Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 8:26 AM by socredible with a score of 0
Liberal Party of Canada, the favoured party for those who deal in debts. And the kind of accounting that’ll see us all paying them, over, and over, and over again. What else should we expect when our Assets are also counted as our Liabilities, and endless tribute is demanded for having them? Directly, through the coming taxation increases, and indirectly, as inflation raises the prices of everything. Sunny days? We’re going to get burned.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 9:51 AM by PrinceGeorge with a score of 0
After the Liberal Party had reduced the debt. Then the Cons added to it by the same amount. About 169 Billion dollars. That makes the other party the champions. And the same thing happened before.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 12:49 PM by socredible with a score of 0
They simply shifted the debt. They couldn’t reduce it, there’s already an insufficiency of purchasing power in the country, and by however much overall debt is reduced under the current conventions of accounting, paying off a National Debt would send that much more money into extinction.
It can be reduced at present only by having a so-called ‘favorable’ balance of trade ~ where we export more real wealth out of the country than we import in alternate real wealth back into it, and the accounting shows we’re getting ‘richer’. The exact opposite to what is actually happening physically.
Now if the ‘figures’ of finance are supposed to accurately REFLECT the physical ‘facts’, just how can that be? Maybe the ‘figures’ DON’T ~ but will any Party, and especially the Liberal Party, ever look at whether this is so, and if it is, why?
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 9:07 AM by X-it with a score of 0
A budget will balance it self. You where told this before you voted.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 9:23 AM by axman with a score of 0
Election’s over people. Same crap, different day as far as I can tell. The only thing that’s changed is that the sitting government is pandering to a different group of people. Ain’t politics wonderful.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 9:37 AM by Outwest with a score of 0
You can Vote for 3 Party and all will promise the Moon, if we get into Power and in the long Run nothing will ever Change, so why worry!
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 9:43 AM by seamutt with a score of 0
new child tax credit, well the casino and bars will make a killing and if one has lots of kids some serious cash will be made.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 9:47 AM by seamutt with a score of 0
Read the comments in the above link.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 9:54 AM by PrinceGeorge with a score of 0
How do you plan to modify the irresponsible spending priorities of some people? By force? Impossible!
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 10:22 AM by JGalt with a score of 0
I don’t think they can do it! As hard as they try, I don’t think this Liberal Government will ever be able to accumulate nearly a quarter (25%) of Canada’s national debt since confederation (over 147 years) like the Harper Conservatives did.
No government now, or in the future, can touch that fiscal record!!! It might take another 147 years before we see that record broken… and probably by another Conservative government one would surmise.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 10:23 AM by ski51 with a score of 0
The new Child Tax benefit is a sweet deal. If you are on welfare, you currently get $12,000 tax free a year. Your two children under 6 will now increase that to $24,800.00 a year – tax free. To get that tax free, you’d have to make $32,000 a year after CPP, EI and tax deductions. And then, there’s the expense of going to work. $2,000.00 a month isn’t fit for a king, but it can provide a roof and some reasonable food. If she has a third child, that adds another $630.00 a month with CTB and welfare increase.
I think Trudeau has gone a long way to eliminating child poverty, and he’s also solved our low birth rate problem because having kids really will pay if you are in the lower income levels.
It won’t be long, before Timmies has to get TFW’s again, when low income parents realize – there is no point in working.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 10:25 AM by ski51 with a score of 0
And and to be clear – I am all for reducing child poverty. What I would have preferred, is less cash to parents that can be spent on whatever, and taxpayer funded childcare so that low income single parents have fewer barriers to work.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 10:40 AM by Ataloss with a score of 0
Soon we shall see Christy pull the federal food directly out of the poor children’s mouths with a welfare clawbacks . She has NO shame .
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 10:51 AM by ski51 with a score of 0
Yes, I thought about that. Will BC reduce welfare rates? But, as far as pulling food out of kids mouths, my family hit a rough patch in the 80’s, and lived among the poor. Frankly, whenever there was extra cash, rarely did I see it go to fresh fruits and vegetables, but more often to smokes and booze and Momma’s new shoes. So, she might claw it out of some kids mouths, but more likely, she’ll claw some smokes or booze out of some parent’s mouths. There’s a false presumption parents put their kids interest first.
And on CTV, some interesting comments about refugees. What a jackpot for them if they have kids, and now they don’t need to work, they can just have more kids. Meanwhile, a senior is entitled to $17,000.00 a year minimum income – and they don’t have an option of working, or making kids.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 11:06 AM by axman with a score of 0
I’m really not sure why the government opted for the ‘hand out’ versus the ‘hand up’ approach? That’s the solution to child poverty? Giving people thousands of dollars a month just to push out kids? How’s that going to help anybody? Are their kids going to be any different or will they just opt to be on the dole for their lives as well?
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 11:38 AM by Ataloss with a score of 0
The maritimes are already in a very serious negative population growth vicious cycle and its negative feedback loop . It’s so bad that they are clamouring for Syrian refugees . Have a look at the real estate stats . PG is already feeling the effect of the low birth rate or haven’t you noticed . That’s how it will help . Japan’s decline is directly linked to their collapsed birth rate . Besides this is not just for the poor , it’s also for the middle class . If the woman are made more comfortable having more kids as a result of this . Then it’s worth every penny .
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 9:33 PM by socredible with a score of 0
Some will, some won’t. I once had a customer who worked every angle in the book to live permanently on welfare. He told me that he wasn’t the slightest bit ashamed doing it. Explained that in his younger years he’d worked hard, as a faller, saved his dough, and opened a grocery store. Did quite well at it. Then Safeway came to town. They could sell groceries at retail cheaper than he could buy them wholesale. His business was ruined. By then he was too old to go back to the bush, and the kind of falling jobs he’d previously had were all being automated out of existence. The companies wanted younger workers, once who already had those kind of electronic gaming skills that mimicked what they’d be doing on a feller-buncher or processor. So he went on welfare. And was on it til he died. None of his kids went that way. They all, he had five or six, turned out to be quite hard workers. One boy has done extremely well in real estate. If he’s not a millionaire yet, he’ll be quite close, I’m sure. Point is, if any person’s continued ‘production’ is of no advantage to himself or his fellow man, how, then can his continued ‘consumption’ be of any disadvantage? Did we NEED his ‘production’? Obviously not, or he would’ve been pushed or induced into employment. And he wasn’t. But his ‘consumption’, when he bought product off me and others, certainly helped us.
Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2016 @ 11:48 AM by Palopu with a score of 0
Lets get rid of some of the BS surrounding the Federal Debt.
Here’s how it goes.
It broke the $100 billion mark in 1981 and the $200 billion mark in 1985. It broke the $300 billion mark in 1988, the $400 billion barrier in 1991 and the $500 billion level in 1994.
The debt peaked at $562.9 billion at the end of 1996-97.
Between 1997 and 2008 $105 billion of the federal debt was repaid, dropping to $457.6 billion in 2007-2008.
Between $2008 and 2015, more than $150 billion was added back onto the federal debt, leaving it at $614 billion, a new high.
Government in power during this time.
1968-1984 Pierre Trudeau.
1984-1993 Brian Mulroney
1993-2003 Jean Chretian
2003-2006 Paul Martin
2006-2015 Stephen Harper.
So, at the very least you would have to admit that the accumulation of the debt was a result of both the Liberal and Conservative Governments.
With the Liberals being a little more responsible for it than the Conservatives.
So quit blaming Harper for all the problems in Canada, and get a new whipping boy.
Comments
Liberal Party of Canada, the favoured party for those who deal in debts. And the kind of accounting that’ll see us all paying them, over, and over, and over again. What else should we expect when our Assets are also counted as our Liabilities, and endless tribute is demanded for having them? Directly, through the coming taxation increases, and indirectly, as inflation raises the prices of everything. Sunny days? We’re going to get burned.
After the Liberal Party had reduced the debt. Then the Cons added to it by the same amount. About 169 Billion dollars. That makes the other party the champions. And the same thing happened before.
They simply shifted the debt. They couldn’t reduce it, there’s already an insufficiency of purchasing power in the country, and by however much overall debt is reduced under the current conventions of accounting, paying off a National Debt would send that much more money into extinction.
It can be reduced at present only by having a so-called ‘favorable’ balance of trade ~ where we export more real wealth out of the country than we import in alternate real wealth back into it, and the accounting shows we’re getting ‘richer’. The exact opposite to what is actually happening physically.
Now if the ‘figures’ of finance are supposed to accurately REFLECT the physical ‘facts’, just how can that be? Maybe the ‘figures’ DON’T ~ but will any Party, and especially the Liberal Party, ever look at whether this is so, and if it is, why?
A budget will balance it self. You where told this before you voted.
Election’s over people. Same crap, different day as far as I can tell. The only thing that’s changed is that the sitting government is pandering to a different group of people. Ain’t politics wonderful.
You can Vote for 3 Party and all will promise the Moon, if we get into Power and in the long Run nothing will ever Change, so why worry!
new child tax credit, well the casino and bars will make a killing and if one has lots of kids some serious cash will be made.
ht tp://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/canada-child-benefit-how-to-calculate-what-your-family-will-get/ar-BBqQr1J?ocid=spartandhp
Read the comments in the above link.
How do you plan to modify the irresponsible spending priorities of some people? By force? Impossible!
I don’t think they can do it! As hard as they try, I don’t think this Liberal Government will ever be able to accumulate nearly a quarter (25%) of Canada’s national debt since confederation (over 147 years) like the Harper Conservatives did.
No government now, or in the future, can touch that fiscal record!!! It might take another 147 years before we see that record broken… and probably by another Conservative government one would surmise.
The new Child Tax benefit is a sweet deal. If you are on welfare, you currently get $12,000 tax free a year. Your two children under 6 will now increase that to $24,800.00 a year – tax free. To get that tax free, you’d have to make $32,000 a year after CPP, EI and tax deductions. And then, there’s the expense of going to work. $2,000.00 a month isn’t fit for a king, but it can provide a roof and some reasonable food. If she has a third child, that adds another $630.00 a month with CTB and welfare increase.
I think Trudeau has gone a long way to eliminating child poverty, and he’s also solved our low birth rate problem because having kids really will pay if you are in the lower income levels.
It won’t be long, before Timmies has to get TFW’s again, when low income parents realize – there is no point in working.
And and to be clear – I am all for reducing child poverty. What I would have preferred, is less cash to parents that can be spent on whatever, and taxpayer funded childcare so that low income single parents have fewer barriers to work.
Soon we shall see Christy pull the federal food directly out of the poor children’s mouths with a welfare clawbacks . She has NO shame .
Yes, I thought about that. Will BC reduce welfare rates? But, as far as pulling food out of kids mouths, my family hit a rough patch in the 80’s, and lived among the poor. Frankly, whenever there was extra cash, rarely did I see it go to fresh fruits and vegetables, but more often to smokes and booze and Momma’s new shoes. So, she might claw it out of some kids mouths, but more likely, she’ll claw some smokes or booze out of some parent’s mouths. There’s a false presumption parents put their kids interest first.
And on CTV, some interesting comments about refugees. What a jackpot for them if they have kids, and now they don’t need to work, they can just have more kids. Meanwhile, a senior is entitled to $17,000.00 a year minimum income – and they don’t have an option of working, or making kids.
I’m really not sure why the government opted for the ‘hand out’ versus the ‘hand up’ approach? That’s the solution to child poverty? Giving people thousands of dollars a month just to push out kids? How’s that going to help anybody? Are their kids going to be any different or will they just opt to be on the dole for their lives as well?
The maritimes are already in a very serious negative population growth vicious cycle and its negative feedback loop . It’s so bad that they are clamouring for Syrian refugees . Have a look at the real estate stats . PG is already feeling the effect of the low birth rate or haven’t you noticed . That’s how it will help . Japan’s decline is directly linked to their collapsed birth rate . Besides this is not just for the poor , it’s also for the middle class . If the woman are made more comfortable having more kids as a result of this . Then it’s worth every penny .
Some will, some won’t. I once had a customer who worked every angle in the book to live permanently on welfare. He told me that he wasn’t the slightest bit ashamed doing it. Explained that in his younger years he’d worked hard, as a faller, saved his dough, and opened a grocery store. Did quite well at it. Then Safeway came to town. They could sell groceries at retail cheaper than he could buy them wholesale. His business was ruined. By then he was too old to go back to the bush, and the kind of falling jobs he’d previously had were all being automated out of existence. The companies wanted younger workers, once who already had those kind of electronic gaming skills that mimicked what they’d be doing on a feller-buncher or processor. So he went on welfare. And was on it til he died. None of his kids went that way. They all, he had five or six, turned out to be quite hard workers. One boy has done extremely well in real estate. If he’s not a millionaire yet, he’ll be quite close, I’m sure. Point is, if any person’s continued ‘production’ is of no advantage to himself or his fellow man, how, then can his continued ‘consumption’ be of any disadvantage? Did we NEED his ‘production’? Obviously not, or he would’ve been pushed or induced into employment. And he wasn’t. But his ‘consumption’, when he bought product off me and others, certainly helped us.
Lets get rid of some of the BS surrounding the Federal Debt.
Here’s how it goes.
It broke the $100 billion mark in 1981 and the $200 billion mark in 1985. It broke the $300 billion mark in 1988, the $400 billion barrier in 1991 and the $500 billion level in 1994.
The debt peaked at $562.9 billion at the end of 1996-97.
Between 1997 and 2008 $105 billion of the federal debt was repaid, dropping to $457.6 billion in 2007-2008.
Between $2008 and 2015, more than $150 billion was added back onto the federal debt, leaving it at $614 billion, a new high.
Government in power during this time.
1968-1984 Pierre Trudeau.
1984-1993 Brian Mulroney
1993-2003 Jean Chretian
2003-2006 Paul Martin
2006-2015 Stephen Harper.
So, at the very least you would have to admit that the accumulation of the debt was a result of both the Liberal and Conservative Governments.
With the Liberals being a little more responsible for it than the Conservatives.
So quit blaming Harper for all the problems in Canada, and get a new whipping boy.
Comments for this article are closed.