It is currently December 8th, 2019, 4:39 pm

All times are UTC-08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 334 posts ]  Go to page Previous 113 14 15 16 17 Next
Author Message
Unread postPosted: September 22nd, 2019, 4:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
Like a third world dictator, Trudeau is never held to account. Our state owned media, the CBC, is his apologist in chief.

By Lorrie Goldstein of Sun News Media

ENOUGH’S ENOUGH
It’s time to call Trudeau to account


Can we not now, at long last, simply admit it?

That four years ago we elected a shallow, not overly bright, temperamental child of privilege, who would have had zero chance of leading the Liberal Party of Canada, let alone becoming Prime Minister of Canada, were his last name not “Trudeau?”

Can we not, at long last, acknowledge the painfully obvious — that while Justin Trudeau can act the part of prime minister when he has a script prepared for him, by others — he’s terrible at thinking on his feet?

Can we not admit that Trudeau has repeatedly misled us on matters of substance, from his initial declaration that The Globe and Mail’s first story on the Snc-lavalin scandal was “false,” to his 2015 election promise — not a prediction, a promise he made on national television — that Canada would have a balanced budget this year? (Now, he says it’s a $19.8-billion deficit.)

Can we not acknowledge that a prime minister who says the reason he didn’t know blackface was racist — as a full-grown adult and a teacher — was that he was surrounded by layers of white privilege, is essentially telling us he’s not a racist because he’s oblivious and dumb?

Can we not finally admit that a prime minister who apparently hid his racist fetish of repeatedly dressing up in blackface from his own party, while publicly accusing his Conservative opponent of being a closet white supremacist, has no appreciation of what breathtaking hypocrisy means? And he has issues to work out about himself that he should not be doing while he’s the Prime Minister of Canada.

Can we not, at long last, dispense with a prime minister who, when he screws up, and he screws up a lot, claims it’s a learning experience for the rest of us?

What more will it take after the Aga Khan vacation scandal, the Lavscam scandal and the Mark Norman prosecution scandal — plus the findings of two ethics commissioners that he violated federal conflict-of-interest rules — for us to finally acknowledge Trudeau has no meaningful understanding of the limits of the wise, judicious and appropriate use of prime ministerial power?

How much longer are we to tolerate a prime minister who, when asked in 2013 what country he admires, came up with the “basic dictatorship” of China, whose dictators are currently hellbent on snuffing out democracy in Hong Kong, while unjustly imprisoning Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig? When does a prime minister who calls himself a champion of diversity and equality, but who then banishes from his party two cabinet ministers — Jody Wilson-raybould and Jane Philpott — who had the moral courage to speak truth to power — his power — finally get called to account? We already know the Liberal party will never rein in Trudeau if he wins another majority government. We know it by the way Liberal MPS across Canada are twisting themselves into moral pretzels trying to justify their attacks on Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer as a racist while defending Trudeau in his blackface scandal. We know it by the way they folded like cheap tents when Trudeau and Co. used their Liberal majority in Parliament to prematurely shut down committee inquiries into Lavscam, not once, but twice. And who are silent when Trudeau rejects a request from Parliament’s ethics commissioner to waive confidentiality for government witnesses and documents, so he can do a full and complete investigation into Lavscam. Simply put, when is enough, enough?

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 22nd, 2019, 4:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
By Warren Kinsella, a Liberal disgusted with Trudeau

Justin Trudeau all sizzle, no steak
Grits want voters to ‘Choose Forward’ — and largely forget last four years


The land is strong — sound familiar? Remember that?

The old-timers do.

It was an actual slogan deployed in the 1972 federal election campaign. Didn’t work out too well.

In yesterday walks tomorrow, they say, and that is certainly true when one compares 1972 to 2019. The similarities are striking.

In 1972, a Trudeau led the Liberal party, as in 2019.

It was a Liberal majority government seeking another majority, as now.

Back in 1972, as in 2019, the Conservatives were led by a kind of boring, bland guy who everyone underestimated.

The Liberals’

1972 slogan, “The Land is Strong,” sucked. So does the Liberals’ 2019 slogan, “Choose Forward.” It’s ungrammatical and uninspiring.

But the Justin Trudeau folks are wedded to their crummy slogan, just like Justin’s dad was to his. Everywhere Trudeau the younger goes, he robotically repeats the “choose forward” mantra, and no one knows exactly what it means.

That’s never a good idea politically, but it’s potentially lethal when a scandal hits — like the blackface scandal. When you have no positive message, it makes it easier for a negative message to take its place, and blackface has.

Is an election won or lost on a slogan? Of course not — but a good one should give voters a pithy idea about what is on offer. Like, you know, “Melts in your mouth, not in your hands,” or “Just do it” or “The quicker picker-upper.”

The big problem with “Choose Forward” is it reminds voters about Justin Trudeau’s biggest problem, which isn’t Lavscam, or the Aga Khan, or Gropegate — it’s that he hasn’t done what he said he was going to do, and he hasn’t done much at all, really.

Let’s crack open the history book again.

From 1968 to 1972, when his dad was prime minister and enjoying a strong parliamentary majority, lots of things were done: the Just Society, universal health care, regional development, parliamentary reform, bilingualism, multiculturalism, pro-natoism, multilateralism, staring down separatism and terrorism.

When you examine the elder Trudeau’s first majority term — and whether you respected him or not, and this writer really did — it is remarkable how much was accomplished in a relatively short period of time.

But, despite all that, Pierre Trudeau was still reduced to a minority in 1972.

His son, meanwhile, doesn’t have much to brag about legislatively. Legalization of cannabis, and that’s it.

History will not remember Justin Trudeau for lots of important legislative achievements, because there haven’t been any. It’s been a lot of social media sizzle, but not much policy steak.

Broken promises and voter disappointments — they’re not predicaments unknown to incumbent governments, true, but, if there’s enough of them, they’re why those governments get defeated.

And, at this point, Justin Trudeau isn’t known for any achievements at all. He’s known for being a racist and wearing blackface.

Pierre Trudeau wasn’t defeated in 1972, but, despite a lot of legislative achievements, he almost was. He, the Northern Magus, lost his parliamentary majority to the efforts of Bob Stanfield — who, like Andrew Scheer, was regularly mocked and maligned.

“Choose Forward” strongly implies that what preceded it wasn’t all that great. In Justin Trudeau’s case, he wants us to think of mean old Stephen Harper when we think about that past.

But what if voters start thinking about the more recent past — and what, if anything, Justin Trudeau has achieved?

He hasn’t achieved much. There’s a reason why Justin Trudeau is less popular than Donald Trump, you know.

The land is strong? When compared to something like “Choose Forward,” the 1972 Liberal campaign slogan is practically a detailed 100page policy platform.

Canadians are going to choose, all right.

Based upon his paltry, puny legislative record — based on his racist blackface stunts — Justin Trudeau may deeply regret asking Canadians to do so.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 23rd, 2019, 3:54 am 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16303
Some of the biggest critics of Justine are 1990's Liberals.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 23rd, 2019, 4:36 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41381
One thing about this exposure of Trudeau's racist mockery is that it's forcing him to answer questions on the campaign trail..

He thought he could coast to reelection without answering tough questions.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 24th, 2019, 10:14 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
By Taek Fatah

Trudeau — fake and egocentric

It took an American magazine — Time — to blow the lid on Justin Trudeau’s 18-yearold blackface secret, and now we learn from a British newspaper, The Telegraph, that our prime minister was lying to us even as he staged well-acted apologies.

During his first apology to reporters on his aircraft, Trudeau gave the impression that he dressed up in Aladdin at an Arabian Nights theme party at the school where he was a teacher. However, The Telegraph reports that far from being a costume party gala, the event was a ‘black tie’ dinner.

“The invitations had said it was “black tie”, with an “Arabian Nights” theme in the form of belly dancers and Middle Eastern music. More than 500 guests showed up. All the men wore tuxedos. Except Mr. Trudeau,” the Telegraph said.

One guest told the British newspaper, “We were taken aback when he walked in, but it just didn’t seem to register with Justin … It was not OK.”

So far Justin Trudeau has maintained his blackface performance was a result of his not knowing in 2001 that such behaviour was wrong. He also blames his racist behaviour on society for making him privileged. “I should have understood that then and I never should have done it. I didn’t see that from the layers of privilege that I have and for that I am deeply sorry, and I apologize.” Earlier he said, “I should’ve known better. But I didn’t.”

No, Mr. Trudeau you did know, and you’ve admitted it elsewhere.

As early as 1997, while studying for his B.ED. degree, Trudeau had to go through class exercises in racism and privilege as part of his ‘Sociology of Education’ course.

He revealed this in December 2016 while answering a question about racism and white privilege at a boisterous gathering of Elementary Teachers of Toronto. Trudeau boasted he was fully aware of the nuances of privilege and racism way back in 1997 or even earlier. He said: “When I was doing my B.ED. we had a class called Sociology of Education and it was exactly around all that and I remember this exercise where as a class we generated a list, a binary list in terms of pairs in terms or power dynamics; white vs non-white, male vs female, straight vs LGBTQ, all the way down the list … I realized that of the 20 pairs on the list, I was on the power side on 19 of the 20. … So, it was an extraordinarily powerful wake-up call for me. Like it or not, whether we like it or not, I was given a power and a voice that I did nothing to earn, that I did nothing to deserve.”

Trudeau told the teachers, “I ended up writing a reflection, a free-verse style reflection of being a straight white male. The essence of it was that if I am lucky, and I am lucky, then I have a responsibility.”

Apparently, between 1998 and 2001, Trudeau forgot his free-verse, and ended up putting on blackface at a black-tie event. I also wonder where Trudeau was when on May 4, 1992, a demonstration in Toronto, protesting the dismissal of charges against Los Angeles police officers who were filmed beating black motorist Rodney King, erupted into violence and vandalism.

My daughter is younger that Justin Trudeau, but she was aware of racism at the time. As president of her school union she rallied the predominantly white students to stand up against anti-black racism. Where were you at the time Justin?

You lied to us multiple times. You may or may not be a racist, but you most definitely are a fake and egocentric man.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 24th, 2019, 10:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
Image

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 25th, 2019, 10:06 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
A foreign policy leaders debate scheduled for a week from tomorrow has been cancelled because Trudeau refuses to participate. :001_rolleyes:

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 25th, 2019, 1:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
A Montreal area MP, Eva Nassif was forced out of the Liberal Party for refusing to laud Justin Trudeau as a feminist.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 25th, 2019, 1:36 pm 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41381
seoulbro wrote:
A Montreal area MP, Eva Nassif was forced out of the Liberal Party for refusing to laud Justin Trudeau as a feminist.

ac_wot


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 26th, 2019, 9:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
Trudeau's actions show he has little use for any woman that does not do what he tells them.

Liberal MP says she refused to laud Trudeau as a feminist ‘I am authentic’

Taken on its own, the story in the Globe and Mail about Liberal MP

Eva Nassif wouldn’t be of tremendous interest. Taken as part of a pattern that goes against Justin Trudeau’s self-proclaimed feminism, the story takes on a whole new meaning.

Nassif was one of 50 women the Liberals helped elect in the 2015 campaign, but she wasn’t allowed to run in this election and says she it is all because she wouldn’t post supportive messages of Trudeau on social media.

“I was punished for failing to hail Justin Trudeau as a great feminist in the wake of Snc-lavalin when I didn’t post anything,” Nassif told the Globe.

If you remember those days after Jody Wilsonraybould and Jane Philpott left the Liberal caucus in March, female Liberal MPS took to Twitter and Facebook to post praise for Trudeau as a strong leader for women. The posts were often identical and were obviously centrally written.

Nassif told the Globe that she didn’t post them because “I am authentic.”

Now think about that — here is a woman who says she was blocked from running for the self-proclaimed feminist because she didn’t sing his praises as a feminist leader. She also said she was bullied by three male Liberal MPS and the party didn’t stop it.

Nassif’s claims on her own could easily be dismissed as a disgruntled politician crying sour grapes, but when you look at them along with Trudeau’s treatment of Wilsonraybould, Philpott and MP Celina Caesar-chavannes, it looks like a pattern.

Trudeau has trouble dealing with women who are less than compliant.

When Caesar-Chavannes told Trudeau she would not seek re-election this October, she says he yelled at her.

“He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn’t appreciate him, that he’d given me so much,” Caesar-chavannes said back in March.

Trudeau’s office denied that ever happened, but remember, this was a time when they were still denying they had pressured Wilson-Raybould to overturn the decision to prosecute SNC-Lavalin on bribery and corruption charges.

The Liberals have lost from their caucus four people who tried to be the strong and independent women Trudeau likes to say he supports. They left or were booted out for not doing exactly as their boss said.

Can you think of any men that have been treated the same way in the Liberal caucus?

Raj Grewal left the Liberal caucus over personal financial trouble, but other than him, Trudeau has mostly lost men during his time as leader over claims of sexual impropriety. Massimo Pacetti, Scott Andrews and Darshan Khan were all booted.

Trudeau, who also faced a groping allegation, was allowed to stay. Is it any wonder so few women believe Trudeau when he declares himself a feminist?

As we reported earlier this week, a poll conducted by DART for the Sun showed just 24% believe Trudeau’s feminist claim, 38% don’t believe he’s a feminist and 37% weren’t sure.

Maybe they doubt it because of his preferential treatment given to himself on the groping allegation.

Or maybe because women see the way he actually treats women.

Since the Aladdin in blackface photo surfaced last week, I have been constantly asked in person and via email, Twitter and elsewhere why Trudeau’s hand was stretched out across the young woman’s chest.

Trudeau has said that the woman was a good friend, yet it still seems overly familiar, just like the way he touches so many women in an overly familiar way.

That touching, like the way Trudeau disposes of strong women in his caucus, is part of a disturbing pattern for our feminist in chief.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 30th, 2019, 4:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
Trudeau has promised to make Canada a net zero greenhouae gas emitter by 2050. He plans on achieving that lofty goal by taxing us back to the stone age.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: September 30th, 2019, 6:33 pm 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41381
seoulbro wrote:
Trudeau has promised to make Canada a net zero greenhouae gas emitter by 2050. He plans on achieving that lofty goal by taxing us back to the stone age.

That's what I'm afraid of Seoul.
:sad:


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 3rd, 2019, 10:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
Liberals' fiscal projections don't even mention 'deficit'

When the unofficial organ of the Liberal Party — the Toronto Star — has its economics columnist slamming the margin of error in Justin Trudeau’s estimates as “enormous,” it’s time to fact check if you are reading the correct paper.
This is the newspaper, after all, that defended the corrupt Liberal governance of former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne right up until the day massive electoral casualties left its pre-election majority on life support.
The provincial Liberals were rightly annihilated, cut to the quick, with no tears needing to shed, even if you now have a hate-on for Doug Ford.
The Wynne Liberals at least got their comeuppance.
Now, we have the same scenario with the Trudeau Liberals. Like no federal government before them they do not deserve a second term in power yet, here we are, less than three weeks away from the Oct. 21 election, and the Liberals are still neck-in-neck with Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives.
It is nonsensical.
If you ask most notable international economists there is as much as a 60% chance of a global recession in 2020, a downturn that wise governments will have already anticipated by cutting back on their spending so they can ramp up their economies with cash injections when they begin to tank.
The Trudeau Liberals have already blown their wad.
Their 2018-2019 fiscal deficit, as we recently learned, will almost double within a year from $14 billion to $27 billion.
These aren’t nickels and dimes.
These numbers represent the interest owing on a national debt which Statscan pegged in March at $768 billion. It’s a debt that already has our infant children and grandchildren saddled with a monstrous IOU from which there is no ducking out, courtesy of the federal Liberals who failed to even mention the word “deficit” in their 85-page “platform fiscal projection,” and recklessly spend billions as if there is no tomorrow.
Hopefully, Oct. 21 will be their day of reckoning.
As Heather Scoffield, the Star’s economics columnist, asked the other day: “The question for voters that arise from this plan is crystal clear: Is it worth taking on that extra debt — $94 billion over four years once baked-in and newly-planned deficits are added together?”
The question would appear to be rhetorical and produces answers from the conservative side like, “Are you f-g crazy?” and/or “You must be out of your mind.”
On top of this, the UN’S flagship report by its trade and development body (UNCTAD) warned of a very possible global recession in 2020, starting with the U.S., and rippling around the world, based on the fact “warning lights (are) flashing around trade wars, currency gyrations, the possibility of a no-deal Brexit and movements in long-term interest rates.”
“But,” the report added, “there is little sign that policymakers are prepared for the coming storm.”
In Canada, that would be the Trudeau Liberals.
In a press conference Monday in Toronto, Trudeau blithely slagged the 10 years the Stephen Harper Conservatives were in power, yet steered clear of how Harper and his late finance minister, Jim Flaherty, received praise from virtually all international leaders for their deft handling of the last recession, and how it barely had any negative affect on the lives of everyday Canadians.
This was not from “budgets balancing themselves.”
This was from strong fiscal management and vision.
It was being smart, as opposed to winging it.
Trudeau, meanwhile, is flying by the seat of his pants.
His spending is out of control.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 7th, 2019, 4:56 am 

Joined: October 4th, 2012, 10:25 pm
Posts: 41381
seoulbro wrote:
Liberals' fiscal projections don't even mention 'deficit'

When the unofficial organ of the Liberal Party — the Toronto Star — has its economics columnist slamming the margin of error in Justin Trudeau’s estimates as “enormous,” it’s time to fact check if you are reading the correct paper.
This is the newspaper, after all, that defended the corrupt Liberal governance of former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne right up until the day massive electoral casualties left its pre-election majority on life support.
The provincial Liberals were rightly annihilated, cut to the quick, with no tears needing to shed, even if you now have a hate-on for Doug Ford.
The Wynne Liberals at least got their comeuppance.
Now, we have the same scenario with the Trudeau Liberals. Like no federal government before them they do not deserve a second term in power yet, here we are, less than three weeks away from the Oct. 21 election, and the Liberals are still neck-in-neck with Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives.
It is nonsensical.
If you ask most notable international economists there is as much as a 60% chance of a global recession in 2020, a downturn that wise governments will have already anticipated by cutting back on their spending so they can ramp up their economies with cash injections when they begin to tank.
The Trudeau Liberals have already blown their wad.
Their 2018-2019 fiscal deficit, as we recently learned, will almost double within a year from $14 billion to $27 billion.
These aren’t nickels and dimes.
These numbers represent the interest owing on a national debt which Statscan pegged in March at $768 billion. It’s a debt that already has our infant children and grandchildren saddled with a monstrous IOU from which there is no ducking out, courtesy of the federal Liberals who failed to even mention the word “deficit” in their 85-page “platform fiscal projection,” and recklessly spend billions as if there is no tomorrow.
Hopefully, Oct. 21 will be their day of reckoning.
As Heather Scoffield, the Star’s economics columnist, asked the other day: “The question for voters that arise from this plan is crystal clear: Is it worth taking on that extra debt — $94 billion over four years once baked-in and newly-planned deficits are added together?”
The question would appear to be rhetorical and produces answers from the conservative side like, “Are you f-g crazy?” and/or “You must be out of your mind.”
On top of this, the UN’S flagship report by its trade and development body (UNCTAD) warned of a very possible global recession in 2020, starting with the U.S., and rippling around the world, based on the fact “warning lights (are) flashing around trade wars, currency gyrations, the possibility of a no-deal Brexit and movements in long-term interest rates.”
“But,” the report added, “there is little sign that policymakers are prepared for the coming storm.”
In Canada, that would be the Trudeau Liberals.
In a press conference Monday in Toronto, Trudeau blithely slagged the 10 years the Stephen Harper Conservatives were in power, yet steered clear of how Harper and his late finance minister, Jim Flaherty, received praise from virtually all international leaders for their deft handling of the last recession, and how it barely had any negative affect on the lives of everyday Canadians.
This was not from “budgets balancing themselves.”
This was from strong fiscal management and vision.
It was being smart, as opposed to winging it.
Trudeau, meanwhile, is flying by the seat of his pants.
His spending is out of control.

And how will Trudeau pay for all this new debt?


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 7th, 2019, 5:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16303
Fashionista wrote:
seoulbro wrote:
Liberals' fiscal projections don't even mention 'deficit' When the unofficial organ of the Liberal Party — the Toronto Star — has its economics columnist slamming the margin of error in Justin Trudeau’s estimates as “enormous,” it’s time to fact check if you are reading the correct paper. This is the newspaper, after all, that defended the corrupt Liberal governance of former Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne right up until the day massive electoral casualties left its pre-election majority on life support. The provincial Liberals were rightly annihilated, cut to the quick, with no tears needing to shed, even if you now have a hate-on for Doug Ford. The Wynne Liberals at least got their comeuppance. Now, we have the same scenario with the Trudeau Liberals. Like no federal government before them they do not deserve a second term in power yet, here we are, less than three weeks away from the Oct. 21 election, and the Liberals are still neck-in-neck with Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives. It is nonsensical. If you ask most notable international economists there is as much as a 60% chance of a global recession in 2020, a downturn that wise governments will have already anticipated by cutting back on their spending so they can ramp up their economies with cash injections when they begin to tank. The Trudeau Liberals have already blown their wad. Their 2018-2019 fiscal deficit, as we recently learned, will almost double within a year from $14 billion to $27 billion. These aren’t nickels and dimes. These numbers represent the interest owing on a national debt which Statscan pegged in March at $768 billion. It’s a debt that already has our infant children and grandchildren saddled with a monstrous IOU from which there is no ducking out, courtesy of the federal Liberals who failed to even mention the word “deficit” in their 85-page “platform fiscal projection,” and recklessly spend billions as if there is no tomorrow. Hopefully, Oct. 21 will be their day of reckoning. As Heather Scoffield, the Star’s economics columnist, asked the other day: “The question for voters that arise from this plan is crystal clear: Is it worth taking on that extra debt — $94 billion over four years once baked-in and newly-planned deficits are added together?” The question would appear to be rhetorical and produces answers from the conservative side like, “Are you f-g crazy?” and/or “You must be out of your mind.” On top of this, the UN’S flagship report by its trade and development body (UNCTAD) warned of a very possible global recession in 2020, starting with the U.S., and rippling around the world, based on the fact “warning lights (are) flashing around trade wars, currency gyrations, the possibility of a no-deal Brexit and movements in long-term interest rates.” “But,” the report added, “there is little sign that policymakers are prepared for the coming storm.” In Canada, that would be the Trudeau Liberals. In a press conference Monday in Toronto, Trudeau blithely slagged the 10 years the Stephen Harper Conservatives were in power, yet steered clear of how Harper and his late finance minister, Jim Flaherty, received praise from virtually all international leaders for their deft handling of the last recession, and how it barely had any negative affect on the lives of everyday Canadians. This was not from “budgets balancing themselves.” This was from strong fiscal management and vision. It was being smart, as opposed to winging it. Trudeau, meanwhile, is flying by the seat of his pants. His spending is out of control.
And how will Trudeau pay for all this new debt?

You will pay for it.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 9th, 2019, 1:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16303
So much for budgets balancing themselves and growing the economy from the heart out.

Trudeau's reckless inexperience is hurting the Canadian economy
This is a classic tax-and-spend regime, run by a prime minister and cabinet without managerial or financial discipline or experience
https://business.financialpost.com/dian ... an-economy

No Canadian prime minister has spent more money (per person, inflation-adjusted) or accumulated more debt (per person), outside a world war or recession, than Prime Minister Trudeau,” estimated the Fraser Institute in April.

“Canada’s gross debt will increase this year by almost $120 billion (again, adjusted for inflation) since the previous government tabled its last budget in 2015. On a per-person basis, each Canadian has acquired $1,725 more in federal debt since Prime Minister Trudeau took office,” the think tank added.

The reason for this debt is exorbitant program spending, over and above higher taxes.

This has been all the more reckless during a period of economic growth, fuelled mostly by the American economy. Now that the economy slows, high debts are a prescription for trouble.

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 9th, 2019, 1:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: July 20th, 2015, 7:24 pm
Posts: 16303
Image

_________________
prairie redneck.


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 14th, 2019, 1:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
Under Justin Trudeau, middle-class families are paying an average of $800 more per year in taxes compared to when Trudeau was elected.

He’s using your money to stuff the pockets of rich corporations in the form of subsidies and free fridges.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 22nd, 2019, 7:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: October 3rd, 2012, 8:12 pm
Posts: 20916
Image

_________________
The Iron Chink!!


Top
   
Unread postPosted: October 26th, 2019, 8:52 am 
User avatar

Joined: November 17th, 2012, 4:01 pm
Posts: 12680
Dropping the carbon tax will go a long way for unity

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was against a federal carbon tax before he was in support of one. Or at least he was against thinking it was a wise idea to force the controversial “tax on everything” onto Canada’s provinces.

“Justin Trudeau says carbon pricing should be left to provinces” reads the headline of a CBC News story, dated January 2015, months before the election that first brought him to power.

The story lays out Trudeau’s view that because a number of provinces already have carbon taxes, it’s fine to leave it at that. Rather, the feds job will be to coordinate among the provinces. Fair enough.

He was right when he thought this back then and he can be right again if he reads the tea leaves and takes a moment to reflect on Canada’s now shaky union.

Although we now know Trudeau later changed his tune to say that if the provinces didn’t bring in plans that he liked, he’d force one of his own choosing upon them.

The problem is that this “my way or the high way” approach hasn’t turned out so well.

Three provinces are now challenging the feds’ bossy approach in the courts. Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan are all waging a legal battle against Trudeau’s divisive tax. They’ve signaled they’re prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

While lower level courts have so far sided with the federal Liberals, this should not be misinterpreted as being an advantage for Trudeau.

These provinces were just doing their own thing when Trudeau came along to poke his nose into what they were doing on carbon pricing. He started this fight. They can’t be blamed for defending themselves.

Meanwhile, the voters just downgraded Trudeau to a minority while the likes of Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney won recent majorities.

Trudeau does not have a resounding mandate to implement his agenda, at least not one as strong as the mandates enjoyed by the premiers opposing the carbon tax.

Western alienation is on the rise. If Trudeau’s serious about dealing with these divisions, he should not keep fighting the West in court just to force a tax on them.

_________________
A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers. Friedrich August von Hayek


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 334 posts ]  Go to page Previous 113 14 15 16 17 Next

All times are UTC-08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
phpBB SEO
[ GZIP: On ]