Trudeau not in the country

[Machjo]

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the 2016-2017 New Year’s Eve was “150 years in the making and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ring in the New Year together.”

But Trudeau was not in the country he leads at it marked the beginning of it’s 150th anniversary year.

He and his family were out of the country on holiday, his office said, at an undisclosed location.

During his first New Year's Eve as prime minister, Trudeau took his family to the Caribbean island of Nevis and St. Kitts. While that trip was not publicized, journalists on the island quickly recognized the Canadian PM and published stories and photos.

Trudeau holidays in another country as Canada begins celebrating 'once-in-a-life

For shame! Leaving the country for any reason is absolutely the most unpatriotic act a Canadian can ever commit! We should write a Canadian patriot Act requiring all Canadians to sing O Canada every morning and remain in Canada for their entire lives or face a lifetime ban on international travel. for a second offense, they should face the death penalty.

Damn people are so entitled nowadays. It's all because Canada is too free, which has given them this sense of entitlement, that they have a 'right' to leave Canada whenever they want. I think we need to learn from the former Soviet states, North Korea, and other such countries on that matter. At least they know how to promote a decent reverence for the state.

So, your point is that the PM should never be allowed to vacation outside the country?

How unpatriotic of you, traitor. No Canadian should ever be allowed to leave the country!

Now you're getting even more silly... like Cannuck silly!



Ahhhhh... your frustration and tears never seem to quench my thirst for them!

Trump saved Carrier jobs... and you feel such pain!

LOVELY!

That was unwise of Trump, since it sent the message that whenever a business wants something from the government, it just needs to threaten to move jobs abroad and then negotiate for what it wants. Not a good precedent to set.

 

[captain morgan]

That was unwise of Trump, since it sent the message that whenever a business wants something from the government, it just needs to threaten to move jobs abroad and then negotiate for what it wants. Not a good precedent to set.

Carrier made the decision under Obama's punishing tax regime.

On that note, the myopic view is that the gvt loses money by virtue of handing it out to this company... A more balanced approach is that all those tax dollars come back in multipless over a relatively short period of time

 

[taxslave]

So, your point is that the PM should never be allowed to vacation outside the country?

Trouble is every time trudOWE leaves the country he makes the Canadian taxpayers borrow another Billion dollars so that he can give it away.

 

[Machjo]

No he didn't. He gave them your money. Either you're a socialist and you support that or you're a conservative and you don't.

You're embarrassed again I see.

Now you're confusing socialism with nationalism and capitalism with internationalism. Some more socialistic states are very much in favour of free trade. Take Sweden for example. Likwise, a mostly capitalist state can be very protectionist. Take the USA of the 1930's for example. Capitalism is not synonymous with nationalism any more than socialism is with internationalism.


Add to that that not all nationalists are nationalist on all fronts. The NDP for example, is quite internationalist on some fronts and hypernationalist on others. For example, it supports international development initiatives and, at least compared to the Conservative Party, is also somewhat more in favour of immigration, and it's not a big fan of unilateralism, preferring multilateralism and cooperation with the UN, yet Mulcair and maybe other exceptions aside, many in the NDP are hyperprotectionist. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party is hypernationalist where the NDP is less so yet quite internationalist on the trade front, even more so than the NDP is.

 

[taxslave]

Now you are just being silly

No he's not. He is just trying to derail yet another thread by making it all about how big an idiot he is,

I'm talking to a Trumpite. It's a requirement. Why don't you regale us with your explanation of why the Liberals giving Bombardier millions is bad but Trump giving millions to Carrier is good. I always love that one.

That is obviously way over your head or you wouldn't need it explained to you. Finance isn't like counting the number of beer cans in a bag.

 

[Cannuck]

That was unwise of Trump, since it sent the message that whenever a business wants something from the government, it just needs to threaten to move jobs abroad and then negotiate for what it wants. Not a good precedent to set.

Unless you're a socialist.

 

[Machjo]

Carrier made the decision under Obama's punishing tax regime.

On that note, the myopic view is that the gvt loses money by virtue of handing it out to this company... A more balanced approach is that all those tax dollars come back in multipless over a relatively short period of time

Would it not be preferable to just lower taxes? When the government gives money to a business or industry, it's arbitrarily picking winner and losers in the market. If it just lowered taxes across the board, then it puts all business on a more equal footing. But how does it lower taxes and balance the budget when it intends to massively expand the government. Trump did promise to grow the military, did he not?


To be clear, I'm not defending Obama. In many respects, he was just Bush light. And when we analyze Trump on the economic front, he's not much better. Sure he'll lower taxes, but he'll raise spending too. Not sustainable. In that respect, Obama and Trump are no different from one another. What the US needs is a fiscal conservative who promises not to lower taxes, but rather to lower spending, with any tax reduction necessarily dovetailing with the shrinking of the US federal debt. neither Obama nor Trump seems to understand that the federal taxes ought to dovetail the debt and that they are directly linked. Any president who doesn't understand that is not fit for president. That applies equally for most if not all of the last few presidents.

 

[Cannuck]

Carrier made the decision under Obama's punishing tax regime.

hehehehe...Carrier made the decision because of the cheaper labour in Mexico. Even if that was the case, change the tax regime, don't hand over tax payers dollars.

...he makes the Canadian taxpayers borrow another Billion dollars so that he can give it away.

Just like Trump is going to do in the US

 

[Machjo]

Unless you're a socialist.

Even for a socialist. Instead of treating each business on a case by case basis, which involves much work and micromanagement for such small benefit, it would make more sense to just raise or lower taxes across the board, or raise or lower tariffs across the board. Otherwise, the government will inevitably get bogged down with micromanaging each business.


This is not a socialist vs capitalist matter, but rather one of good management. I can't believe people applaud Trump's engagement in such micromanagement. Is he seriously going to spend the next four years putting out fires by negotiating with every business that threatens to move jobs out? And what about the businesses that don't plan on moving jobs out? As soon as they see how ignored they are, they will soon learn that it's good business to threaten to move jobs out.

 

[Cannuck]

That is obviously way over your head or you wouldn't need it explained to you.

Yes, that's the standard Trumpite line when they have no explanation.

 

[taxslave]

hehehehe...Carrier made the decision because of the cheaper labour in Mexico. Even if that was the case, change the tax regime, don't hand over tax payers dollars.



Just like Trump is going to do in the US

According to the left that is the same thing.

 

[captain morgan]

Would it not be preferable to just lower taxes? When the government gives money to a business or industry, it's arbitrarily picking winner and losers in the market. If it just lowered taxes across the board, then it puts all business on a more equal footing. But how does it lower taxes and balance the budget when it intends to massively expand the government. Trump did promise to grow the military, did he not?

Trump has proposed to lower taxes in order to attempt growth in the private sector. As well, he's looking to cut taxes to 1/3 of the current rate on overseas monies in hopes to encourage these big multinationals to repatriate those trillions of dollars.

My opinion is that Carrier is simply the example that Trump is willing to use to promote his platform... No doubt that he wouldn't pay for every company that threatens to leave but is using carrier as the poster-boy

 

[Machjo]

According to the left that is the same thing.

Again, this is not a left vs. right matter. Only a simpleton would believe that criticism of Trump equates with praise of Obama because one is popularly identified with the 'right' and the other with the 'left.'

Trump has proposed to lower taxes in order to attempt growth in the private sector. As well, he's looking to cut taxes to 1/3 of the current rate on overseas monies in hopes to encourage these big multinationals to repatriate those trillions of dollars.

My opinion is that Carrier is simply the example that Trump is willing to use to promote his platform... No doubt that he wouldn't pay for every company that threatens to leave but is using carrier as the poster-boy

I agree with his proposed tax cuts, but I think he's irresponsible with them, using them as voter bait.


For example, I would have promised to cut spending her and cut spending there, and that if this results in shrinking the debt, then I'd look at gradual and conservative tax reductions to the degree that we can afford it.


Instead, Trump chose to act no differently from Obama and Trudeau by growing the debt at all cost.


Of course because I would refuse to promise to lower taxes and would make such lowering of taxes conditional on spending reductions and shrinking the debt, few would vote for me because they just want me to lower their taxes at all cost. Maybe that's the problem. People will not vote for the socialist who promises to raise their taxes or the capitalist who promises to reduce spending. Instead, they vote for the socialist who promises to increase spending and the capitalist who promises to lower taxes, with both saying little about the ever-growing debt.

 

[taxslave]

Again, this is not a left vs. right matter. Only a simpleton would believe that criticism of Trump equates with praise of Obama because one is popularly identified with the 'right' and the other with the 'left.'

It is very much a right/left matter. Especially as cannuck referenced it to Bombardier which is nothing more than an expensive EI scheme for otherwise unemployable machinists in Quebec. Bombardier has never threatened to leave the country for lower wages or lower taxes because they only exist by huge infusions of tax dollars.

 

[Machjo]

It is very much a right/left matter. Especially as cannuck referenced it to Bombardier which is nothing more than an expensive EI scheme for otherwise unemployable machinists in Quebec. Bombardier has never threatened to leave the country for lower wages or lower taxes because they only exist by huge infusions of tax dollars.

Even for a socialist, that would be terrible policy. Trudeau is making the same mistake as Trump through such micromanagement.


If he wants to lower taxes on businesses generally, by all means. But by subsidizing Bombardier specifically, he's playing favourites in the market. What makes a worker at Bombardier more important than any other Canadian worker. If anything, this goes against the principles of both capitalism AND socialism. A true capitalist would say let the market decide the fate of Bombardier. And a true socialist would say let's help all Canadians equally and not give workers at Bombardier a special privilege not afforded to all of Canada's other workers. Again, even capitalists and socialists would oppose such micromanagement. If anything, it is the difference between macro vs micro management. A Federal government ought to macromanage and leave the micromanagement to the private sector or lower levels of government.

 

[TenPenny]

In the case of Carrier, Trump is happy to let them send quite a few jobs to Mexico, as long as they keep a few in the US.


So, the standard is set. You can get money out of a Trump regime if you plan to send X jobs offshore, then agree to keep about a third of them in the US.

 

[Jinentonix]

Oh dear!!!

You drama queens need a hug?

Obviously Trudeau could use one. The poor dear has been so overworked this 14 months what with the handful of work breaks he takes between his vacations. How many is this now? Four? I think Trudeau has officially spent more money on vacations already than he's spent on running Canada. (intended exaggeration)

But hey, this is what happens when you're f*cking stupid enough to vote for a two time college drop-out who even as an MP had one of the worst absentee rates in Parliamentary history.

 

[captain morgan]

Again, this is not a left vs. right matter. Only a simpleton would believe that criticism of Trump equates with praise of Obama because one is popularly identified with the 'right' and the other with the 'left.'

based on the actions of the last Dem administration, it is a left vs right issue.

I agree with his proposed tax cuts, but I think he's irresponsible with them, using them as voter bait.

The electorate has been nailed with ever increasing taxes over the last number of decades.

Obama was not able to figure out that perpetually increasing taxes doesn't work

... This voter-bait comment is nonsense

For example, I would have promised to cut spending her and cut spending there, and that if this results in shrinking the debt, then I'd look at gradual and conservative tax reductions to the degree that we can afford it.

Would take far too much time, also, ramping-up the economy is the fastest way to turn this boat around.

Instead, Trump chose to act no differently from Obama and Trudeau by growing the debt at all cost.

Trump is entirely different than Obama or tater tot in that he's not looking to spend billions on relocating refugees; is interested in capitalizing on his nation's resource sector(s) and looking to help people and business by lowering taxes rather than punishing them by increasing the tax burden

Of course because I would refuse to promise to lower taxes and would make such lowering of taxes conditional on spending reductions and shrinking the debt.

.... And when you can't reduce spending and therefore lower taxes?

Looks like you'll be needing to raise taxes again... Never saw that coming

 

[JLM]

Obviously Trudeau could use one. The poor dear has been so overworked this 14 months what with the handful of work breaks he takes between his vacations. How many is this now? Four? I think Trudeau has officially spent more money on vacations already than he's spent on running Canada. (intended exaggeration)

But hey, this is what happens when you're f*cking stupid enough to vote for a two time college drop-out who even as an MP had one of the worst absentee rates in Parliamentary history.

You think maybe he's starting to show his "true colours"?

 

[Machjo]

based on the actions of the last Dem administration, it is a left vs right issue.



The electorate has been nailed with ever increasing taxes over the last number of decades.

Obama was not able to figure out that perpetually increasing taxes doesn't work

... This voter-bait comment is nonsense



Would take far too much time, also, ramping-up the economy is the fastest way to turn this boat around.



Trump is entirely different than Obama or tater tot in that he's not looking to spend billions on relocating refugees; is interested in capitalizing on his nation's resource sector(s) and looking to help people and business by lowering taxes rather than punishing them by increasing the tax burden




.... And when you can't reduce spending and therefore lower taxes?

Looks like you'll be needing to raise taxes again... Never saw that coming

Yes. If I were PM of Canada and the majority of Parliament except me voted to increase government spending, then yes, I would support tax increases while opposing the spending increases. I would see no contradiction in that since in my view, taxes ought to dovetail with the debt. If Parliament voted to significantly reduce government spending, then I'd start to explore the possibility of lowering taxes. That's what we call being responsible.