GT: Federal Election

[PsYcNeT]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UCCB was considered unnecessary by the Liberals because it rewarded high income earners more than the old child tax breaks did, not because they opposed government helping with child care?

Or is everyone spinning so hard they forgot how to think.

[White Out 403]

i cant even offer anything up about this "nannygate" made up scandal. if this isnt a perfect example of politics being reduced to team sports by angry white conservatives, i dont know what is.

[Zarley]

I have no issues with the PM receiving perks including childcare; it's a demanding job that should come with appropriate compensation.

The UCCB was considered unnecessary by the Liberals because, to quote Justin: child care benefits should go to families who need the help, “not families like mine or Mr. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper’s.” So in essence he's arguing that wealthy can afford to cover their own childcare costs and don't require a taxpayer subsidy, but turning around and accepting taxpayer dollars to do exactly what he had argued against.

Those of you who can't see the problems with this scenario are obviously blinded by your own ideology.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

i cant even offer anything up about this "nannygate" made up scandal. if this isnt a perfect example of politics being reduced to team sports by angry white conservatives, i dont know what is.

Racist.

[Looch City]

How come you guys aren't worked up about this?

Niqab ban legal battle cost federal government more than $420K

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Nope. Under the old government the PBO never would have been allowed to contradict the finance minister to the media.

What the heck are you talking about?
Kevin Page made that his mission in life.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I have no issues with the PM receiving perks including childcare; it's a demanding job that should come with appropriate compensation.

The UCCB was considered unnecessary by the Liberals because, to quote Justin: child care benefits should go to families who need the help, “not families like mine or Mr. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper’s.” So in essence he's arguing that wealthy can afford to cover their own childcare costs and don't require a taxpayer subsidy, but turning around and accepting taxpayer dollars to do exactly what he had argued against.

Those of you who can't see the problems with this scenario are obviously blinded by your own ideology.

The wealthy generally don't get wealthy because they made stupid financial decisions. Just because he's advocating to change it doesn't mean he shouldn't accept the benefits offered under the old governments policy.

I'm afraid my friend it is you who is blind. This is a complete non-issue.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

How come you guys aren't worked up about this?

Niqab ban legal battle cost federal government more than $420K

Pffft.

That's only 6 years of nannies for Justin and his wife....you know, money he never needed to begin with.

Remember this?

"In these times, Mr. Harper's top priority is to give wealthy families like his and mine $2,000," Trudeau said in reference to the Conservatives' income-splitting tax credit. "Let me tell you something: We don't need it. And Canada can't afford it."

And that was over 2000....but apparently 70 K? yeah he needs that.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Dan02

Just because he's advocating to change it doesn't mean he shouldn't accept the benefits offered under the old governments policy.

If Trudeau wanted to demonstrate integrity and ethical decision making to show a contrast between the incoming government and the departing Conservatives, he would've politely declined subsidized childcare. It's as simple as that.

However, I'm certainly not surprised that he wouldn't. Politics doesn't typically attract people of great integrity.

Originally Posted by Dan02

The wealthy generally don't get wealthy because they made stupid financial decisions.[/B]

Agreed, but what does this have to do with the issue at hand?

[Flash Walken]

Does anyone know if Justin is using his airmiles to get over to France or is that being stolen from Canadian taxpayers as well?

[PepsiFree]

Employer offered benefits (even when the employer is the taxpayer) =/= taxpayer subsidized benefits available to everyone.

Trudeau is against handouts for the rich. UCCB acted like that. Trudeau thinks wealthy families don't need handouts.
Unless you all believe your employer benefits are just handouts you don't earn, you can probably tell the difference.

The thread is wet. So much saliva.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Does anyone know if Justin is using his airmiles to get over to France or is that being stolen from Canadian taxpayers as well?

... can't tell if serious.

Obama better have sold Air Force 1 that freeloading son of a

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Does anyone know if Justin is using his airmiles to get over to France or is that being stolen from Canadian taxpayers as well?

Was Justin performing a government function in Paris? Yes.

Are nannies paid for by the state necessary for the government to run? No.

It's rather simple.

Should nannies be paid for by the state above and beyond the PM's salary? That is up for discussion although some people are getting oddly emotional about it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Should nannies be paid for by the state above and beyond the PM's salary? That is up for discussion although some people are getting oddly emotional about it.

If the question was "Should we be giving PM's a budget on top of their salary?" that'd be a great discussion. Instead, it was "Should we be paying for that hypocrite's budget if he uses it on childcare since he was against rich people getting the UCCB handout?"

Failed games of "gotchya" rarely spur measured discussion. Didn't work when the Liberals desperately tried it for the last 10 years. Won't work when the conservatives desperately try it for the next number.

People just dig in.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Pffft.

That's only 6 years of nannies for Justin and his wife....you know, money he never needed to begin with.

Remember this?



And that was over 2000....but apparently 70 K? yeah he needs that.

It was touched on by a previous poster. But again, Trudeau was opposed to UCCB because of the additional money it would provide wealthier families. So for some of the dense in here (not directed at you) that means that he is not opposed to government subsidized child care. He was opposed to a system in place that he believed had more benefits for the wealthy than for the poor. As many have said this is a perk that comes with the job. If Harper had suggested a plan that subsidized people's costs for paying a lawn mower I'm sure Trudeau would of opposed that idea as well. Should we expect Trudeau to be mowing the lawn at 24 Sussex than too? It is absolutely people, who if you look at post history have been opposed to Trudeau since day one looking for something to make a ruckus about. And if this is all you can come up with so far, than too me that's a good sign.

[rehsifylf]

When you hire a guy, you make excuses for him. If your guy didn't get the job, you try to find fault.

Maybe accept that if you voted Liberal don't comment supporting him - you are biased. Same goes for if you didn't vote for him - don't comment chastising him. That would quickly cut the chatter on this.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I have no issues with the PM receiving perks including childcare; it's a demanding job that should come with appropriate compensation.

The UCCB was considered unnecessary by the Liberals because, to quote Justin: child care benefits should go to families who need the help, “not families like mine or Mr. (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper’s.” So in essence he's arguing that wealthy can afford to cover their own childcare costs and don't require a taxpayer subsidy, but turning around and accepting taxpayer dollars to do exactly what he had argued against.

Those of you who can't see the problems with this scenario are obviously blinded by your own ideology.

He's not accepting a taxpayer subsidy. His salary (including benefits) is paid by the taxpayers. Those are two different things.

Even if he started paying the nannies out of his own pocket, his salary still comes from the taxpayers so he'd still be accepting taxpayer dollars for it.

Should the PM be running the country from the laptop at his home, while he cooks dinner for his children?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

He's not accepting a taxpayer subsidy. His salary (including benefits) is paid by the taxpayers. Those are two different things.

Even if he started paying the nannies out of his own pocket, his salary still comes from the taxpayers so he'd still be accepting taxpayer dollars for it.

Should the PM be running the country from the laptop at his home, while he cooks dinner for his children?

Yes, and he should also do the job for free, if he wanted it so badly. And pay rent on 24 Sussex.

/hate that I actually have to use green text for this...

[CampbellsTransgressions]

It only looks bad to people that can't tell the difference between a policy that effects every Canadian and a policy that effects a small handful of Canadian families that just so happen to serve us and spend years of their lives travelling around with stressful jobs. The dollar value between rich Canadians receiving UCCB and the Trudeau family having paid nannies is at least several orders of magnitude difference.

[EldrickOnIce]

You all are aware these are the same two nannies Justin has always paid to care for his children, now it's just on our dime, right?