2024 Canadian Political Thread
- Thread starter licks2nite
- Start date
- Status
"And JT is on pace to do the same amount of debt, all by himself..."
This is a ridiculous statement.
The economy is 6 times as large as it was in 1984 (Mulroney) and twice as large as it was in 2006 (Harper).
In adjusted dollars, Trudeau would have to run up $3 trillion of debt to even equal those two fiscally responsible Conservatives.
He hasn't even come close.
This is a ridiculous statement.
The economy is 6 times as large as it was in 1984 (Mulroney) and twice as large as it was in 2006 (Harper).
In adjusted dollars, Trudeau would have to run up $3 trillion of debt to even equal those two fiscally responsible Conservatives.
He hasn't even come close.
Talk all you want about what the Conservatives did 10 or 20 years ago.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Trudeau is done.
Apparently neither you or Trudeau got the memo.
If you voted for him you can take your share of the blame for the damage done.
By every measure this Liberal government has been a disaster.
A slow moving train wreck.
A dumpster fire that started low and now is a raging fire.
I'm sorry my friend, the show's over.
Accept it and move on.
You'll be better for it.
Wow! You don't know anything about adjusting for inflation do you? The $600 billion figure you like to parrot about Mulroney and Harper (that is inflation adjusted dollars) - on a nominal dollar basis, JT is ahead by a country mile! LOL
Moreover, if you're so concerned about inflation adjusted numbers, why didn't you adjust GDP for inflation? 1984 nominal GDP to 2024 nominal GDP - yes, that could be 6x. But, you're purposely ignoring the inflation adjustment AND you are conveniently choosing the start of Mulroney (and Harper's) tenure - not the end of their tenure! I mean, you have that propensity to be selective about data. LOL
But the main issue with you silly argument - why is it that national debt should double under this PM? Simply because the economy is bigger? If the economy is bigger, that would mean bigger tax base, which would mean more tax revenue. If the government is benefiting (via taxes) from a larger economy and larger tax base AND they double the debt - that would highlight a spending problem. Moreover, in other times in this thread - you extolled how fabulously the economy is doing - more people working then ever before, etc. With everything going so well (by your standards) why is it that the government (who should be reaping in more tax revenues) still have the need to spend more and more and more then they take in (when the taking in is so much bigger on account of such a bigger economy)? As I've stated before, trying to justify national debt by presenting it has a proportion of GDP is simply a justification to borrow/spend more. Debt to GDP ratio never existed in the public consciousness until the Libs in 2015 turned it into a marketing slogan. And people like you bought it hook, line and sinker. Sure, debt to GDP ratio is a fantastic marketing slogan when the election promise was 4 modest deficits of $10 billion per year - that's what this PM promised in 2015. And just like JT's promise that the 2015 election would be the last using first past the post - his modest $10 billion/yr of deficits for 4 years was another promise broken!
And FYI, even on a nominal basis, the economy today is NOT "twice as large as it was in 2006." I don't even have to look up nominal GDP to know that is false. Learn the rule of 72 and if you know anything about nominal GDP growth for a mature, fully developed economy like Canada's - you'll understand why that is incorrect. Did you just pull that statement out of thin air? Seriously, mate, do you just say things hoping your audience won't know if it's BS or not? LOL
More interesting fact. JT will do that all by himself in half the time! LOL
You have it ass-backwards, Champ.
$600 billion in 1984 dollars is $2 trillion today.
Trudeau doesn't even come close to running up as much as the Tory Twins.
Hey Einstein, Mulroney's budget deficits during his term in office was about $30 billion per year for roughly 10 years. That's not "$600 billion in 1984 dollars" - that would be a total of $300 billion,
Again, you're demonstrating that you don't know inflation and/or it's actual effects! LOL
Here's a useful CBC (you gotta love the CBC right!, they are not the National Post! LOL), use the drop down menu to pick a PM, they list their deficits/surplus by year, both in nominal dollars AND 2015 dollars. If you adjust for inflation to 2024 dollars, it is not "$2 trillion today." LOL
https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571
Case in point, here's the BoC inflation calculator, take the nominal deficit or surplus, remove the zeros (i.e. $30 billion becomes $30, etc.), change the year and see what that is in 2024 dollars. Repeat that process for all years of Mulroney's deficits and it does not equal $2 trillion dollars once you add up those adjusted dollar deficits! LOL
https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/
Now, let's see if you'll do the work! Convert Mulroney's deficits from each year he was in office to 2024 dollars and see if it adds up to (using your words) "$2 trillion today". I look forward to seeing your answer, remember show your work for full marks! LOL (and yes, I already know what the answer is, I just want to see if you'll actually do the work and admit that it's NOT $2 trillion in 2024 dollars!) LOL
I suspect that you have HDS
Harper Derangement Syndrome.
It's affecting your ability to think rationaly.
It's a problem.
Get help
Covid never happened. It was all a lie! Crisis method actors who died!
Trump Cult Syndrome (TCS)
What attracts people to Trump? What is their animus or driving force?
The reasons are multiple and varied, but in my recent public-service book, Profile of a Nation, I have outlined two major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. Narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive. The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship.
“Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure.
Why does Trump himself seem to gravitate toward violence and destruction?
Destructiveness is a core characteristic of mental pathology, whether directed toward the self or others. First, I wish to clarify that those with mental illness are, as a group, no more dangerous than those without mental illness. When mental pathology is accompanied by criminal-mindedness, however, the combination can make individuals far more dangerous than either alone.
In my textbook on violence, I emphasize the symbolic nature of violence and how it is a life impulse gone awry. Briefly, if one cannot have love, one resorts to respect. And when respect is unavailable, one resorts to fear. Trump is now living through an intolerable loss of respect: rejection by a nation in his election defeat. Violence helps compensate for feelings of powerlessness, inadequacy and lack of real productivity.
Source
What attracts people to Trump? What is their animus or driving force?
The reasons are multiple and varied, but in my recent public-service book, Profile of a Nation, I have outlined two major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. Narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive. The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship.
“Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure.
Why does Trump himself seem to gravitate toward violence and destruction?
Destructiveness is a core characteristic of mental pathology, whether directed toward the self or others. First, I wish to clarify that those with mental illness are, as a group, no more dangerous than those without mental illness. When mental pathology is accompanied by criminal-mindedness, however, the combination can make individuals far more dangerous than either alone.
In my textbook on violence, I emphasize the symbolic nature of violence and how it is a life impulse gone awry. Briefly, if one cannot have love, one resorts to respect. And when respect is unavailable, one resorts to fear. Trump is now living through an intolerable loss of respect: rejection by a nation in his election defeat. Violence helps compensate for feelings of powerlessness, inadequacy and lack of real productivity.
Source
I will remember Covid as the pandemic that "wiped out" 0.0785 percent of the world's population.
What I will remember more is the ridiculous overreaction of most governments.
The mess that was created will take many years to fix.
Completely unnecessary.
LLLurkJ2 most likely would like you to acknowledge that a big portion of the added debt under Trudeau 2.0 is due to COVID.
He does have a point. I would have to agree even if I dislike and to a certain extent despise the way the Trudeau family has managed the finance of the country. COVID exacerbated Trudeau's propension to dismiss the effect of the deficits created , quite often put in overdrive by the lack of oversight from his government and giving contracts to friendly donors that had already a good relationship with members of the liberal party.
Billions were spent in Canada during the Covid crisis.
Billions were wasted.
The Arrivcan app is just one small example.
Overpayments in supports to businesses and individuals.
The government created the need for support and then exacerbated the problem by trying to pay for everything and everybody.
The most ridiculous virtue signaling exercise in the history of the world.
The government is looking after you.
The government will save your life.
The government will fix everything.
Government, government, government.
Looking forward to getting rid of the current government.
Biggest clown show ever.
The auditor general has pegged federal government Covid supports at $211 billion. This government up to fiscal 2023 (that's 8 years) has achieved about over $500 billion in total deficits. Now that doesn't include fiscal 2024 (for which the audited results are not yet available, but will be in the next couple months). However, government has projected $40 billion deficit in fiscal 2024 and projected another deficit of $40 billion for fiscal 2025 (the most recently presented budget). We're conceivably looking at near $580 billion in total deficits by this PM. So no, I don't think when the auditor general says $211 billion was spent on Covid supports that somehow, total deficits approaching $600 billion in 10 years is "due to Covid".
The "it was due to Covid, how dare you question it, you must be a Covid denier" crowd - well, they are the true zealots who believe dear leader can never be criticized.
Everything is and should be questionned .
Like you I'll take the Auditor general's word and the Parliamentary budget officer's word over any politician , minister and especially a Trudeau. The true cost is yet to come as things will keep compounding as not all programs have been completely tabulated because the government is a slow moving elephant.
[QUOTE="appleomac, post: 2579999, member:
The "it was due to Covid, how dare you question it, you must be a Covid denier" crowd - well, they are the true zealots who believe dear leader can never be criticized.
[/QUOTE]
THAT is putting words in my mouth and talking nonsense out of both sides of YOUR mouth matey! But you've already bloviated about me elsewhere on this topic.
If 1/4 of the deficit spending is non-wasteful and neccessary around covid as a conservative estimate , how does Harper now compare.
Also the nominal inflation used by the BoC excludes fuel and housing costs and i would argue is a flawed measure of true inflation given the outsized amounts most household spend on those two items directly (excluding basket inflation due to energy inputs). You can look at charts of nominal value of goods and see that things like TVs and solar cells have gotten cheaper in real terms while education, fuel, housing have grown faster than the rate of inflation. I might argue that the weights of some of these things should be higher, but i would admit that would be subjective ranking.
Can deficit spending be bad? Yes , particularily in robust years - one could argue that it perverts incentives mostly in those circumstances. If it is always bad then I'd again point out that reality is that almost every single first world developed economy uses it, so why does reality differ from your opinion?
The "it was due to Covid, how dare you question it, you must be a Covid denier" crowd - well, they are the true zealots who believe dear leader can never be criticized.
[/QUOTE]
THAT is putting words in my mouth and talking nonsense out of both sides of YOUR mouth matey! But you've already bloviated about me elsewhere on this topic.
If 1/4 of the deficit spending is non-wasteful and neccessary around covid as a conservative estimate , how does Harper now compare.
Also the nominal inflation used by the BoC excludes fuel and housing costs and i would argue is a flawed measure of true inflation given the outsized amounts most household spend on those two items directly (excluding basket inflation due to energy inputs). You can look at charts of nominal value of goods and see that things like TVs and solar cells have gotten cheaper in real terms while education, fuel, housing have grown faster than the rate of inflation. I might argue that the weights of some of these things should be higher, but i would admit that would be subjective ranking.
Can deficit spending be bad? Yes , particularily in robust years - one could argue that it perverts incentives mostly in those circumstances. If it is always bad then I'd again point out that reality is that almost every single first world developed economy uses it, so why does reality differ from your opinion?
- Status
