US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Cousin Strawberry]

I can't say if Carney is good or bad for Canada but I will say he's at least articulate and an intellectual that appears to have significant experience in the exact field where we need an experienced leader at this time

There seems to be alot of illogical and exaggerated rage towards him that isn't warranted in my opinion. He's a centralist leader running the liberal party of Canada. That's a win in my books

Someone help me understand where all the animosity stems from

[JelloPuddingPop]

Someone help me understand where all the animosity stems from

From the people who don't understand he the right-leaning economist they hoped PP could grow into, and are mad he chose the liberal party instead of theirs? They are not quite understanding that he is not Trudeau, even though for some reason, they want to tie him to Trudeau as much as possible.

The two couldn't be farther apart ideologically, as well as personally (well, I guess he could be PP), but still. It is some strange psychological gymnastics to go through for sure.

[Tciso]

Nah. My dislike of Carney comes from a couple of factors. 1) He is supposed to be a super economist, yet he is running the most massive debts deficits (ty 5th) ever, outside of Covid. It isn't helping the economy. 2) He is supposed to be a great negotiator, yet he has totally failed in negotiating a new deal with Trump. He's now kicked it down to the summer of 2026. 3) He talks about moving the economy forward as speeds never seen before, yet, we are basically at a stand still. Yes, he has hand picked a few projects, but, he hasn't turned on the economic switch. Instead, he picks who gets to participate, and locks the other companies out of the economy. Even at that, he is damned slow at approving projects. 4) He said he would make the streets safer, but, his new reforms don't move the needle. 5) As I have mentioned earlier, his legislation has tried to take more control from Canadians. Hate speech, Ministerial over-rides, etc.

So, from my prospective, Canada has wasted a year, and hasn't made any significant progress, nor is there any in sight.

[BCExpat]

Nah. My dislike of Carney comes from a couple of factors. 1) He is supposed to be a super economist, yet he is running the most massive debts ever, outside of Covid. It isn't helping the economy. 2) He is supposed to be a great negotiator, yet he has totally failed in negotiating a new deal with Trump. He's now kicked it down to the summer of 2026. 3) He talks about moving the economy forward as speeds never seen before, yet, we are basically at a stand still. Yes, he has hand picked a few projects, but, he hasn't turned on the economic switch. Instead, he picks who gets to participate, and locks the other companies out of the economy. Even at that, he is damned slow at approving projects. 4) He said he would make the streets safer, but, his new reforms don't move the needle. 5) As I have mentioned earlier, his legislation has tried to take more control from Canadians. Hate speech, Ministerial over-rides, etc.

So, from my prospective, Canada has wasted a year, and hasn't made any significant progress, nor is there any in sight.

I agree, however, Carney is a refreshing change from the Trudeau era. I still wouldn't vote for him for a lot of the reasons you noted above. Hopefully the PCs get a new leader soon. I personally like PP, however, I think he has run his course - time for a change.

[5thhorseman]

1) He is supposed to be a super economist, yet he is running the most massive debts ever, outside of Covid. It isn't helping the economy.

Sorry Tciso, I don't quite understand this point. Can you elaborate?

I assume you mean deficit, not debt. And usually running a huge deficit means increased government spending which would be a tailwind to the economy, whereas restrained govt spending is a drag on the economy.

I also don't agree with running a huge deficit, but that's a separate point to the one you made.

[Meds]

Nah. My dislike of Carney comes from a couple of factors. 1) He is supposed to be a super economist, yet he is running the most massive debts ever, outside of Covid. It isn't helping the economy. 2) He is supposed to be a great negotiator, yet he has totally failed in negotiating a new deal with Trump. He's now kicked it down to the summer of 2026. 3) He talks about moving the economy forward as speeds never seen before, yet, we are basically at a stand still. Yes, he has hand picked a few projects, but, he hasn't turned on the economic switch. Instead, he picks who gets to participate, and locks the other companies out of the economy. Even at that, he is damned slow at approving projects. 4) He said he would make the streets safer, but, his new reforms don't move the needle. 5) As I have mentioned earlier, his legislation has tried to take more control from Canadians. Hate speech, Ministerial over-rides, etc.

So, from my prospective, Canada has wasted a year, and hasn't made any significant progress, nor is there any in sight.

I agree, however, Carney is a refreshing change from the Trudeau era. I still wouldn't vote for him for a lot of the reasons you noted above. Hopefully the PCs get a new leader soon. I personally like PP, however, I think he has run his course - time for a change.

Was having this very conversation today with someone. They hated Trudeau, but also said their skin crawls when they hear PP talk, similar to the way they dislike Trump. The conversation started when they were expressing their fears that Trump will come after Canada next, and they went on about the apprehension of Maduro and the Venezuela situation.

Pierre was the perfect counterpoint to Trudeau, but when Carney took the reins it was time for PP to either show us that he could turn the page and shift from rock-throwing politicking to campaigning for what his party would do, and without the smoke and mirrors rhetoric that is suited to an opposition party that doesn't want to show its hand. But he stuck with bashing Trudeau and trying to tie Carney to it that asshat's record.

Carney boasted a resume that Pierre could not. I don't know how PP would have done. I won't speculate, I believe in giving him the benefit of the doubt. His moral stance aligns more with mine, so he had that in his favour.

Carney, for his part, is worth paying attention to. If he did not have ties to Europe, his wife wasn't such a climate change zealot, and he didn't seem to keen on the UN, I would have more optimism in where Canada could be 3.5 years from now. But it is worth noting that some of the things he has done can not have been popular with members of the Liberal caucus that were supporters of Trudeau.

I won't list them, but a number of the Harper-era policies, that the Conservatives were pissed to watch Trudeau scrub, have been revived.

His signing of an accord with Alberta, while seen as not being a real commitment to government action, should be seen as more than the optical illusion that his critics claim it to be. Those optics are exactly that, something that private corporations will look at, and they should see the change from the previous collection of fools that comprised the Trudeau-era.....Canada is not closed for business, and certainly will entertain proposals for private investment in industry and resource sectors.

He hasn't really engaged with the Indigenous council all that much, or at least he hasn't he given the constant spotlight and lip service to it that Trudeau did. Is this a subtle shift that is telling of more to come?

While only two examples, these are things that he cannot abrupt face on and go hard charging in the opposite direction of his predecessor. If he did that he would lose the support of those members of his own party that were all for it. That could result in some quiet mutinies, and efforts to make changes that make sense could be hampered when captaining the ship of a minority government if those changes rock the boat and he loses a few votes from his own benches.....because he knows damned well that nobody on the Conservative side of the room is going to back his play unless the issue at hand is of such importance that to vote against it would be political suicide for the opposition.

I am very curious what he will do with this latest Chrystia Feeland kettle of fish. If he's smart, he asks for her resignation now and recognizes the legitimate conflict of interest that the Conservative party is screaming about. It's a win/win for him really. He gets rid of an individual that was in Trudeau's inner circle, who had been a lightning rod of controversy in her own right, and he maintains a degree of integrity while offering an olive branch to the opposition and their political support.

I'll never vote for the Liberals, and I hate aisle crossers.....but if Carney crossed to the Conservatives and replaced Pierre as their leader, I could be on board with that.

[Meds]

1) He is supposed to be a super economist, yet he is running the most massive debts ever, outside of Covid. It isn't helping the economy.

Sorry Tciso, I don't quite understand this point. Can you elaborate?

I assume you mean deficit, not debt. And usually running a huge deficit means increased government spending which would be a tailwind to the economy, whereas restrained govt spending is a drag on the economy.

I also don't agree with running a huge deficit, but that's a separate point to the one you made.

Two sides of the same coin.

A deficit is the yearly shortfall when government spending exceeds revenue (a "flow"), while debt is the total, cumulative amount owed from all past deficits and borrowed funds (a "stock"). Think of a deficit as overspending on a credit card in one month, while the debt is the total balance you've accumulated over time, including interest. A deficit adds to the debt; a surplus reduces it, but debt remains until paid off.

A deficit simply adds to the existing debt unless the debt is being paid down.....which it is not.

Sure the terms differentiate between present and past tense, but when they are added together they simply mean the same thing next year.

[5thhorseman]

Yes I understand those terms Mëds. You missed the point which is my question to Tciso on how does a high deficit harm the economy? I would think the opposite.

[Meds]

Yes I understand those terms Mëds. You missed the point which is my question to Tciso on how does a high deficit harm the economy? I would think the opposite.

Debt isn't inherently bad; it fuels growth by financing investments (like businesses or housing) but becomes harmful when excessive, leading to slower growth, higher interest rates, reduced fiscal flexibility, and increased vulnerability to financial crises, especially if debt-to-GDP ratios become too high.

Is future debt beneficial to a country and it's economy? Particularly one which is consumer driven and individual spending power has increasingly lagged behind inflation over the last 60 years?

[5thhorseman]

Yeah Tciso didn't say whether he means short-term or long-term harm. Hence my query.

[Tciso]

1) He is supposed to be a super economist, yet he is running the most massive debts ever, outside of Covid. It isn't helping the economy.

Sorry Tciso, I don't quite understand this point. Can you elaborate?

I assume you mean deficit, not debt. And usually running a huge deficit means increased government spending which would be a tailwind to the economy, whereas restrained govt spending is a drag on the economy.

I also don't agree with running a huge deficit, but that's a separate point to the one you made.

Thanks for the catch, 5th. Yes, I meant deficit. And, while deficits do provide temporary bumps to the economy, it wears off fast, and soon becomes a drag on the economy. If deficits actually worked, why only run small deficits? Right?

[Tciso]

Yes I understand those terms Mëds. You missed the point which is my question to Tciso on how does a high deficit harm the economy? I would think the opposite.

5th, just look at the last 10 years. Massive deficits, and abysmal real GDP growth. In fact, we have had a substantial drop in GDP/person. There are a bunch of reasons. The government is borrowing the same dollars the private sector wanted to borrow and invest. The government does not know how to run businesses, so dollars into industry compete with the private sector, and are by and large, run badly, with little incentive to be productive. Now, if deficits meant growth, Canada should be leading the G20, instead of near the bottom, and GDP world wide would have grown as fast as national debts have. But, long term, they have an inverse relationship.

[Tciso]

Yeah Tciso didn't say whether he means short-term or long-term harm. Hence my query.

I meant deficits. But, the problems are compounded over time in the form of debt.

As the great economist Sam Malone once said “a moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips.” And, the great financial wizard W. Axl Rose sang” I used to do a little, til a little didn’t do it, the a little got more and more.”

[2Fingers]

So as Canada is a country with free healthcare and a lot of other social services how else can they be paid for if they don’t raise taxes?

I know they can save a billion or 2 by reducing headcount but where else is there savings?

Military spending is increasing, money to First Nations seems to be increasing. Quebec gets $10.0+ billion each year.

[Meds]

So as Canada is a country with free healthcare and a lot of other social services how else can they be paid for if they don’t raise taxes?

I know they can save a billion or 2 by reducing headcount but where else is there savings?

Military spending is increasing, money to First Nations seems to be increasing. Quebec gets $10.0+ billion each year.

Healthcare costs can be reduced by cutting "red tape". The number of administrative positions per system user is staggering.

Spend smarter (as an entire system, not just healthcare). Imagine if we removed the legal liability from responders and police when it comes to the drug/alcohol user.....suddenly every drunk doesn't need to go to the emergency department, instead he goes to the drunk tank. If you weren't aware, that doesn't happen anymore like it used to. I'd say 90% of the intoxicated individuals that I have to deal with on the street end up in emerg because the cops are scared shitless to put them in the drunk tank. Drug users often refuse us after they receive narcan. Imagine if the shelter that is across the street from the hospital didn't have a legal obligation to call 911 when one of their residents complains of a tummy ache.....yeah, they could walk across the street to the emergency department and we could skip the taxpayer bill for an ambulance (and often a fire/police response that happens due to callers giving shit info or the address being flagged as high risk).

Adding a "fee for service" for ambulance and emergency department visits for the events that are not actually emergencies. You would either cut down on usage or you would generate revenue.

Addressing the system abuse problem would massively cut down on staffing costs that are skyrocketing due to healthcare worker burnout. Last numbers I saw was that roughly 40% of nurses under the age of 35 are bailing on the job and heading either out of country or into private clinics because they are sick of what they have to put up with. 35% of paramedics employed by BCEHS are on stress leave right now. So now you have to either hire more, or pay OT costs, to cover positions.

There is an INCREDIBLE amount of waste built into our healthcare system. Fix it, costs go down.

First Nations? So long as we continue with the current treaties and UNDRIP interpretation of them, this is a country divided and headed into the shitter.

Military? Spend more. It's the one area that I'll never complain about seeing money go towards.

You can also increase your tax revenue by actually green-lighting resource projects, green-lighting manufacturing, green-lighting productivity. The taxes that we pay are a drop in the bucket compared to the potentials that are found in those areas.

Also, flat tax. Go look for the math yourself, but scrapping tax brackets, and getting rid of personal write-offs and the ability to shelter/evade taxation, would massively increase the government revenues from individual taxes. Right now, depending upon your bracket, and combining provincial and federal taxes, we are giving 40% of our earnings to the government. Imagine if everyone, no matter how rich or poor, only paid 20%. If you do that, the change is absolutely wild.....unless the numbers I was shown recently were fabricated.

Heavy taxation of your population leads to economic collapse.