Canada General Discussion: Trudeau II

[136or142]

The Khadr situation is actually a great example of conservatives (and Conservatives) being in a bubble.  Yes, most Canadians of all political stripes were unhappy with the payout, but the responses to many of the other questions showed the fairly frequent 2/3 to 1/3 split, with about 2/3 of Canadians responding to the other questions with a great deal of nuance while conservative Canadians largely saw the situation in stark terms.

So, if that becomes an issue in the next election, I would expect Conservatives would play the issue to their base rather than find a way to nuance the issue so that most Canadians would support them on it.

Of course, it's always possible that Andrew Scheer Stupidity is in reality Andrew Scheer Genius and he's just playing rope-a-dope (which is actually largely what Justin Trudeau and the Federal Liberals did in 2015.)

That's some CBC commenter level of silly. Do you call the parties CONservatives and LIEbrals too?

1.As opposed to "Justin over his head"?
Or even Stephane Dion "not a leader."

You oppose the use of nuance but you don't think slogans like that can work?  I suspect you're unhappy with it because you're afraid it might be picked up and used regularly. (If you check the hashtag or something similar you'll find a whole lot of people using it already.  I like to think I originated it, but I doubt it.) https://twitter.com/hashtag/ScheerStupidity?src=hash

2.Even if I'm wrong that you're afraid of it and genuinely think it's silly (though I think that contradicts your 'no nuance' stance)  what are you picking on the CBC for?

Have you checked out the global news or yahoo news discussions?  They sometimes make the CBC discussions look like university seminars.

The problem with all those message boards is similar to Akerlof's 'market for lemons' problem (used cars):  the bad commenters chase away the good commenters until all that's left is the bad.

[DC Al Fine]

The Khadr situation is actually a great example of conservatives (and Conservatives) being in a bubble.  Yes, most Canadians of all political stripes were unhappy with the payout, but the responses to many of the other questions showed the fairly frequent 2/3 to 1/3 split, with about 2/3 of Canadians responding to the other questions with a great deal of nuance while conservative Canadians largely saw the situation in stark terms.

So, if that becomes an issue in the next election, I would expect Conservatives would play the issue to their base rather than find a way to nuance the issue so that most Canadians would support them on it.

Of course, it's always possible that Andrew Scheer Stupidity is in reality Andrew Scheer Genius and he's just playing rope-a-dope (which is actually largely what Justin Trudeau and the Federal Liberals did in 2015.)

That's some CBC commenter level of silly. Do you call the parties CONservatives and LIEbrals too?

1.As opposed to "Justin over his head"?
Or even Stephane Dion "not a leader."

You oppose the use of nuance but you don't think slogans like that can work?  I suspect you're unhappy with it because you're afraid it might be picked up and used regularly. (If you check the hashtag or something similar you'll find a whole lot of people using it already.  I like to think I originated it, but I doubt it.) https://twitter.com/hashtag/ScheerStupidity?src=hash

2.Even if I'm wrong that you're afraid of it and genuinely think it's silly (though I think that contradicts your 'no nuance' stance) 

I want to have intelligent, nuanced discussions on Atlas. I recognize that simplistic, unnuanced messaging can be very effective for political parties. Those two sentences are not contradictory.

[136or142]

The Khadr situation is actually a great example of conservatives (and Conservatives) being in a bubble.  Yes, most Canadians of all political stripes were unhappy with the payout, but the responses to many of the other questions showed the fairly frequent 2/3 to 1/3 split, with about 2/3 of Canadians responding to the other questions with a great deal of nuance while conservative Canadians largely saw the situation in stark terms.

So, if that becomes an issue in the next election, I would expect Conservatives would play the issue to their base rather than find a way to nuance the issue so that most Canadians would support them on it.

Of course, it's always possible that Andrew Scheer Stupidity is in reality Andrew Scheer Genius and he's just playing rope-a-dope (which is actually largely what Justin Trudeau and the Federal Liberals did in 2015.)

That's some CBC commenter level of silly. Do you call the parties CONservatives and LIEbrals too?

1.As opposed to "Justin over his head"?
Or even Stephane Dion "not a leader."

You oppose the use of nuance but you don't think slogans like that can work?  I suspect you're unhappy with it because you're afraid it might be picked up and used regularly. (If you check the hashtag or something similar you'll find a whole lot of people using it already.  I like to think I originated it, but I doubt it.) https://twitter.com/hashtag/ScheerStupidity?src=hash

2.Even if I'm wrong that you're afraid of it and genuinely think it's silly (though I think that contradicts your 'no nuance' stance)  

I want to have intelligent, nuanced discussions on Atlas. I recognize that simplistic, unnuanced messaging can be very effective for political parties. Those two sentences are not contradictory.

Oh I see, that's a fair point.  I don't think it's contradictory to engage in intelligent nuanced discussion while sometimes using simplistic messaging.  I don't think that is contradictory either and simplistic messaging sometimes gets a point across very well.

One example of that is the line attributed to a number of people of "If I had more time to write this letter, it would be shorter."

Another is something like "if you can't fit an argument on a bumper sticker, you probably don't understand it."

I don't always agree with second maxim, but I generally agree that relatively simple ideas should build on relatively simple ideas to become complex.

In this case, from what I've seen I genuinely believe that Andrew Scheer isn't an intelligent person.  I don't know if he's actually stupid, but he often speaks only in conservative platititudes (not that different from Justin Trudeau who often speaks in liberal platititudes)  but, unlike Justin Trudeau who  does seem to be knowledgeable of public policy (far more than Conservatives seem to appreciate, but it seems clear most Canadians recognize Trudeau's not out to lunch) and usually makes nuanced comments (this is why Conservatives have resorted to making false claims about what Trudeau said, like on the small business tax issue)  Scheer doesn't seem to consider the consequences of what he says before making relatively specific comments on actual policy.

I refer to his initial absolute position to free speech on campuses which he had to walk back, and his position on safe consumption sites where he got basic facts wrong.

[DC Al Fine]

It's a bit late coming, but the NS PC leadership rules have been set. They will follow the 100 point per riding system used on the federal level. This is a first in Nova Scotia. We used a delegated convention in 2006, and Baillie was acclaimed in 2009.

Also Julie Chiasson, a failed candidate in Chester-St.Margaret's has thrown her hat itno the ring.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Justin Trudeau: Is Canada's love affair with its PM over?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Poirot]

A majority of the Bloc MPs have a problem with leader Martine Ouellet. Like it happened in the crisis of June of last year, 7 MPs are unhappy with Ouellet and 3 MPs (including Mario Beaulieu) side with the leader. She doesn't have the reputation of working well with others or be a team player.
   
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/bloc-quebecois-in-turmoil-as-mps-question-martine-ouellets-leadership

[DC Al Fine]

Justin Trudeau: Is Canada's love affair with its PM over?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You left out the best part; his entourage accidently invited a terrorist to dinner!

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Trudeau is doing everything to hand the next election to Conservatives. I hope he comes in 3rd place in the next election, where the Neo-Liberals deserve to be.

[136or142]

Trudeau is doing everything to hand the next election to Conservatives. I hope he comes in 3rd place in the next election, where the Neo-Liberals deserve to be.

This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are 'Neo-Liberals' then the NDP are communists who, if they ever got into power, would turn Canada into the next Venezuela.

This idea that everybody who is to the right of Bernie Sanders have all the same economic views, is no different than the garbage the right wing in the 1970s and the 1980s pulled that there is no difference between a liberal and a communist.

So, if I'm a 'neo-liberal', you're a communist.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trudeau is the worst PM ever and he is much worse than even Trump: https://globalnews.ca/news/4049900/trudeau-omar-khadr-lawyer-john-norris-justice/

[136or142]

Trudeau is doing everything to hand the next election to Conservatives. I hope he comes in 3rd place in the next election, where the Neo-Liberals deserve to be.

This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are 'Neo-Liberals' then the NDP are communists who, if they ever got into power, would turn Canada into the next Venezuela.

This idea that everybody who is to the right of Bernie Sanders have all the same economic views, is no different than the garbage the right wing in the 1970s and the 1980s pulled that there is no difference between a liberal and a communist.

So, if I'm a 'neo-liberal', you're a communist.

What a load of garbage. I'm not a fan of the 'neoliberal' slur myself for a variety of reasons (neoliberalism is a systemic trend following the collapse of the post-war consensus, not a meaningful ideological descriptor), but surely labelling a party whose budget is prepared by the likes of Bill Morneau as such is more reasonable than describing a very moderate party of labour as EVIL COMMIES?

Despite Bill Morneau's association with the CD Howe Institute, his budget's have been in the red liberal tradition.  The government has spent billions on a greatly expanded children's benefit and the government is in the process of implementing carbon taxes.  Compare that to genuine 'neo-liberal' policies of the likes in the U.S of Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell along with the Trump Administration.

The 'neo-Liberal' agenda is largely defined by the so-called 'Washington Consensus', especially, as we see in the United States, cuts to social spending and regulations.

If the Canadian Liberal Party's economic policies, of which it seems you know practically nothing, are going to be placed into some idiotic binary of which it is on the right along with the U.S government of Randian extremists, then the NDP is equally part of this binary and is no different than Chavez in Venezuela or, presumably, Stalin in the old Soviet Union.

[MaxQue]

Trudeau is doing everything to hand the next election to Conservatives. I hope he comes in 3rd place in the next election, where the Neo-Liberals deserve to be.

This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are 'Neo-Liberals' then the NDP are communists who, if they ever got into power, would turn Canada into the next Venezuela.

This idea that everybody who is to the right of Bernie Sanders have all the same economic views, is no different than the garbage the right wing in the 1970s and the 1980s pulled that there is no difference between a liberal and a communist.

So, if I'm a 'neo-liberal', you're a communist.

What a load of garbage. I'm not a fan of the 'neoliberal' slur myself for a variety of reasons (neoliberalism is a systemic trend following the collapse of the post-war consensus, not a meaningful ideological descriptor), but surely labelling a party whose budget is prepared by the likes of Bill Morneau as such is more reasonable than describing a very moderate party of labour as EVIL COMMIES?

Despite Bill Morneau's association with the CD Howe Institute, his budget's have been in the red liberal tradition.  The government has spent billions on a greatly expanded children's benefit and the government is in the process of implementing carbon taxes.  Compare that to genuine 'neo-liberal' policies of the likes in the U.S of Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell along with the Trump Administration.

The 'neo-Liberal' agenda is largely defined by the so-called 'Washington Consensus', especially, as we see in the United States, cuts to social spending and regulations.

If the Canadian Liberal Party's economic policies, of which it seems you know practically nothing, are going to be placed into some idiotic binary of which it is on the right along with the U.S government of Randian extremists, then the NDP is equally part of this binary and is no different than Chavez in Venezuela or, presumably, Stalin in the old Soviet Union.

Yet, he refuses to stop exempting half the capital gains from taxes and to do anything about doctor incorporation or fiscal paradises.

[136or142]

Trudeau is doing everything to hand the next election to Conservatives. I hope he comes in 3rd place in the next election, where the Neo-Liberals deserve to be.

This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are 'Neo-Liberals' then the NDP are communists who, if they ever got into power, would turn Canada into the next Venezuela.

This idea that everybody who is to the right of Bernie Sanders have all the same economic views, is no different than the garbage the right wing in the 1970s and the 1980s pulled that there is no difference between a liberal and a communist.

So, if I'm a 'neo-liberal', you're a communist.

What a load of garbage. I'm not a fan of the 'neoliberal' slur myself for a variety of reasons (neoliberalism is a systemic trend following the collapse of the post-war consensus, not a meaningful ideological descriptor), but surely labelling a party whose budget is prepared by the likes of Bill Morneau as such is more reasonable than describing a very moderate party of labour as EVIL COMMIES?

Despite Bill Morneau's association with the CD Howe Institute, his budget's have been in the red liberal tradition.  The government has spent billions on a greatly expanded children's benefit and the government is in the process of implementing carbon taxes.  Compare that to genuine 'neo-liberal' policies of the likes in the U.S of Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell along with the Trump Administration.

The 'neo-Liberal' agenda is largely defined by the so-called 'Washington Consensus', especially, as we see in the United States, cuts to social spending and regulations.

If the Canadian Liberal Party's economic policies, of which it seems you know practically nothing, are going to be placed into some idiotic binary of which it is on the right along with the U.S government of Randian extremists, then the NDP is equally part of this binary and is no different than Chavez in Venezuela or, presumably, Stalin in the old Soviet Union.

Yet, he refuses to stop exempting half the capital gains from taxes and to do anything about doctor incorporation or fiscal paradises.

I seem to recall then NDP Finance Critic Alexandre Boulerice supporting the doctors (and others) in the small business tax fight.  So, the NDP are communist neo-liberals, the worst kind.

[DC Al Fine]

Major items out of budget day:

1) Five weeks of use it or lose it parental leave for fathers.
2) In time honoured tradition, the Liberals are stealing a policy from the NDP by pledging to implement pharmacare.

[MaxQue]

Trudeau is doing everything to hand the next election to Conservatives. I hope he comes in 3rd place in the next election, where the Neo-Liberals deserve to be.

This isn't really the right place for this discussion, but if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are 'Neo-Liberals' then the NDP are communists who, if they ever got into power, would turn Canada into the next Venezuela.

This idea that everybody who is to the right of Bernie Sanders have all the same economic views, is no different than the garbage the right wing in the 1970s and the 1980s pulled that there is no difference between a liberal and a communist.

So, if I'm a 'neo-liberal', you're a communist.

What a load of garbage. I'm not a fan of the 'neoliberal' slur myself for a variety of reasons (neoliberalism is a systemic trend following the collapse of the post-war consensus, not a meaningful ideological descriptor), but surely labelling a party whose budget is prepared by the likes of Bill Morneau as such is more reasonable than describing a very moderate party of labour as EVIL COMMIES?

Despite Bill Morneau's association with the CD Howe Institute, his budget's have been in the red liberal tradition.  The government has spent billions on a greatly expanded children's benefit and the government is in the process of implementing carbon taxes.  Compare that to genuine 'neo-liberal' policies of the likes in the U.S of Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell along with the Trump Administration.

The 'neo-Liberal' agenda is largely defined by the so-called 'Washington Consensus', especially, as we see in the United States, cuts to social spending and regulations.

If the Canadian Liberal Party's economic policies, of which it seems you know practically nothing, are going to be placed into some idiotic binary of which it is on the right along with the U.S government of Randian extremists, then the NDP is equally part of this binary and is no different than Chavez in Venezuela or, presumably, Stalin in the old Soviet Union.

Yet, he refuses to stop exempting half the capital gains from taxes and to do anything about doctor incorporation or fiscal paradises.

I seem to recall then NDP Finance Critic Alexandre Boulerice supporting the doctors (and others) in the small business tax fight.  So, the NDP are communist neo-liberals, the worst kind.

There was issues with the small business changes, which could have been very bad for small businesses

Major items out of budget day:

1) Five weeks of use it or lose it parental leave for fathers.
2) In time honoured tradition, the Liberals are stealing a policy from the NDP by pledging to implement pharmacare.

Funnily, this amount to exactly 0 in Québec because we already have generous provincial parental leave (financed by a specific payroll deduction, but we pay less federal EI) and we already have Pharmacare since the 70's.

[Hatman 🍁]

Small business owners are definitely not the NDP's key demographic, but supporting them definitely is within the NDP's mantra of 'helping the little guy'.  Let's drop the absurd extremist ideology name calling, mmkay?

[RogueBeaver]

Bloc implodes as 7/10 MPs quit to sit as Indies.

[DC Al Fine]

Bloc implodes as 7/10 MPs quit to sit as Indies.

Wonder how this plays out in 2019?

The problem for non-Liberal Quebecers is that the opposition is so evenly divided, which should allow the Liberals a massive majority in Quebec on 40-45% of the vote. If Bloc support mainly goes to one party (NDP?), it could help keep the Liberals in check. On the other hand Indies vs official Bloc candidates could give even more seats to the Liberals.

Thoughts?

[RogueBeaver]

People who voted Bloc in 2015 weren't gonna vote NDP next year. At any rate I expect Grits to win 60+ seats here regardless.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

[DC Al Fine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

There are strong progressive criticisms of the Liberal tax changes. For example, the Liberal proposal would have resulted in a combined tax rate over 100% on the gain on sale of assets when winding down a company in some situations, until they fixed the wording on budget day.

Seems like the sort of thing the NDP could attack in good conscience. Besides, the proposals were a vaguely worded mess.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

There are strong progressive criticisms of the Liberal tax changes. For example, the Liberal proposal would have resulted in a combined tax rate over 100% on the gain on sale of assets when winding down a company in some situations, until they fixed the wording on budget day.

Seems like the sort of thing the NDP could attack in good conscience. Besides, the proposals were a vaguely worded mess.

Of the three areas of proposed changes, two of them were clear.  These incorporated small business tax perks are not a new issue and have been getting larger as the small business tax rate has decreased.  The idea used to be to that an incorporated small business and an unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership would end up paying roughly the same total tax, but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

[DC Al Fine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

There are strong progressive criticisms of the Liberal tax changes. For example, the Liberal proposal would have resulted in a combined tax rate over 100% on the gain on sale of assets when winding down a company in some situations, until they fixed the wording on budget day.

Seems like the sort of thing the NDP could attack in good conscience. Besides, the proposals were a vaguely worded mess.

Of the three areas of proposed changes, two of them were clear.  These incorporated small business tax perks are not a new issue and have been getting larger as the small business tax rate has decreased.  The idea used to be to that an incorporated small business and an unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership would end up paying roughly the same total tax, but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

I'm well aware of the rationale, that was always clear. The nitty gritty of the proposals was not.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

There are strong progressive criticisms of the Liberal tax changes. For example, the Liberal proposal would have resulted in a combined tax rate over 100% on the gain on sale of assets when winding down a company in some situations, until they fixed the wording on budget day.

Seems like the sort of thing the NDP could attack in good conscience. Besides, the proposals were a vaguely worded mess.

Of the three areas of proposed changes, two of them were clear.  These incorporated small business tax perks are not a new issue and have been getting larger as the small business tax rate has decreased.  The idea used to be to that an incorporated small business and an unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership would end up paying roughly the same total tax, but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

I'm well aware of the rationale, that was always clear. The nitty gritty of the proposals was not.

Kevin Milligan, who was the economist behind many of the proposals disagrees with you
http://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinmilligan/2017/09/10/taxation-of-private-corporations-an-explainer-compendium/

[DC Al Fine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not a single one of the changes as per the defined regulations would have been bad for small businesses whatsoever, as only the already extremely profitable small businesses would have been subject to the tax changes. There were a handful of proposed regulations that according to the small business community might have been harmful because they were not precisely spelled out.

The arguments of how these small business tax changes would have hurt small business or Canada in general are definitely 'neo liberal' arguments:

1.Business people deserve extra tax advantages because they are 'job creators'

2.If business owners (not the businesses themselves) are taxed at normal rates they won't grow the economy is an argument which is the very definition of 'trickle down supply side economics.'

There are strong progressive criticisms of the Liberal tax changes. For example, the Liberal proposal would have resulted in a combined tax rate over 100% on the gain on sale of assets when winding down a company in some situations, until they fixed the wording on budget day.

Seems like the sort of thing the NDP could attack in good conscience. Besides, the proposals were a vaguely worded mess.

Of the three areas of proposed changes, two of them were clear.  These incorporated small business tax perks are not a new issue and have been getting larger as the small business tax rate has decreased.  The idea used to be to that an incorporated small business and an unincorporated sole proprietorship or partnership would end up paying roughly the same total tax, but that hasn't been the case for a while now.

I'm well aware of the rationale, that was always clear. The nitty gritty of the proposals was not.

Kevin Milligan, who was the economist behind many of the proposals disagrees with you
http://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinmilligan/2017/09/10/taxation-of-private-corporations-an-explainer-compendium/

Milligan likes his own proposal?! We'll gee whiz. Next you'll tell me that Trudeau is voting Liberal in 2019.

Milligans website doesn't change the fact that the proposal as originally written, produced some really weird results like my 100% tax example. Bizarre cases like that indicate the proposal wasn't well written.