Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Demosthenes26

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Demosthenes26

  1. I really thought the article in the OP was pretty much spot-on.

    I agree, though I wouldn't vote for Harper or Trudeau. I'd plug my nose and vote NDP, though it would be a shame to lose Mulcair as opposition leader since he's been fantastic in that role in the House. It's pretty obvious any time he's opened his mouth the last month or 2 that Trudeau has no clue about foreign policy or islamic terrorism/ISIS. He's no uneducated and naive about political matters it's frightening to think of Trudeau as PM when important decisions like matters of war need to be made.

    I agree we really need more purality with our politics. 3 parties doesn't reflect the political diversity of our nation.

  2. Why is it a choice only between those two for you?

    Isn't policy important for you? You prefer to pick someone whose "substance" is anti-environment/science, anti-human rights, anti-international law because the only other option you've given yourself is wet behind the ears?

    as far as i'm concerned the NDP isn't a viable party. I don't like a lot of their position on issues.

    I do consider the policy I do think that more important. But we haven't seen any substantial indication of Trudeau intentions are if he's elected. Like so far We've heard he'll legalize weed but he's given no indication as to what that would be like. He's pro - abortion, well that would've been something in his fathers time, But we haven't has a public debate in parliment concerning abortion itself since mulroney. So at this point in our history it was really a non-issue. There's been suggestions as potential policy ideas(protect the "middle class") but nothing of substance. We don't know his position on the environment, human rights, international law, economic affairs (actually we know this one "the budget will balance itself").

    Harper on the other hand we know. His primary concern has been the budget and economics affairs (also tought sentences for criminals). He's done a good job with regards to those two issues. But neglected alot of other important issues namely the environment. Politically he's proven himself to be a shrewd Machiavellian, although at times vindictive and dictariorial. (As far human right and international law i'm not sure what you're refering to unless you're trying to reopen the Israel debate). I think he's been in power too long, Mistakes are adding. But the conservatives are right Trudeau lacks substance not only in personality but also in policy. I bleed blue, so my biasis are always toward economic affairs where harper definitely has the better policy. But i'm not one to ignore the issue that aren't being addressed by Harper. I think we need change in the country, Trudeau jr. isn't the one to do it though

  3. Yes, it's far too expensive to employ Canadians to do anything. Say, why don't we just bring Chinese over to work in all the sawmills? Heck, we have the precedent in mining already. Maybe we could bring them over to do whatever it is you do for a living too. I bet they can do it cheaper and won't need either a union or any kind of benefits!

    Why Does always have to be the Chinese with you? Viets are cheaper.

  4. One more point on this... Goods from china dont just have to be produced for less, they have to be produced for MASSIVELY less. In many cases the raw materials need to be shipped from here to China, then trucked to factories, then manufactered, then shipped/trucked all the way back here to a retailer.

    The reality is that if we did not have a contrived currency imbalance, manufacturing goods in China would ALREADY be dubious position. China knows this which is why they have been manipulating currency values in the first place.

    At the end of the day all of this production is going to come back, and it already would be if the Chinese played fair.

    If production is moving anywhere its going to a different third world country. You can already see this with textiles, where they're now being made in countries like vietnam, bangeledesh. The botton line is production is done where its most cost effective. Canada lack the labor rates, supply chains and the infastructure for the products that the chinese produce. Again to moves those over here would cost more than the cost of importing.

    We're not in a position to be able to make the Chinese do anything.

  5. No it doesnt matter what you make and dont make. What matters is avoiding policies that lead to long term trade imbalances for the reasons I stated.

    Cheap goods is an illusion in a scenario where trade is perpetually lopsided. If you wanted to use the cost of goods as an argument for a particular trade policy you would need to factor in the current account deficit into the price of goods.

    We arent necessarily getting cheap goods... we are just financing a portion of the cost with debt.

    No

    You're only looking at one trade relation. yes we run a trade deficit with China, but the difference isn't being funded by debt. Overall Canadian exports to import are pretty even (462 billion : 474 billion in 2012). Our GDP grew by about 3% last year. The rest of our growth was domestic consumption.

    Cheap good are produced in China, because they are cheap. The cost of producing in Canada would exceed the cost of producing china. Not only because of the cheaper labor but also because of the economies of scale that exist in china and the start up costs. It would be of no benefit because we'd be still competing against chinese goods and we being paying more for domestic production.

  6. How could Harper rationalize trade sanctions against Russia and no action against China?

    Simple In Ukraine, Russia is acting as a foreign agressor against a sovereign nation recognised by both Russia, and Canada. Hong Kong is a semi autonomous region that's part of China's territory, and China's do what they want within their borders. Its also important to note that so far all of anti-demonstrator action is by the HK police and mainland China has not actually put any troops or police there (although they're likely working behind the scenes).

    Also Canada's got much deeper trade connections with China, than with Russia. The Action taken by Canada against russia was largely symbolic and of no major consequence. With actions against China there would be major consequenses.

  7. Nothing in politics surprises me. My point is that the longer a party is in power the better the chance that it will not be re-elected. Generally, a party loses power because of the accumulation of human mistakes and frailties that naturally occur to people in power. There appear to me to be posters on this board who think that the Harper Conservatives will stay in power forever.

    It just ain't gonna happen!

    Of course. There's also plenty who think Trudeau will just naturally assume prime minister, like its his birth right.

  8. Look at the longitudinal data of federal elections and politics. If any one party survives for over ten years then it is an anomaly. Harper led the amalgamation of the moderate right with the far right, created a force that was ready to govern after the Liberal party had their ten odd years and has been in power.

    It is preordained that another party will form a government, the right has had their turn so now it appears the middle left will be the next government. It could be because of Trudeau, it could be in spite of Trudeau or it could be that the NDP under Mulcair has not presented a popular or viable option as to the Trudeau Liberals.

    I do not think that anybody with an understanding of the history or understanding of Canadian federal politics really believes that the Conservatives, or any modern federal party, could continue to stay in power for over ten years.

    Democracy is a government of people. People have weaknesses, frailties and personal agendas a dark parts of their personalities. Any government in power has lots of individuals who have been elected or they would not be in power. The longer a government is in power, the more "scandals" come to the surface.

    Look at the history of our parliament. It follows that stream.

    I find it fascinating in this forum where I see posters daily posting about how your party sucks and my party is great yada, yada and yada.

    Some posters actually believe that their party will gain power and be there ad infinitum. Good grief!

    The overwhelming odds are that the next government will not be formed by the Harper Conservatives, that it will be formed by the Trudeau led Liberals and will be given a chance to do their thing.

    If they are very successful then I will bet that in 2025 they will be in trouble and either a Conservative (maybe Wild Rose) or a more centrally created NDP will take over from them. That is the nature of our democratic system

    If you we're arguing the chance of a political party lasting more than ten years you'd be right in your assumptions. However the conservatives have been in power for 8 years, and through 3 elections. Odds of the the conservatives winning are independant of their past, to get the ten year mark they only need to win one election. Don't forget victory favors the incumbent.

    Stephan Dion, Michael Ignatieff all had a significant boost in popularity when they started as leaders. The conservatives managed to cut them down, bit by bit. Trudeau has proven a remarkable ability to deter flak but whether or not it will last this election remains to be seen.

    The conservatives are out fundraising the liberal, they don't suffer the same bloated bureaucracy the Liberals suffer. They can throw punched and don't hesitate at doing so. They are a leaner, meaner fighting machine. I won't be surprised If Harper's still in power in 2016.

  9. Given that currently we a Shipping the oil by train/truck its not only more economical, but I would think safer to ship it by pipeline. Given the destruction of Lac Mégantic and that was largely oil containers that exploded, that would serve as a powerful and tragic illustration as the danger derailment poses.

    But the debate of keystone isn't about the safe or environmental impact. As much as they debate those points. This arguement is large about climate change and NIMBYism. Climate change(CC) Environmentalists are opposing this because its oil, and CO2 climate change. But those point aren't as salient as they once where so they've changed it the oil spills and tar sands. It's more economical in both in cost and in carbon footprint to ship by pipeline. But CC environmentalists are more interested in a idealogical argument rather than a practical arguement, and they 100% against anything oil.

    Most people aren't idealogues, they are pragmatists. So when it comes to climate change they become disengaged, because many of the requirement to deal with climate change, are too costly or arduous. CC environmentalists aren't able to address the source of the problem, the high demand for oil. So Instead the focus on the dramatic, Tar Sands, oil spills, apocalyptic forecasts etc to achieve their agenda. They want to make thing as costly as possible. So they go for oil companies, because big oil is much easier to target than average joes. Regardless of what environmentalists say or do the price of their actions are always felt by the average person and not by the companies. Either at pump, with jobs, with day to day items becoming more expensive.

    There's an enonomic arguement to be made for doing that. Increasing the cost of oil, should result in a decrease in consumption. But oil is a product insensitive to changes in price. As much as we complain about the price of oil people will pay what they need to pay, We have a society that is far more dependant on it, than one should ever be. The focus of any debate should be on reducing our consumption, but unfortunately its not.

  10. Of course contributions and the qualifying age had to go up, the average age is ten years longer than in the sixties. You live longer, you will need more in your retirement, pension plan or not. It should probably have been done earlier but then you get the GD boomers won't retire and make room for the younger folks argument. The boomers are a speed bump in time, not a permanent condition.

    lets hope

  11. PM Harper was on American TV being interviewed by an American news publication when he stated that the USA had asked for additional assistance and Harper was considering our options. Very quickly, representatives from the USA stated that in fact Harper had approached the USA and asked what assistance Canada could be to the USA in this fight.

    Somebody is lying.

    To-day, Harper was tap dancing spinning something about there have been constant discussions blah, blah, blah. I think I know who was lying. This guy is going to drag us into another useless, bloody and expensive war. Prepare the body bags.

    George Bush? Jean Chretien? Harper didn't get us involved in Afganistan, It was Jean Chretien, so he could play golf with Bush II.

    If you seriously saying Harper would get us involve in Iraq, you're just being silly. The man is all bark no bite with regards to military engagements just look at the crisis in Ukraine. All that talk about Russia and Putin, All he did was send a fighter wing to poland. Don't forget he's looking to make cuts to the military this year even as NATO is trying to enforse the 2% of GDP military spending rule (canada is sitting at around 1%) Harper is much more concerned with reducing the deficit, which remains his last saving grace. Wars aren't great for that.

  12. They raised them significantly in the 90's to cover boomers. Only normal cost-of-living increases since then.

    CPP was last updated in 2003 to an annual contribution of 9.9% of your income, (from what had previously be 3% for people who created it). The whole system is designed to pass of the cost of retirement to the younger generation. You're forgetting that there are fewer young people today than there are retirees, and with the Boomer generation heading into retirement within ten years there may be as much as 2 retirees for every 3 employed. (currently about 1 retiree to 5 employed) The CPP system has a two year reserve. I don't need to go into the math the tell you that's a system thats not sustainable.

    No worries. The gov will make billions to cover it, from medical marijuana sales, and even more when they legalize pot for all adults.

    PLEAAAASEE, the only thing trudeau would use that money for is stroking his massive ego.

    If necessary, we'll hold geezer rock concerts for boomers to raise funds.

    Can't wait i'm holding my breath

  13. Wrong. Boarding an aircraft in a foreign country is not the same as entering Canada.

    I entered Canada without a passport in late August, 2014. Land border, no swimming required.

    Ok, But the people in question are those fighting for ISIS, not the US traveler. Last i checked Syria, Iraq and Canada don't share a land border.

  14. 60% own houses mortgage free.

    11% are still paying a mortgage.

    The other 29% presumably pay rent, or live with family.

    We'll keep that in mind.

    BS

    CPP is fully funded, fully viable, the envy of the rest of the world.

    Quit yer misdirected whining about CPP/OAS/GIS. They're all functioning well.

    Health care for boomer seniors is where we're

    really gonna nail you young whippersnappers' a$$es to the wall !!

    So whadarya gonna do about it?

    Put us on an ice floe?

    Come and get me sonny!

    I'll crank up my fave heavy metal tunes and twist you like a pretzel and hang you out to dry!!

    Now kids .. time for a few giggles and a nap ... anybody for some of grannies' brownies?

    :D

    .

    CPP is not fully funded. as late back as 1997 it funded under a pay as you go system where it was funded on a annual basis and there was no reserve funds. in 1997 a reserve was recreate but it is by no mean fully fund or sufficient. CPP is only the envy of retiree living off it. If you thinks its working think again. They keep raising premiums and the entitlement age, its only working for the generation that built it.

    There's this thing called wikipedia you might want to research what you talking about before attempting smack talk

    You're right we need to worry about the health cost for the boomer generation as well thanks alot!!!

  15. You can if you can prove you are a citizen, birth certificate, citizenship papers. Citizens cannot be refused entry.

    Because terrorists would be travelling abroad with those documents? Even with those documents you's still have to apply for a new passport before re-entering Canada, That application I assume would be denied. By removing their passports you are in effect removing their citizenship.

  16. Not aware of any declaration of war coming out of parliament?

    Anyways

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

    • (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

    • (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

    • (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

    • (d) freedom of association.

    Do you see any problem with the new government rules yet?

    6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

    How about now?

    From how the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms is written, the government CAN NOT take away your passport for the reason that they have prescribed. They calculated that the people they are up against do not have the resources to launch a legal challenge.

    WWWTT

    You can't quote the charter and say the government can't do that. The government and citizens have the right to over step the charter where:

    1) there is a justifiable reason to do so

    and

    2) Actions taken are directly related to the reason

    and

    3) there's isn't a better way to do it, with out infringing on Charter Values

    There are plenty of exampled where the government has over stepped charter values ex hate speech, fundamentalist religious education, scientology. in this case I think that 1) canadian citizens fighting with ISIS is both a threat that the government need to address. 2) Banning passports to ISIS fighters is directly related to that. 3) I can't really think of a better way unless we massively upgrade CSIS with orwellian survaillence abilities. But honestly I think we should be doing it on principle

  17. http://www.macleans.ca/news/macleans-cover-preview-old-and-loaded/

    Maclean ran an article about this recently unfortunately their making you pay for it. but there's the link.

    The premise of the article is that our elderly are more than well enough provided for. With OAS/GIS guarrantees a base income that provides regardless of whether or not someone's worked or not. combined I think that benefit adds to 22000 for a single person. CPP and RRSP add on to that benefit. the OAS claw back doesn't start until a retiree make over 68000. their medication is supplemented. Additionally the major of our elderly are home owners who have paid off their mortages. they pay less in auto insurance (to a point/ dependant on the province). Oh and senior discounts on top of that.

    I think our elderly are more than well enough provided for. If they're disadvantaged its because they did not put into their rrsps or they didn't work. I have no sympathy for them.

    We need to be more concerned about the younger generation who are going to have pay for these benefits. cpp was a poorly designed system and a product of the 60s generation that created it. soon we're going to be facing a gap where they'll be more retirees than workers. Leaving the new generation to pay for the old (the ones who designed it.) on top of that they're facing higher unemployment and higher housing and living cost than our elderly population.

  18. So elections are coming up, he we're hearing the usual talk of the economy etc. Of the many things our politicians talk about the keep referring to the middle class. and the Conservatives, Liberal and NDP all claim to be defenders of the middle class in various ways. American Politicians make the same claims.

    However the more I hear about the dying middle class, or protecting middle class jobs. I ask myself what the heck is a middle class job. My parents lived under a definiton class where social and economic status where the same. Where the lower class was restricted to labourers and the uneducated mass. Middle Class was supposed to be the educated professionals and Upper class where the rich elite of businessmen and inherited wealth.

    This saw that plumbers, carpenters, welders where considered lower class. Where marketers, salesmen, where considered to be middle class.

    I don't think this model holds any value anymore. While Education remains the best predictor of Social/Economic Status. The labor market has shifted considerable since the 1950's. For one thing licensed trades have risen in both pay scale and prominence. Additionally we've seen an over saturation of graduates in fields with little to no employable skill the so called " Bachelor barristas". Additionally its seem more and more necessary to have a masters or PH D to get a "good job".

    I think we live in a world that's become more strafied. There been a split were economic status does not equal social status. The traditional model of class is outdated and it needs to be reconsidered for a meaningful discussion the topic.

    Any thoughts?

×
×
  • Create New...