The Tariff Thread

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Okay so quick check but I’m seeing Canada’s NATO spend as about 1.37% GDP or roughly 34B. They want us at 2% which is a little over $50B. Delta of like $16B let’s call it.

Meanwhile the tariff threat according to Financial Post is supposed to entirely wipe out GDP growth forthcoming and cost estimates of 3.4-3.7% GDP (call it $85B).

Not clear anywhere why it takes so long to ramp up spending on defence so not sure on that or why it must take to 2032 the way the feds are saying (I’m sure there’s some reason just not sure how much of it is bull####).

So if we promise to ramp the $15B spend to avoid $85B hit and actually honour what we actually already committed to anyway, does that get the tariffs removed?

If we remove O&G from our GDP we can get that 2% down to $40 billion. So the trick here is to actually crater our GDP and the NATO spending will balance itself. What I'm saying is, we don't actually have to do anything different. Trump is gonna solve this for us.

[Zoller]

I doubt we could even build the TransCanada highway in today's day and age.

Canada shouldn't be building infrastructure to sell to other markets. It's bad for the environment.

We will protest any and all infrastructure projects. We want to make it as unattractive and as risky as possible for industry to invest money in Canada. We will delay your projects with protests and modern-day corruption aka bureaucracy.

We will perform industrial sabotage on your equipment in the middle of the night.

We must divert investment away from Canada, at all costs.

(This propaganda has been paid for by American oil companies)

[chummer]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I thought Canada already committed to 2% albeit by 2030. Maybe we can pinky promise to bump that forward to 2027 or 2028.

How about yesterday.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Throwing $16B at it without any actual plan on the best way to spend it would be a huge mess.

We could keep Trudeau around for a few extra weeks, spending without a plan, while making a mess is his specialty. ✅

[Scroopy Noopers]

Is this just the big distraction to Musk gutting federal positions?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think the answer is they could just throw an extra $15 billion at defence or whatever, but in order to do it in a way that makes sense rather than just saying, "we'd like to place an order for $15 billion in new fighter jets ASAP, thanks", it takes some time to ramp up. Like, part of that increase in spending is going to be on people in a whole bunch of different roles, which takes time to recruit and train those people and place them within the military infrastructure in a manner that actually helps achieve defense objectives.

I mean they could meet the obligation immediately by just saying, "I'd like to buy 1 new standard issue rifle, please, and I'd like to pay 15 billion dollars for it", but that would be extremely dumb.

Find some collector somewhere and offer him 15 billy for his vintage Lee Enfield.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

Godness, Danielle Smith looks like a such a disheveled loser in her statement yesterday. Literally looks like she was up all night crying then made to stand in front of a mic.

How many hundreds of thousands did we spend sending her and her cronies to meet with Trump?

[chummer]

I'm impressed by Mexico's president Claudia Scheinbaum, she's given some great speeches..

[D as in David]

I'm guessing Canada would need to increase its military spending to the 2% figure by buying from the US military complex to make Trump happy. He would be getting his cut of that somehow.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Is this just the big distraction to Musk gutting federal positions?

They are all big distractions from everything. Flood the zone. Keep up the cadence. Be unpredictable. Don't let anyone grab on to anything before you change the channel. It's all part of the plan.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Okay so quick check but I’m seeing Canada’s NATO spend as about 1.37% GDP or roughly 34B. They want us at 2% which is a little over $50B. Delta of like $16B let’s call it.

Meanwhile the tariff threat according to Financial Post is supposed to entirely wipe out GDP growth forthcoming and cost estimates of 3.4-3.7% GDP (call it $85B).

Not clear anywhere why it takes so long to ramp up spending on defence so not sure on that or why it must take to 2032 the way the feds are saying (I’m sure there’s some reason just not sure how much of it is bull####).

So if we promise to ramp the $15B spend to avoid $85B hit and actually honour what we actually already committed to anyway, does that get the tariffs removed?

It's like whack-a-mole. One day it's about no US banks in Canada, or the 2% GDP spending. It's a moving target, and there's no real way to meet the demands because it's economic warfare. We all know there is no border issue at their north border, and we flew around the helicopters, added a billion dollars to the border security budget, and still have this threat.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's like whack-a-mole. One day it's about no US banks in Canada, or the 2% GDP spending. It's a moving target, and there's no real way to meet the demands because it's economic warfare. We all know there is no border issue at their north border, and we flew around the helicopters, added a billion dollars to the border security budget, and still have this threat.

Well there are most certainly border issues, but they aren't necessarily big issues. As we know with Trump, he always wants a win so he'll probably end up backing off if he can say Canada upped its spend on the border, increased NATO spend to 2% and made a few concessions around committing to buy more American goods moving forward.

The trouble is, right now I don't see Trump being willing to take Trudeau's word for it when he's walking the plank and we're probably looking at a 90 day pause so he can rake the next PM over the coals and feel like it will stick.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Well there are most certainly border issues, but they aren't necessarily big issues. As we know with Trump, he always wants a win so he'll probably end up backing off if he can say Canada upped its spend on the border, increased NATO spend to 2% and made a few concessions around committing to buy more American goods moving forward.

The trouble is, right now I don't see Trump being willing to take Trudeau's word for it when he's walking the plank and we're probably looking at a 90 day pause so he can rake the next PM over the coals and feel like it will stick.

I also don’t trust that, if we get a pause to address some issues, that he won’t threaten us again in a month on new issues.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Takes time to spend $16b.

They could commit the money tomorrow, but it’s not about that. Throwing $16B at it without any actual plan on the best way to spend it would be a huge mess.

Blair said they could conceivably hit it in two years.

If we had just committed and bought those damn fighter jets ten years ago I wonder what our NATO contribution would have looked like during the Liberal term?

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Nobody seems to be able to answer the question of why spending has to be delayed and any articles I found, it doesn’t seem like any journalists asked the question or write about the why that is.

Which leads me to think it’s baloney.

People and equipment are your expenditures and neither can be done overnight.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If we had just committed and bought those damn fighter jets ten years ago I wonder what our NATO contribution would have looked like during the Liberal term?

Let's be honest, we were already doing very poorly under Harper (first year is 2014) and this did not come from just Trudeau in power. Spending has improved in recent years.


Canada 1.01 1.20 1.16 1.44 1.30 1.29 1.42 1.27 1.22 1.38

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...xp-2023-en.pdf

Page 8.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ste...mmit-1.2752422

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/joh...ing-commitment

I do think much more efforts should be made, but this has been an ongoing problem for a long time.

[Acey]

Canada as a 51st state would become the largest state and vote blue by a landslide, not even Trump is dumb enough to be oblivious of this. He'd want us as a territory, or it's an empty threat.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by chummer

I'm impressed by Mexico's president Claudia Scheinbaum, she's given some great speeches..

I didn't like how she tried to throw Canada under the bus at the beginning of the tariff threats by downplaying Mexico's issues and emphasising the fentanyl crisis in Canada. Hell, some of the clandestine labs in Canada have been found to be associated with Mexican cartels.

Canada does have a problem, but of all country's to try and shame another country for a drug problem, Mexico should be really far down the list.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Acey

Canada as a 51st state would become the largest state and vote blue by a landslide, not even Trump is dumb enough to be oblivious of this. He'd want us as a territory, or it's an empty threat.

We would definitely be treated like a territory rather than a full on state. We would not be allowed to participate fully in elections. It's also bizarre even if it did happen, that a country the size of Canada would be a single state.

[Dodsdomd]

Trump wants(needs) our fresh water. I believe much of our water rights that were given up in NAFTA were clawed back in USMCA. They are going to have a very serious water issue sooner than later. Call me conspiracy but I think this is the root of this aggression.