unborn") would assuage those that opposed the Bill.

I have made no arguments as to what would convince people to accept the Bill. Most people, of all political stripes, oppose legislation on the basis of political bias. They don't typically read legislation. Even if they did, they have little to no training in reading legislation, so they might think that the use of terms viewed as effectively synonymous in a non-legal context is not an issue. The fact is, their perception of the legislation is based on what their trusted sources tell them the legislation says.

In the case of C225, those who support pro-choice policy were told the Bill is a backdoor to anti-abortion legislation. There's a tidbit of truth to that, but it's mostly a misrepresentation of the Bill's content. This is a common tactic of the NDP and Liberals — overblow a minor point of contention to kill the whole Bill.

On the other hand, conservative sources often outright lie about the content of opposing legislation. See the claims that the Online News Act censors social media. Having read the Bill, all I saw was social media companies being forced to abide by the Broadcast Act and pay content creators for the use of their content. There is nothing unreasonable about this, and nothing that censors media. The former, in particular, is sound competition law — forcing a level competitive playing field in which all competitors are subject to the same regulations, rather than some having a regulatory advantage, in which case government would then be picking winners and losers. It is Facebook's PR team that has created the narrative of Canadian media censorship under C18, as it has chosen to sell Canadians that messaging in order to protect its profit margins. Facebook has an internal policy to fight all regulation. The reality is that, if there are any issues caused by C18, they stem from the Broadcast Act and the CanCon regulations that have been made under that piece of legislation, but the anti-Trudeau crowd don't want to hear that — and make no mistake, I am no fan of Trudeau myself, but you won't catch me voting Conservative, particularly given the current iteration is dominated by the former Reform Party (Harper was one of the original group of PC members to defect to the party on its founding, and Poilievre got his start in politics selling Reform memberships for Jason Kenney's campaign to run as the party's candidate in the 1997 election).

 

[appleomac]

You forget that the people writing these Bills are all trained in legal writing to some extent. They know, or ought to know, better than to use multiple words to convey the same meaning. When they deviate from this convention, it is almost invariably with some ulterior motive.

That would be speculation and assumption. I don't know the particular specifics about the MP that drafted C225. But to assume, they have the resources, staff and/or experience with respect to "legal writing" is again, speculation. I would assume (or at least hope) that Parliament has resources available to all MP's to assist drafting of legislation. Your argument hinges on the fact that "unborn child" is in the CCC presently and "preborn child" is not. That said, there is a single instance of "unborn child". Your arguments are speculation. Moreover, I don't find your conclusion of "ulterior motive" compelling.

In this case, as I've already stated, the term "preborn" is used exclusively by anti-abortion advocates — in fact, they coined the term. So anyone attempting to give that particular term legislative credence must inherently have an anti-abortion agenda, especially considering the term "unborn" already exists in the legislation to say the same thing as "preborn" is being used to say in this bill. It makes no sense to include new terminology unless there is an intent for that terminology to take on a different meaning from the existing terminology.t

Again, this argument is not persuasive. The notion that abortion in Canada must be regulated or banned via "back door" methods is false. As it exists today, there is no law that bans abortion in Canada. There is nothing stopping a Parliament (subject to drafting and passing such legislation) in attempting to ban or limit abortion. The implication that "back door" methods are being secretly employed appears more conspiracy rather than reality. No government since Mulroney/Cambpell have attempted to legislate abortion. The CPC position on abortion is not to legislate on abortion. This position was held by all CPC leaders. And the CPC has adhered to that policy duing 9 years of a CPC government (of which the last 4 years they had a majority).

In this case, those who support pro-choice policy are being told the Bill is a backdoor to anti-abortion legislation.

On this we agree. That said, being told something does not necessarily mean that which they are being told is accurate.

On the other hand, conservative sources often outright lie about the content of opposing legislation. See the claims that the Online News Act censors social media. Having read the Bill, all I saw was social media companies being forced to abide by the Broadcast Act and pay content creators for the use of their content. There is nothing unreasonable about this, and nothing that censors media. The former, in particular, is sound competition law — forcing a level competitive playing field in which all competitors are subject to the same regulations, rather than some having a regulatory advantage, in which case government would then be picking winners and losers. It is Facebook's PR team that has created the narrative of Canadian media censorship under C18, as it has chosen to sell Canadians that messaging in order to protect its profit margins. Facebook has an internal policy to fight all regulation. The reality is that, if there are any issues caused by C18, they stem from the Broadcast Act and the CanCon regulations that have been made under that piece of legislation, but the anti-Trudeau crowd don't want to hear that (and make no mistake, I am no fan of Trudeau myself).

With respect, not at all relevant. Unless you believe if a person/entity lied about X, they must be lying about everything else. That is NOT a logical conclusion. If such is the case, there is NOT a political party in existence that has been 100% truthful 100% of the time. In that scenario, apparently all the parties' positions on C225 are incorrect. LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

 

[madjay]

I would assume (or at least hope) that Parliament has resources available to all MP's to assist drafting of legislation.

You would assume correctly. In fact, MPs in Canada do not write Bills whatsoever. The DoJ drafts government Bills and House legislative counsel drafts private members' Bills with direction from the private member in terms of content.

Your argument hinges on the fact that "unborn child" is in the CCC presently and "preborn child" is not. That said, there is a single instance of "unborn child". Your arguments are speculation. Moreover, I don't find your conclusion of "ulterior motive" compelling.

One instance is sufficient to establish a convention in relation to the issue of consistency. That said, it makes it quite easy to amend C225 to change that instance to be consistent with the Bill, rendering the inconsistency issue moot. However, that doesn't address the issue of the term being politically charged due to its having been coined by, and exclusively used by, the anti-abortion lobby.

Additionally, my arguments are based on direct exposure to the legislative process and some legal education (I'm in an adjacent field where legal knowledge is a competitive advantage).

Again, this argument is not persuasive. The notion that abortion in Canada must be regulated or banned via "back door" methods is false. As it exists today, there is no law that bans abortion in Canada. There is nothing stopping a Parliament (subject to drafting and passing such legislation) in attempting to ban or limit abortion. The implication that "back door" methods are being secretly employed appears more conspiracy rather than reality.

Is the notion really false, though? You say there is nothing stopping Parliament from attempting to ban or limit abortion, but I would argue it is this notion that is false. Public opinion has been the primary impediment to such legislation. Parliamentarians are not going to pass legislation that they know will almost assuredly cost them their jobs. The only way to pass such legislation in light of public opinion is to obscure it from the public eye. Do you really think it's conspiracy theory to say that people who have the stated goal of stopping abortions in Canada, such as the private member who introduced the Bill, would be doing anything and everything possible to try to achieve that goal? That's just absurd. That's like saying it's conspiracy theory to think a barber cuts hair when that's literally the job. Of course they're trying anything they can to get the job done. I would expect nothing less.

No government since Mulroney/Cambpell have attempted to legislate abortion. The CPC position on abortion is not to legislate on abortion. This position was held by all CPC leaders. And the CPC has adhered to that policy duing 9 years of a CPC government (of which the last 4 years they had a majority).

Past performance is not indicative of future results. The former Reform Party, which is the dominant element in the modern CPC, continues to pander to a base of Prairie evangelicals to this day.

With respect, not at all relevant. Unless you believe if a person/entity lied about X, they must be lying about everything else. That is NOT a logical conclusion. If such is the case, there is NOT a political party in existence that has been 100% truthful 100% of the time. In that scenario, apparently all the parties' positions on C225 are incorrect. LOL

It was a single example, used due to its recent prominence. I can come up with many more. The biggest conservative lie of them all, though, is the myth of their fiscal restraint and responsibility, but I'm not going to get into that at the moment just to keep from diverging to far from the current topic of discussion.

 

[appleomac]

You would assume correctly. In fact, MPs in Canada do not write Bills whatsoever. The DoJ drafts government Bills and House legislative counsel drafts private members' Bills with direction from the private member in terms of content.

Then why is it, that if such Bill (like a private member's bill) is drafted by the Justice Department, that said department has not provided input on the soundness of the Bill's language? Saying nothing for the fact that, albeit C225 didn't make it there, the standard process for a Bill is to go through 3 readings and committee stage/report stage (where amendments can be proposed and adopted). Moreover, especially with private member's Bills, the same review/amendment process is repeated at the Senate stage. Again, this notion that word choice equates to "ulterior motives" is a flimsy conclusion.

One instance is sufficient to establish a convention in relation to the issue of consistency. That said, it makes it quite easy to amend C225 to change that instance to be consistent with the Bill, rendering the inconsistency issue moot. However, that doesn't address the issue of the term being politically charged due to its having been coined by, and exclusively used by, the anti-abortion lobby.

Additionally, my arguments are based on direct exposure to the legislative process and some legal education (I'm in an adjacent field where legal knowledge is a competitive advantage).

Again, you confirm that a Bill has ample opportunity to have proposed amendments incorporated. Yet, albeit C225 never made it that far, you still concluded "ulterior motive" for the word choice. And now you are making the "loaded language" argument. I don't find that particularly compelling or logical. A) "Unborn child" exists in the CCC, but NOT a definition of that phrase. It simply appears as part of a particular offence. Therefore, the proposed definition of "preborn child" does not pervert/deviate/creates an actual inconsistency that would put different sections of the CCC in conflict with each other. And B) there is very few, dare I say only a handful of laws/legislation that doesn't create "charged" feelings in the populace. And therefore, this notion that there is some arbitrary threshold of (as you put it previously) "neutral" language. To say that laws have to be drafted with "neutral" language is a nice statement/platitude. But that platitude simply defines "neutral" as being arbitrary based on who you don't want to piss off. You're making a "form over function" argument - and that seems silly. I would argue, function over form is more apropos.

Is the notion really false, though? You say there is nothing stopping Parliament from attempting to ban or limit abortion, but I would argue it is this notion that is false. Public opinion has been the primary impediment to such legislation. Parliamentarians are not going to pass legislation that they know will almost assuredly cost them their jobs. The only way to pass such legislation in light of public opinion is to obscure it from the public eye. Do you really think it's conspiracy theory to say that people who have the stated goal of stopping abortions in Canada, such as the private member who introduced the Bill, would be doing anything and everything possible to try to achieve that goal? That's just absurd. That's like saying it's conspiracy theory to think a barber cuts hair when that's literally the job. Of course they're trying anything they can to get the job done. I would expect nothing less.

Public opinion is why we have political detente wrt to abortion (either ban or limitation). That is more reason to believe the CPC on their policy of not legislating on abortion. Everyone knows they will lose an election following an ACTUAL passing of legislation that ACTUALLY bans and/or limits abortion. You have this notion that Canadians writ large are stupid. That they would not see a "back door" bill for what it is IF they were to read the actual legislation as opposed to simply parrot off what they have been told. That the Libs/ABC minded always, when the left parties are polling poorly, trot out the old wedge of abortion is obvious. Martin did it when he was desperate in 04 and 06 and now JT is doing because he is desperate. Unsurprisingly, the Libs/ABC voices did not trot out that wedge in 2015, as that would be asinine since there was 9 years of evidence that zero pieces of legislation that banned or limited abortion was ever passed or attempted. There is no practical way to "back door" an abortion ban. There is no practical way to "back door" a bill that limits abortion WITHOUT it being abunduntly clear that that is what is being done. Only the Libs/ABC minded cling to the "secret agenda" narrative. It is old. It's an act of desperation. The fact that the CPC would not survive the wrath of the Canadian population is the reason why their position is more believable than the conspiracy inspired "secret agenda" position of the left.

Past performance is not indicative of future results. The former Reform Party, which is the dominant element in the modern CPC, continues to pander to a base of Prairie evangelicals to this day.

I never understood why people so often parrot this type of illogical thinking. Politicians pander, sure. That you believe they pander to the people that are already going to vote for them is illogical. You pander to change minds (i.e. get those that would otherwise NOT vote for you to vote for you). The base is the base, you need not convince the base. The base, generally, remains in the good time and the bad times. It's why the Libs carry the old town of Montreal (almost always), that is one of their "fortresses" (their base). Alberta/SK is CPC base territory - good times and bad times. That you believe there is some requirement to pander to the base is silly - the base rarely leaves, generally. Political parties nod to their base, they pander to those NOT in their base.

 

[Drjohn]

You would assume correctly. In fact, MPs in Canada do not write Bills whatsoever. The DoJ drafts government Bills and House legislative counsel drafts private members' Bills with direction from the private member in terms of content.


One instance is sufficient to establish a convention in relation to the issue of consistency. That said, it makes it quite easy to amend C225 to change that instance to be consistent with the Bill, rendering the inconsistency issue moot. However, that doesn't address the issue of the term being politically charged due to its having been coined by, and exclusively used by, the anti-abortion lobby.

Additionally, my arguments are based on direct exposure to the legislative process and some legal education (I'm in an adjacent field where legal knowledge is a competitive advantage).


Is the notion really false, though? You say there is nothing stopping Parliament from attempting to ban or limit abortion, but I would argue it is this notion that is false. Public opinion has been the primary impediment to such legislation. Parliamentarians are not going to pass legislation that they know will almost assuredly cost them their jobs. The only way to pass such legislation in light of public opinion is to obscure it from the public eye. Do you really think it's conspiracy theory to say that people who have the stated goal of stopping abortions in Canada, such as the private member who introduced the Bill, would be doing anything and everything possible to try to achieve that goal? That's just absurd. That's like saying it's conspiracy theory to think a barber cuts hair when that's literally the job. Of course they're trying anything they can to get the job done. I would expect nothing less.


Past performance is not indicative of future results. The former Reform Party, which is the dominant element in the modern CPC, continues to pander to a base of Prairie evangelicals to this day.


It was a single example, used due to its recent prominence. I can come up with many more. The biggest conservative lie of them all, though, is the myth of their fiscal restraint and responsibility, but I'm not going to get into that at the moment just to keep from diverging to far from the current topic of discussion.

"The biggest Conservative lie of them all,though, is the myth of their fiscal restraint and responsibility".

Please get into it.

This idea that the Conservatives are going to make abortion illegal is just a standard Liberal tactic to divide and distract.

You can call it disinformation but I like to say that they're lying.

It's the same old game and people don't buy it anymore.

I you have a defense of the economic record of the Trudeau/Singh coalition, I would love to see it.

It's not defendable.

 

[madjay]

"The biggest Conservative lie of them all,though, is the myth of their fiscal restraint and responsibility".

Please get into it.

3 surpluses since 1926. That's the fiscal record of the various iterations of the Conservative Party. That's about 10% of the budgets they've passed in that period, or, to flip that around, a roughly 90% rate of delivering deficits. In the same window, only 75% of Liberal budgets have been deficits. The Chretien Liberals alone delivered 7 consecutive surpluses in his last 7 years in office, more than double what conservatives have delivered in nearly a century.

Trudeau's own fiscal record isn't great, but it's not terrible, either. Since the pandemic spending was ended, which was necessary to prevent a deflationary spiral and depression, his government is maintaining deficits at a level below the rate of economic growth, meaning the debt-to-GDP level, the measure of the real value of Canada's debt, is shrinking even as his government adds to the debt.

 

[madjay]

I never understood why people so often parrot this type of illogical thinking. Politicians pander, sure. That you believe they pander to the people that are already going to vote for them is illogical. You pander to change minds (i.e. get those that would otherwise NOT vote for you to vote for you). The base is the base, you need not convince the base. The base, generally, remains in the good time and the bad times. It's why the Libs carry the old town of Montreal (almost always), that is one of their "fortresses" (their base). Alberta/SK is CPC base territory - good times and bad times. That you believe there is some requirement to pander to the base is silly - the base rarely leaves, generally. Political parties nod to their base, they pander to those NOT in their base.

The CPC's need to pander to the base is a problem of the party's own creation. The reality of politics is that the bulk of the votes are closer to the centre, but the CPC's insistence on "big tent", "unite the right" politics means that their base is well off centre. So they end up having to pander to both their base and prospective voters in the centre, groups whose political interests do not exactly align. If they don't pander to centrists, the Liberals typically win. If they don't pander to their base, you get 1987 all over again (that's when Reform broke off from the PCs, in case you've forgotten). The latter is especially dangerous given the presence of the PPC. That there is a party waiting in the wings to siphon off the base if the CPC strays too far to the centre poses a problem for the CPC.

 

[appleomac]

The CPC's need to pander to the base is a problem of the party's own creation. The reality of politics is that the bulk of the votes are closer to the centre, but the CPC's insistence on "big tent", "unite the right" politics means that their base is well off centre. So they end up having to pander to both their base and prospective voters in the centre, groups whose political interests do not exactly align. If they don't pander to centrists, the Liberals typically win. If they don't pander to their base, you get 1987 all over again (that's when Reform broke off from the PCs, in case you've forgotten). The latter is especially dangerous given the presence of the PPC. That there is a party waiting in the wings to siphon off the base if the CPC strays too far to the centre poses a problem for the CPC.

You don't make a compelling argument. You're simply presenting your reinforcing opinion as to the existence of some "secret agenda." The PPC is no longer "dangerous" to the CPC, the polling indicates as such AND their own fundraising amounts indicates as such. At this point, the PPC exists to raise money (and not a significant amount of it) simply so that Bernier can draw a salary and not go back into the real world and get a job. So no, they are NOT "waiting in the wings". Whatever the Green party from a vote perspective is, the PPC is an even lesser party than the Greens.

We agree that the center determines elections. And it is illogical to then state, that a political party should not go where the voters are for sake of their "base". Again, the base doesn't leave, that is why it's a base. The base doesn't decide elections, the center does. Moreover, the raison d'etre of any political party is to get elected into power or stay elected. That necessitates any major federal political party to be "big tent" in nature, unless the goal is to be like the federal NDP. That Reform existed, and attempted to go it alone AND got nowhere electorally, is evidence that being "big tent" is better strategy than being single issue (i.e. in the case of Reform, Western alienation). That you stated that such is a poor strategy for the CPC is foolish. After all, their raison d'etre is to get elected or stay elected and that only happens when you go where the voters are. No offence mate, your notion of appropriate political strategy is illogical. And honestly, your (erroneous) machinations as to why the CPC does (or should) pander to it's base seems to be anchored by your strongly held internal belief that there is in fact a "secret agenda." You see pandering (when there isn't pandering actuallly happening in the case of the CPC) because you already believe the existence of some "ulterior motive" (as you previously put it).

I've said it previously, the only people that want an abortion ban in this country are the minority that identfiy as evangelicals AND diehard Lib/ABC folk. Evangelicals want it because they've always wanted it. And the diehard Lib/ABC crowd want it to simply say "I told you so." Somewhat similarly, I can't tell if you truly believe all this stuff about political strat (i.e. the CPC does and has to pander to their base) or rather what you actually want to see happen simply to reinforce your belief about their "secret agenda." As much as you attempt to present yourself as "balanced" (i.e. arguing both sides of C225), your propensity to make illogical statements/connections demonstrates more your existing biases (i.e. all your reasonings simply lead to "ulterior motive") while ignoring reality.

 

[Drjohn]

3 surpluses since 1926. That's the fiscal record of the various iterations of the Conservative Party. That's about 10% of the budgets they've passed in that period, or, to flip that around, a roughly 90% rate of delivering deficits. In the same window, only 75% of Liberal budgets have been deficits. The Chretien Liberals alone delivered 7 consecutive surpluses in his last 7 years in office, more than double what conservatives have delivered in nearly a century.

Trudeau's own fiscal record isn't great, but it's not terrible, either. Since the pandemic spending was ended, which was necessary to prevent a deflationary spiral and depression, his government is maintaining deficits at a level below the rate of economic growth, meaning the debt-to-GDP level, the measure of the real value of Canada's debt, is shrinking even as his government adds to the debt.

Under the Trudeau/Singh coalition,

Resource development...down.

Productivity...down.

Foreign investment...down.

Standard of living...falling rapidly.

Like I said, the economic record is not defendable.

 

[appleomac]

The Chretien Liberals alone delivered 7 consecutive surpluses in his last 7 years in office, more than double what conservatives have delivered in nearly a century.

That simply means Chretien/Martin have a better fiscal record, NOT all Liberals.

his government is maintaining deficits at a level below the rate of economic growth, meaning the debt-to-GDP level, the measure of the real value of Canada's debt, is shrinking even as his government adds to the debt.

This is silly logic. It assumes that growth in economy (GDP growing) means deficits should grow as well (so long as both rates of growth are similar). That is nonsensical thinking. I don't need to take on more debt simply because I get a raise. If I get a raise, I have more income. But if there is some arbitrary notion that my debt must increase with my increase in income, that means I am spending more (the more income from my raise) and taking on debt to spend even more. If GDP is growing, one would expect the tax revenues to grow (kind of like getting a raise), but the existence of more debt while receiving more tax revenues (regardless of the rates of growth) implies a spending issue.

You used Chretien as a model for fiscal performance. His 7 consecutive surpluses also came at a time when the economy was growing. They grew the economy (got the raise) AND didn't borrow more (at least in those 7 years). But somehow, now the barometer is, borrow more because the economy is growing (however minimally). Chretien/Martin held true to the notion that you "save in good times and spend in bad times" (spending including borrowing). Moreover, you extol their fiscal record while in the same breath, saying that now the notion is borrow more so long as you your borrowings grow at the same/similar rate as the economy. That would mean, taking the Chretien/Martin philosophy and basterdizing it into "spend in good times and don't spend in bad times", because in bad times GDP shrinks. Which means, if debt MUST (as you seem to be implying) grow with the rate of the economy's growth, well, bad economic time means negative GDP growth, ergo, the deficit should shrink in bad times. However, you even violate your own notion of increasing debt at the rate of GDP growth, by saying, copious amount of spending (and borrowing) is required in bad times (you used the Covid example). And therefore, you've violated literally everything you supposedly believe/assert and created the notion that, "you must spend in bad times AND you must spend when the economy grows, so long as the rates of growth in debt and GDP are similar'. So basically, ALWAYS spend/borrow more! LOL

And FYI, debt-to-GDP is NOT (as you put it) "the measure of the real value of Canada's debt". The debt is what the debt is. If my credit card is maxed at $20,000, the debt is $20,000. If my income is $50,000 per year, my debt to income ratio is 40%. If I get a raise to $60,000 per year, my debt to income ratio is now 33.3%. Sure, it's gone down (the ratio), but my debt (the maxed out credit card) is still $20,000 outstanding. It's not the "real measure of debt" it's simply a way to present debt - and sometimes, presentation is merely an exercise in PR! LOL

 

[LLLurkJ2]

And FYI, debt-to-GDP is NOT (as you put it) "the measure of the real value of Canada's debt". The debt is what the debt is. If my credit card is maxed at $20,000, the debt is $20,000. If my income is $50,000 per year, my debt to income ratio is 40%. If I get a raise to $60,000 per year, my debt to income ratio is now 33.3%. Sure, it's gone down (the ratio), but my debt (the maxed out credit card) is still $20,000 outstanding. It's not the "real measure of debt" it's simply a way to present debt - and sometimes, presentation is merely an exercise in PR! LOL

Are you capable of writing things that doesnt cointain the same character attacks , ad naseum? At least learn some new ones, yours are getting boring

As for the quoted paragraph, time to pay off reduces at lower ratios. The only PR exercise there is the garbage youve tried to present as an argument.

 

[appleomac]

Are you capable of writing things that doesnt cointain the same character attacks , ad naseum? At least learn some new ones, yours are getting boring

What character attack? LOL

If someone keeps saying "wow, it's really snowing out there today" and it is NOT. The only response necessary is to say that it is not in fact snowing. So, if someone makes that erroneous claim, of course, I would repeat that it is in fact not snowing! LOL

As for the quoted paragraph, time to pay off reduces at lower ratios. The only PR exercise there is the garbage youve tried to present as an argument.

LOL! Wow, tell me you don't know anything about math and how debt works without actually telling me as such.

I'm going to use very very simply math to demonstrate why your assertion of "time to pay off reduces at lower ratios" is not always correct. But first, time to payoff depends on actually paying off some principal, not some arbitrary ratio.

Now, the simple example.

- I have a $50,000 loan.
- Said loan requires me to pay off $500 per month of principal and whatever the interest is.
- That would mean, it would take me 100 months to pay off the principal.
- Now, let's assume when I got the loan, I was making $100,000 per year.
- Therefore, my ratio of debt to income is 50%
- Now, assume 1 day after getting the loan, I get a promotion and my salary is now $150,000 per year
- Therefore, my ratio of debt to income is 33.3%
- BUT, it still takes me 100 months to pay off the principal based on the requirements of my loan (i.e. I am required to pay $500 per month in principal + the interest).
- So, the ratio makes NOT one iota of a difference in terms of "time to pay off"
- Time to pay off can be accelerated, if I take some of my new/higher incomes and pay more than $500 per month in principal.

The Government of Canada IS NOT actually paying principal on national debt (other than when they roll their maturing debt, which is basically paying off the old debt with new debt). In other words, mathematically speaking, when you pay no principal, the time to pay off is NEVER (or in math terms, infinite). Because we are only paying interest. On top of that, the debt is getting bigger on account of continuous deficits. So, we are paying more and more interest, no principal - even when the net debt to gdp ratio is declining AND time to pay off is still infinite because we are not actually paying principal.

Wow. Tell me you've never had a mortgage without telling me you've never had a mortgage. Time to pay off is colloquially known as amortization. One's amortization is infinite if one never pays principal and only pays interest! Moreover, if you refinance your mortgage to take on more debt and still continue to only pay interest even while you get a fat new promotion and higher salary, your time to pay off is infinite. Income doesn't change the time to pay off, the time to payoff is determined by the amount of principal you actually pay off. This is highschool level concepts, but apparently, you were absent that day! LOL

 

[Drjohn]

Are you capable of writing things that doesnt cointain the same character attacks , ad naseum? At least learn some new ones, yours are getting boring

As for the quoted paragraph, time to pay off reduces at lower ratios. The only PR exercise there is the garbage youve tried to present as an argument.

You're in fine form today.

By fine form, I mean your usual incoherent babbling.

Nothing to counter or refute the rational measured arguments of others.

Just the usual word salad ranting.

Classic stuff.

Keep it coming.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

You're in fine form today.

By fine form, I mean your usual incoherent babbling.

Nothing to counter or refute the rational measured arguments of others.

Just the usual word salad ranting.

Classic stuff.

Keep it coming.

Truly a compliment that anything i write would get under your skin. You allow me to win so graciously.

 

[Drjohn]

Truly a compliment that anything i write would get under your skin. You allow me to win so graciously.

You're giving yourself way too much credit.

Don't feel bad, I get it.

You're,
Swimming upstream
Spinning your wheels.
Wasting your time.
On the outside looking in.

It must be frustrating.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

You're giving yourself way too much credit.

Don't feel bad, I get it.

You're,
Swimming upstream
Spinning your wheels.
Wasting your time.
On the outside looking in.

It must be frustrating.

Were i as weak and feeble as you say you believe, id have to question your moral stature if you feel the need to constantly come after me; is that what gets you off/gives you kicks, belittilling people you say are weaker than you? Gotta keep the monkeys in line eh, makes you feel good and like you have a semblance of control in your life? Bad news, its illusiory.

And the irony of you saying i dont post arguments, while you seemingly only know how to type the phrase 'word salad' over and over. Do you want me to just type 'abortion bans bad', 'conservatives lying' in special messages just for you so its more palatable to your tastes of anti-illectualism? Books bad? What other daily affirmations are you requesting of me to enshrine your self-importance with external validations?

 

[Drjohn]

Were i as weak and feeble as you say you believe, id have to question your moral stature if you feel the need to constantly come after me; is that what gets you off/gives you kicks, belittilling people you say are weaker than you? Gotta keep the monkeys in line eh, makes you feel good and like you have a semblance of control in your life? Bad news, its illusiory.

And the irony of you saying i dont post arguments, while you seemingly only know how to type the phrase 'word salad' over and over. Do you want me to just type 'abortion bans bad', 'conservatives lying' in special messages just for you so its more palatable to your tastes of anti-illectualism? Books bad? What other daily affirmations are you requesting of me to enshrine your self-importance with external validations?

"Anti-illectualism"

Good one!

 

[Moan For Me]

"Anti-illectualism"

Good one!

LOL I don’t think I’ve seen anyone so purposefully obtuse. If it weren’t so funny I’d almost feel sorry for the guy being proven wrong time and time again. The jokes practically write themselves at this point.

 

[LLLurkJ2]

LOL I don’t think I’ve seen anyone so purposefully obtuse. If it weren’t so funny I’d almost feel sorry for the guy being proven wrong time and time again. The jokes practically write themselves at this point.

You guys can suck each other off and high five all you want but ive yet to either of you 'prove' anything except that you're shills.