Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Sylvanfan]

I've never voted Liberal, and I get the argument that they don't deserve another term.

But closing in on 50 with two younger kids aged 10 and 15. Things like Education and even the Environment are on my radar more than any other election. I'm not NDP or Green on the Environment, but all out ignoring it like Conservatives want to is not a route I want to go. Too many fascist tones with the Conservatives of late with their desire to strong arm the media, and their desire to discredit education institutions. The party has made a pretty dramatic move to the right socially to the point that I can't overlook it anymore.

I also think expecting this to be the country your grandparents lived in is in way shape or form possible. Canada has been an urbanized country with a lower birth rate for going on 50 years now. In those conditions housing costs rise.

Demographically what has happened on my wife's side of her family is pretty common these days. Her Mom had one brother and one sister. Her brother died in his early 20's. Both of them married and had two children. Out of those 4 kids all of whom are now at least 40, only my wife had any kids. On her Dad's side he had 3 brothers. Two never married or had kids (one, was gay) the one who was gay died in his 40's. Him and another one both had two kids. Again my kids are the only grandchildren either one of them have. So we have 5 people between 72 and 82. There's 4 offspring between 40 and 54 to support them. Trailing her current generation is our two kids. So if the older people want health care and pensions...we need people to immigrate to this country and work and pay into the social safety net. AI will do a lot of this. But can it overcome the idea of two young workers potentially propping up like 6 of us draining the system?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I've never voted Liberal, and I get the argument that they don't deserve another term.

But closing in on 50 with two younger kids aged 10 and 15. Things like Education and even the Environment are on my radar more than any other election. I'm not NDP or Green on the Environment, but all out ignoring it like Conservatives want to is not a route I want to go. Too many fascist tones with the Conservatives of late with their desire to strong arm the media, and their desire to discredit education institutions. The party has made a pretty dramatic move to the right socially to the point that I can't overlook it anymore.

I also think expecting this to be the country your grandparents lived in is in way shape or form possible. Canada has been an urbanized country with a lower birth rate for going on 50 years now. In those conditions housing costs rise.

Demographically what has happened on my wife's side of her family is pretty common these days. Her Mom had one brother and one sister. Her brother died in his early 20's. Both of them married and had two children. Out of those 4 kids all of whom are now at least 40, only my wife had any kids. On her Dad's side he had 3 brothers. Two never married or had kids (one, was gay) the one who was gay died in his 40's. Him and another one both had two kids. Again my kids are the only grandchildren either one of them have. So we have 5 people between 72 and 82. There's 4 offspring between 40 and 54 to support them. Trailing her current generation is out two kids. So if the older people want health care and pensions...we need people to immigrate to this country and work and pay into the social safety net. AI will do a lot of this. But can it overcome the idea of two young workers potentially propping up like 6 of us draining the system?

Speaking of which, I noticed they didnt show up for their shifts in the coal mines the other day. Are we going to have to have another 'talk?'

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Because asking the average Canadian to contribute as much in taxes in their lifetime as they will use in services is politically untenable. And that’s what you have to do to account for an aging population and declining birth rates - some combination of bringing in lots of new taxpayers through immigration, substantially increasing taxes on younger workers, and cutting health care and pensions for seniors.

Turns out voters hate all of those options. And that’s not just a Canadian thing - it’s true of every developed country in the world. We live in societies today where many people are retired longer than they worked. These unprecedented demographics present an unprecedented challenge to the delivery of public services, and no government in any country has figured it out. Which is one of the reasons why populism is on the rise everywhere.

Your first paragraph should be an argument for steady state population though, not a need for continuous population growth. Unless we've set society up to be a pyramid scheme(which is entirely possible).

My point is exactly this, though. Our economic system is predicated on growth, not steady state. It can do this because of an ever growing population. But what, other than defaulting to it, is the benefit of that? It seems we didn't really choose, but we now live with this. The reality of what that means when global population peaks will be interesting to see.

I just don't think plodding along on the default path to an unknown cliff is really where we want to go, but all our concerns and "solutions" are moving in that direction.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I'd be in absolute agreement with you if we had another decent choice. But we've seen Canadian Conservatism take a turn for the worst and I'm not going to hop on that train.

If they still had a normal leader like O'Toole, it'd be a different story. No thanks to the populist shill they're shoving down our throats now.

The only difference between O'Toole and PP is O'Toole had a much less aggressive nature, and I recall at the time he was campaigning we all wished for someone with more "fire in his belly". Well now, we have one. He's highly intelligent, has a well laid out plan, and is ready to move the country forward.

However, as fate would have it, the world has turned upside down with Trump, and Carney is able to cease the moment. Although the polls are suggesting otherwise, I still think they will get much closer as we approach the election date.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Your first paragraph should be an argument for steady state population though, not a need for continuous population growth. Unless we've set society up to be a pyramid scheme(which is entirely possible).

I mean, the last 3 generations have all decided they didn't want to pay for the services and entitlements they were using. So it's too late to say "oh, I'm willing to pay for my generations services". Because there's a big hole from the past that someone has to pay for, and that debt is a lot more manageable if we split it among more people.

Of course, we have to split our existing housing and services more ways then too, so it's a bit of a balance for sure.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by calculoso

It’s the only mention of GST I’ve found in the Conservative platform. Maybe I missed something?

https://www.conservative.ca/poilievr...ntent=National

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I mean, the last 3 generations have all decided they didn't want to pay for the services and entitlements they were using. So it's too late to say "oh, I'm willing to pay for my generations services". Because there's a big hole from the past that someone has to pay for, and that debt is a lot more manageable if we split it among more people.

Of course, we have to split our existing housing and services more ways then too, so it's a bit of a balance for sure.

Ya, it's probably close to time we cut those geezers off. If you know what I mean.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The bolded is not true. It wasn't long ago when we were debating renting vs owning a home, and renting was winning the debate. People forget all the costs that come with purchasing and owning a home like real estate and legal fees, maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc.

I believe timing is very important. Although house prices tend to go up over long periods of time, they can go down over significant periods. With all that is going on these days with the tariffs, highly volatile stock market, job losses, falling house prices, who knows what the future holds for us. It was me, I would hang on to your money and wait for a better time to invest in a house.

As for who to vote for, everyone has their specific reasons. For me, the most important question is which leader's economic ideology is going to capitalize on our strength as a nation. IMO voting in the same old government, in spite of the new fancy leader, is just going down the same path, or even worse.

The “fancy new leader” actually understands how money works.

He was the head of the Bank of England during Brexit. I think he might just be the guy to be running this ship at this moment.

At this moment, I’d rather gamble that two straight minority governments that necessitated a lot of concessions from the NDP are the cause of the Liberal shift to the left, and it’s not unreasonable to calculate Mark Carney will bring the country more to the centre.

Have you heard him speak? He sounds like your friend’s dad. The rich one, who knows things.

As for the “rent v own” debate - let’s call this what it was; a con by landlords.

Consider, Kevin O’Leary was going on tv telling the country to rent because it’s as cheap or cheaper as owning a house when he’s the one owning apartment complexes.

Except owning your own home is probably the most important thing you can do if you ever want to retire.


No rich person doesn’t own their home.

In fact, the richer you are, the more homes you have, because it’s a great place to park money.

And even if you’re renting something because work only has you in a place for 6 months or whatever, you still own land somewhere.

Because it’s land, and it’s the most valuable thing there is.

A whole lot of people missed out on buying homes at far more reasonable terms because they were sold a bill of goods by people like the guy from Dragon’s Den.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Because asking the average Canadian to contribute as much in taxes in their lifetime as they will use in services is politically untenable. And that’s what you have to do to account for an aging population and declining birth rates - some combination of bringing in lots of new taxpayers through immigration, substantially increasing taxes on younger workers, and cutting health care and pensions for seniors.

Turns out voters hate all of those options. And that’s not just a Canadian thing - it’s true of every developed country in the world. We live in societies today where many people are retired longer than they worked. These unprecedented demographics present an unprecedented challenge to the delivery of public services, and no government in any country has figured it out. Which is one of the reasons why populism is on the rise everywhere.

Also, I think the Canadian dream of owning a single detached house with a backyard is disappearing. We are now forcing people to live in little boxes i.e. rowhouses, townhouses, condos, apartments etc. with all the parking and pollution that comes with it. No wonder they don't want kids.

I have a friend that owned a pair of gerbils who lived in this little plastic cage for 5 years. When my friend expanded the size of the cage by adding plastic attachments, the two gerbils started having kids in large numbers.

Canada is a big country with lots of room. I think we can still build these small detached houses in great numbers, as they did during WWII. However. the main purpose for developers in to make as much money as fast as possible, and so the Canadian dream is vanishing.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Salt Water Cowboy #10

I can’t vote Liberal after the scandals and debt. Transparency was non existent. The bad far outweighs the good over the last 8 years. Time for change.

You are welcome to your opinion, but you are not voting for the last eight years. You are voting for the next eight years. Yes, the Trudeau team was bad. I would never vote for them. A lot of the same players are still there. But the coach is very different. The choice is between Carney and PP. This is such an education, experience, knowledge and ability gap that it is ridiculous. I suggest that you (all electors) need to look at the two candidates and decide which one is better equipped to run the nation with all of its challenges. My age and experience tell me it is not even close.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

...
As for who to vote for, everyone has their specific reasons. For me, the most important question is which leader's economic ideology is going to capitalize on our strength as a nation. IMO voting in the same old government, in spite of the new fancy leader, is just going down the same path, or even worse.

There is simply no logic in this statement. First, what is PP's economic ideology? He has not provided any detailed plans other than axing the tax. How the hell is he going to deliver all of his vague promises while reducing revenue? It is simply saying what people want to hear.

The comment, in spite of their new fancy leader, tells me that you are not seriously evaluating the options. The old leader was a nepo baby drama teacher. The new leader is a substantial economic intellect respected around the globe. That is a bit more than just a fancy new leader. But when you bleed blue, facts, intellect, and logic take a backseat to pithy sloganeering.

[flamesfever]

If you think Carney and his cohorts, Butts and Guilbeaut are going to make Canada an Oil and Gas Energy Superpower, think again. As with the NEP, the next 4 years will be a repeat of “killing the goose that laid the golden egg”.

Bills that hinder oil and gas development will persist. Emission caps and carbon taxes will curb investment and slow production growth. Even though Carney, in his speeches, tries to make you think otherwise, ideologically-driven future plans will tend to prioritize clean energy over conventional oil and gas development.

What does this mean? It means we will not be taking full advantage of what Canada has to offer the world.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The only difference between O'Toole and PP is O'Toole had a much less aggressive nature, and I recall at the time he was campaigning we all wished for someone with more "fire in his belly". Well now, we have one. He's highly intelligent, has a well laid out plan, and is ready to move the country forward.



However, as fate would have it, the world has turned upside down with Trump, and Carney is able to cease the moment. Although the polls are suggesting otherwise, I still think they will get much closer as we approach the election date.

I don't think so. Seemed O'Toole was forced to cozy up to the minority far right fringe, which scared off anyone near the centre. Polievre relishes in it. In fact, his whole schtick is being this broken record of everything is so bad, the country is broken, that the vast majority of Canadians simply don't believe.

I've yet to see anything he's said or done that shows he is highly intelligent. He hasn't laid out anything close to a well laid out plan, and he seems like he wants to take the country back to the 1950's.

[Drak]

wrong thread.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Also, I think the Canadian dream of owning a single detached house with a backyard is disappearing. We are now forcing people to live in little boxes i.e. rowhouses, townhouses, condos, apartments etc. with all the parking and pollution that comes with it. No wonder they don't want kids.

I have a friend that owned a pair of gerbils who lived in this little plastic cage for 5 years. When my friend expanded the size of the cage by adding plastic attachments, the two gerbils started having kids in large numbers.

Canada is a big country with lots of room. I think we can still build these small detached houses in great numbers, as they did during WWII. However. the main purpose for developers in to make as much money as fast as possible, and so the Canadian dream is vanishing.

Pollution comes from endless amounts of people being stuck in gridlock for over an hour each way getting to their single family home in low density far flung suburbs. It doesn’t come from well planned mid density with nearby services and good access to transit. There can be lots of options that get people into the marketplace.

I also reject the premise that this is universal across Canada, there are likley still quite a few places you can get a single family home if you want it. Vancouver and Toronto ,maybe not but there’s still affordable places to live.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If you think Carney and his cohorts, Butts and Guilbeaut are going to make Canada an Oil and Gas Energy Superpower, think again. As with the NEP, the next 4 years will be a repeat of “killing the goose that laid the golden egg”.

Bills that hinder oil and gas development will persist. Emission caps and carbon taxes will curb investment and slow production growth. Even though Carney, in his speeches, tries to make you think otherwise, ideologically-driven future plans will tend to prioritize clean energy over conventional oil and gas development.

What does this mean? It means we will not be taking full advantage of what Canada has to offer the world.

You are just regurgitating the vomit that the blue team has shoved down your throat. Yes, Carney has said that clean energy is important, and we need to work towards that. But he also said that capitalizing on our natural resources is essential.

[Slava]

For me there are two angles to the Trump issue for Poilievre. First, it’s the question of who can deal with Trump and the situation we find ourselves in. That’s tough for Poilievre, for me, because he’s never done anything. It took this guy a decade to finish his undergrad, and his time being elected has been short of actual initiatives and accomplishments. Comparatively, it’s tough to see how Poilievre would be better equipped to handle this.

But the other angle is far more of a problem for me. It’s the fact that this policies and things he’s said over the past few years are all so aligned with Trump. The attack on “wokeism”, crypto endorsements, “I’d fire the governor of the bank of Canada”, hanging out with the freedom convoy and the list goes on and on. It’s the entire conversation around Canada being broken, and the pandering to people espousing conspiracy theories.Seeing this kind of populist ideology being implemented in the United States doesn’t make me hope we see this here.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by Titan2

You are just regurgitating the vomit that the blue team has shoved down your throat. Yes, Carney has said that clean energy is important, and we need to work towards that. But he also said that capitalizing on our natural resources is essential.

He also says it’s the greatest commercial opportunity in generations. Like, the world will have to go there eventually, why not be at the front of the train instead of trying to chase it? As a millennial I’ve had limited “get rich” ability in my life commercially, this seems like a great avenue where literally everyone wins

[Sylvanfan]

Did someone just compare Gerbils to people and expect to be taken seriously?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Did someone just compare Gerbils to people and expect to be taken seriously?

With tongue in cheek of course.