I think it's pretty clear from question period that the middle class tax cut isn't going to be the only botched Liberal platform policy. The questions from the Conservatives may have been loaded, but that isn't an excuse for Morneau to ignore a simple criticism. If they were wrong once, why should we believe they won't be wrong on the rest of their tax policy including income splitting and the UCCB? The lie is too convenient, especially when it's followed up with blaming the last government. Anything to get elected I guess.
The questioning was completely dodged by Morneau twice, just like every other question asked of the Liberals.
I don't get the fighter jet policy. I can understand if we withdraw completely, but this appears to be purely politics. The Liberals admit that we're still going to be helping out just as much, so why not lend our fighters to the effort? It seems like they're trying to play the opinion that bombing only creates more terrorists, yet they're still effectively in support of bombing. I really liked when Ambrose questioned why Obama didn't mention us as a US ally, but mentioned the UK and France.
As an aside:
I voted for the provincial NDP. I voted for the federal Liberals.
I regret my NDP vote. They felt the need to take things to the extreme and have done nothing but be everything that I was warned about. Incompetent ministerial selections, a love for the unions, and a clear disdain for the oil and gas industry.
I'm starting to regret my Liberal vote. Not as strongly, as I didn't really want to have to vote for them in the first place (too much Harper stink), but still regret.
How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
Last edited by CampbellsTransgressions; 12-07-2015 at 11:30 PM.
I think and I cringe at saying this that we do have to give Justin a chance to settle into the job. He is a very inexperienced guy, and being in a election campaign where you have people in your campaign running to the press and correcting your blunders and being in parliament are two different things.
He's already got one problem and that's when the costs of sending 300 delegates comes out, that's going to be a bit of a scandal, and optics wise the Nanny Stuff has made him look dishonest.
Anyone who did any analysis of the middle class tax break knew that it wasn't going to work and was a bit of a shell game when you add in the change of deductions of your paycheck, we'll end up in the same place or a little bit behind.
I think if he could go back and make a change he wouldn't have pulled the fighters so quickly, and it was noticeable that Canada wasn't mentioned as an ally in Obama's address. Right now we've gone back to being an unreliable partner, and any other military strategy is going to involve men in danger areas whether its training or engaging with special forces.
He's already been caught muzzling federal employees when he basically told immigration officers and managers that they couldn't talk to the press.
He went to Paris with Harper's environmental targets from my understanding so his statement that Canada was back looks incredibly weird unless you count that he took half of the government with him.
He's going to have a difficult Prime Ministership, he's facing the same situation that Harper faced in 2008, so how he handles it is going to be compared to the last government is going to be a major point of debate.
His mandate letter shutting down tanker traffic in Northern BC basically killed the Northern Gateway Pipeline which is another dagger to the energy industry, and looks silly because that pipeline was studied every which way environmentally.
I'm not onboard with his increase in funding to CBC, I think they're dramatically over funded now and their senior leadership is extremely entitled already.
But even the CBC has stopped protecting him like they did in the election campaign.
But he's only been Prime Minister for a few weeks, but he's going to have to stop dodging questions in Parliament and start acting like a Prime Minister instead of an MP that can hide behind others. Its a tough lesson, and it goes back to him having very little experience in his life that could prepare him for this job.
Like I said though, fair is fair, lets see how he settles into the toughest job in the country.
I'd prefer if he separated himself from Wynne and her ideas,
I can still say I'm comfortable that I didn't vote for him, but he's there now.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 12-07-2015 at 11:31 PM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau confirmed Monday that the contribution limit on the tax-free savings account will drop back to $5,500 from $10,000 effective Jan. 1, 2016, but that the limit for 2015 will remain untouched. Mr. Morneau also announced that contributions will be indexed to inflation as of next year.
He's already got one problem and that's when the costs of sending 300 delegates comes out, that's going to be a bit of a scandal, and optics wise the Nanny Stuff has made him look dishonest.
I'm not overly concerned about this. It really looks like Canada's presence at the Paris Convention has repaired a lot of the damage to Canada's image that occurred during the Harper years.
The nanny scandal is completely moronic partisan garbage.
Quote:
Anyone who did any analysis of the middle class tax break knew that it wasn't going to work and was a bit of a shell game when you add in the change of deductions of your paycheck, we'll end up in the same place or a little bit behind.
Well this was obvious from the campaign get go and why I never really cared about the promises that each of the parties made in regards to the middle-class. They were all different shades of lipstick on the same pig.
Quote:
I think if he could go back and make a change he wouldn't have pulled the fighters so quickly, and it was noticeable that Canada wasn't mentioned as an ally in Obama's address. Right now we've gone back to being an unreliable partner, and any other military strategy is going to involve men in danger areas whether its training or engaging with special forces.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I'm totally fine with pulling the jets out.
Quote:
He's already been caught muzzling federal employees when he basically told immigration officers and managers that they couldn't talk to the press.
I'd need to see more details on that before I'd call it muzzling. Seems like SOP to me.
Quote:
He went to Paris with Harper's environmental targets from my understanding so his statement that Canada was back looks incredibly weird unless you count that he took half of the government with him.
Do you have a source for this? I'm not doubting, I just can't find any reference to it anywhere. If so, yeah that looks pretty disingenuous.
Quote:
His mandate letter shutting down tanker traffic in Northern BC basically killed the Northern Gateway Pipeline which is another dagger to the energy industry, and looks silly because that pipeline was studied every which way environmentally.
Frankly, he's doing what voters in B.C. asked him to do, and since he got a fairly strong mandate here by running on his "B.C. roots" it'd look pretty bad on him if he did nothing to protect the coastline. The pipeline isn't really the problem here. What most voters in B.C. have a problem with is increased tanker traffic, especially after the spill in English Bay this year.
Quote:
I'm not onboard with his increase in funding to CBC, I think they're dramatically over funded now and their senior leadership is extremely entitled already.
The CPC were trying to kill the CBC with a thousand paper cuts. I think the CBC is an important institution and keeping it well-funded is absolutely in the country's best interests.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I see the value of news, I don't see the value of sports, there are tons of other Canadian options out there for sports coverage.
Radio, meh, not my thing but I get it.
I don't think it needs to be a billion dollar solution, there are other outlets showing superior Canadian made content.
It will be interesting to see how bundling works for CBC, I think there will be very few people that choose to keep it in their cable package if that's an option that's allowed.
The CBC management needs to be gutted, they've been entitled and spoiled for a long time, and wasted money like drunken sailors.
Keep the CBC newsworld channel. keep CBC Radio. And the rest of the stuff can be more efficiently funded independent of the CBC.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is backing away from a central Liberal election vow to return the public books to balance before the end of this mandate.
Trudeau also tells Montreal's La Presse newspaper that, due to the weakening economy, the government's upcoming 2016-17 budget plan will show a deficit larger than the Liberals' promised $10-billion shortfall cap.
He says officials still don't have a figure on the size of the projected deficit.
So the central election promises of balanced budget within their mandate and not exceeding 10 billion deficit annually are out the window. The scary part is that they don't have any type of figure or estimate for the projected deficit. I didn't vote for the Liberals and would consider my self nonpartisan (i've voted for every major federal party at different points in my life) but this is very concerning and reaffirms some of my apprehensions regarding this government.
Well Harper sunk us on years of deficits, continually pushing back his "balance by" date and only arguably achieving it at the end of his term due to fire sales of assets. So a politician not fulfilling a promise of a balanced budget 5 years down the road doesn't really surprise me, and probably shouldn't be the sole measure we judge success. If growth outstrips deficits, I'm not going to worry.
So why two months ago say it was a promise cast in stone? I'm not saying it surprises me, politicians break elections promises all the time. What concerns me is that this was a central election promise, reaffirmed once he was in power that clearly means nothing. I'd consider myself fiscally conservative so this type of backtracking and lack of any type of projections about the true deficit is pretty scary. Also as bad as things are economically right now, managing through the 2008 melt down is a different story if that's what you're referring to as sinking us for years with deficits.
Well Harper sunk us on years of deficits, continually pushing back his "balance by" date and only arguably achieving it at the end of his term due to fire sales of assets.
From what I remember they regularly beat projections and balanced the budget a year early. Also, if the "fire sale" you are referring to is the GM shares they weren't included in the same fiscal year as the balanced budget, they are included in this year. But hey, it's all Harper's fault, I'm sure that will be the excuse for years to come.
First of all the billion dollar infrastructure thing for Alberta is nothing new, since most of it was allocated by the previous government, so Trudeau's and the Liberal's aren't really doing anything new for the government except giving a relatively minor amount in the grand scheme of things to the province in a time of economic collapse. Basically they decided to sign a check that has been sitting around waiting for signature.
And when you look at that compared to the what 90 billion in deficits that he's expected to run over the next 4 years its nothing.
And when you consider that they're going to give the same amount to one company in Quebec who's sole profit bearing product is begging for bail outs. Color me unimpressed.
And didn't the Finance Minister get called on the carpet for lying about the Conservatives leaving a deficit when they left office and it turns out that there was a expected $1.4 billion dollar surplus? I think the Auditor General Report stated that.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
So the Liberals campaigned that the Conservatives were terrible because they had deficits after the 2008 meltdown, but when the Conservatives finally did manage to balance the budget the Liberals feel it's a good time to go back into massive debt again?
When I was a political man, a high-level CPC political operative told me that you have a year to beat up on the previous government. You can use it as an excuse to do almost anything. This is what is happening now. The problem for the Trudeau government is that it isn't really changing the general perception that he is a bit of an idealistic guy obsessed with his image but with no real notion on governing.
