Canadian Money Forum banner

61 - 80 of 121 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Social programs to turn the poor into leaches to live off the productive is going to solve nothing. Kings from years ago never had it as good as the poor today.
Ya and we should take away women's right to vote as well. Seems the camp where a statement like this would come from.

Spending 15 million on job training in Africa is not turning the poor into leaches.
If you haven't noticed China is spending Billions in Africa to gain political good will.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...china-commits-billions-aid-africa-interactive
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts

gotta love KOL. He wants to be the prime minister but believes a strong majority new government means the party leader is going to be replaced soon?

he craps poison all over canada while saying he's the "best salesman" the country has got?

the good thing about political wannabes like donald trump & KOL is that they can't win. Every time they open their mouths, they author their own downfall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Looking at the plot showing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, one sees straight away that Harper and Harper alone is responsible for all emissions. View attachment 8122

Then let's see who is in the Security Council:

- Angola
- Egypt
- Venezuela
- Malaysia
- Senegal
...
Not to mention wonderful democracies of China and Russia. Then we have Saudi Arabia chairing UN Human Rights Council.

Frankly, not being elected to a UN club is a badge of honour.
Before 2006 no Canadian prime minister — indeed no head of government in the Commonwealth — had ever been found in contempt of Parliament. It has happened twice on Harper’s watch. The Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the government lied to Parliament and refused to release public documents. These actions contravene the principles on which responsible government is built.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Jughead Trudeau is all about self gratification. He is Prime Minister "Selfie". To date he has jet set around the world giving out tax payer's hard earned money like it was candy. How much will implementing every one of the 94 Truth and Reconciliation Committee recommendations cost Canadian tax payers.

In his first 4 months as Prime Minister he has already handed out billions - none of which will stimulate the Canadian economy one bit. The Canadian economy is headed down the toilet but all he concerns himself with is photo ops. There is only so much money to go around and so far this lad has proven that he will be a spend thrift. I think Jughead will prove to be a one term wonder and then will go back to living off of grampa's trust fund invested in numbered companies.
I suppose you like this guy as well?

trump.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
http://www.nationalobserver.com/201...-shocking-story-kevin-olearys-business-career

O’Leary’s popularity and persona as a business guru soon drove investors to his mutual funds, with O’Leary Funds roaring to as much as $1.5-billion in assets (and probably more). O’Leary boasted of being an investing whiz, with access to the movers and shakers in the business and political worlds — those ties giving him unique insider knowledge.

The reality was quite different. O’Leary was not even licensed to manage or invest other people’s money. Instead, he hired Connor O’Brien, a former Wall Street investment banker, to run O’Leary Funds. Moreover, by 2012, the funds were in trouble, falling to $1-billion in assets by the end of that year.

This past fall, when he finally sold his company to Canoe, the funds were down to $800-million in assets. This was due to redemptions — investors pulling their money out because of the funds’ performance. “The majority of the funds performed poorly for an extended period of time and the majority of (Bay Street) brokers refused to sell any new funds,” says Mark McQueen, CEO of Wellington Financial LP, a $900-million Bay Street finance firm and one of O'Leary's long-time critics. “It’s not personal. The industry lives and dies on performance.”

Yet the demise of the O’Leary Funds is, in fact, just the latest in a series of failures in Kevin O’Leary’s business career.

While O’Leary recently grabbed headlines with his promise to invest $1-million in Alberta if premier Rachel Notley stepped down, and is toying with running for leadership of the federal Tory party, these stunts overshadow a history of ineptness as a businessman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
Kevin O'Leary reminds me of Peter Pocklington.

I would not have voted for him, nor would I vote for KOL.

Not even if he/they were running for dog catcher.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
Ya and we should take away women's right to vote as well. Seems the camp where a statement like this would come from.

Spending 15 million on job training in Africa is not turning the poor into leaches.
If you haven't noticed China is spending Billions in Africa to gain political good will.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...china-commits-billions-aid-africa-interactive
Job training isn't handouts.
A minimum income is a good idea, we don't want people living in poverty.
But I can just imagine people sitting at home smoking pot on the minimum income and thinking things are good, we have to ensure there is some benefit to getting out of bed every day to do a job.
I make good money, but some days I'd rather stay in bed too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,679 Posts
OTTAWA -- Call it Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's secret stash. A new report from CIBC World Markets says Canada's federal and provincial governments could reap as much as $5 billion annually in tax revenues from the sale of legal marijuana.
Now I get how the budget will balance itself. Forgot to account for the marijuana revenue. Silly me.

By the way, governments don't really see debt in terms of absolute numbers. They see it in terms of % of income. Sort of the same way mortgage companies see your mortgage payment as a % of your income. Also governments use inflation to "pay off debt", while nominally increasing spending. For example, if real GDP was 3% in a given year, spending went up nominally by 1.5%, and inflation was 2%, the debt actually went down as a % of GDP....or something like that.

Too, post WW2 government debt was something like 120% of GDP, while the 50's and 60's are considered times of increasing prosperity. there is life after debt. If I am not mistaken, at one point during the Harper years debt got as low as 30% of GDP.

Also in the 1970's inflation was horrible, so increased debt during those Trudeau years isn't as bad as it looks if one adjusts the absolute numbers for inflation.

My main point is if one looks at the debt as a % of GDP, one gets a different perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,834 Posts
Another key parameter is growth. If there is large debt but the economy is growing fast then it's not a problem. If the economy is stagnating then we are screwed. The general expectation is that the growth rate will be low.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,412 Posts
Now I get how the budget will balance itself. Forgot to account for the marijuana revenue. Silly me.

By the way, governments don't really see debt in terms of absolute numbers. They see it in terms of % of income. Sort of the same way mortgage companies see your mortgage payment as a % of your income. Also governments use inflation to "pay off debt", while nominally increasing spending. For example, if real GDP was 3% in a given year, spending went up nominally by 1.5%, and inflation was 2%, the debt actually went down as a % of GDP....or something like that.
That's a "numbers game" the gov't can play to hide the true debt expressed in dollars.
Too, post WW2 government debt was something like 120% of GDP, while the 50's and 60's are considered times of increasing prosperity. there is life after debt. If I am not mistaken, at one point during the Harper years debt got as low as 30% of GDP.

Also in the 1970's inflation was horrible, so increased debt during those Trudeau years isn't as bad as it looks if one adjusts the absolute numbers for inflation.

My main point is if one looks at the debt as a % of GDP, one gets a different perspective.
Well, somebody has to hold onto that the debt and the gov't has to pay interest on that debt in real (Cdn) dollars.

http://www.debtclock.ca/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,412 Posts
Also, the equalization payments between the federal gov't and the provinces has a lot to do with debt and deficits.
Some of the provinces and perhaps Alberta, if the oil revenue doesn't pick up soon, could be considered have-not provinces.

In Canada, the federal government makes equalization payments to less wealthy Canadian provinces to equalize the provinces' "fiscal capacity" — their ability to generate tax revenues. A province that does not receive equalization payments is often referred to as a "have province", while one that does is called a "have not province". In 2013–14, six provinces will receive $16.105 billion in equalization payments from the federal government.

Because all the resource-rich provinces -- British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador -- are now lined up on one side of the equalization divide. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba--and now Ontario, are on the other.Jan 21, 2014
The statement above is rather dated. Because of dropping oil revenues, NFLD and Labrador can be included back into the "have not" fold as
the Hibernia oil field is not generating the revenue it did back in 2014.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,839 Posts
Also, the equalization payments between the federal gov't and the provinces has a lot to do with debt and deficits.
Some of the provinces and perhaps Alberta, if the oil revenue doesn't pick up soon, could be considered have-not provinces.

alberta was, i believe, a chronic have-not province, up until the 1950s when the Leduc discoveries began paying the first oil revenues.

another freaky thing about history is that, long before Leduc, the fathers of Confederation had structured mineral rights to belong to the crown in most cases.

not the federal crown. The provincial crown. The oil belonged, in most cases, to the gummint of alberta. It was a freak accident that would benefit alberta royally for more than half a century. Alas albertans soon learned to spend their birthright, swagger around like lords of the isles & jeer at eastern canada.

now the shoe is on the other foot. Ottawa has already dispatched $700 million for infrastructure rebuild to Ms Notley & will no doubt listen respectfully to her pleas for a pipeline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
Good news.......the government found an extra $7 Billion or so, and there is a monthly surplus building so far this year.

Evidently, the budget already balanced itself, although Bill Morneau cautions that it is a temporary blip.

Trudeau looks like one of those lucky people who win multiple lotteries. Everything is going right for him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,909 Posts
Good news.......the government found an extra $7 Billion or so, and there is a monthly surplus building so far this year.

Evidently, the budget already balanced itself, although Bill Morneau cautions that it is a temporary blip.

Trudeau looks like one of those lucky people who win multiple lotteries. Everything is going right for him.
Not really. This is a Conservative surplus. This would push the debate back to the side that the Conservatives were right regarding the economy and the Liberals are pushing the country to deficit. The Liberals didn't really have much influence on the 15-16 budget.

As it is, I believe the GDP shrank in Feb by 0.1%, so we really have to wait and see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Will Canada be able to withstand Liberal Governments managing our economy? Here is a synopsis of the economic management of 3 Liberal Governments

Pierre Trudeau’s Economic Management As Prime Minister

Eric Margolis quantified the economic results of Pierre Trudeau's legacy of Big Government upon Trudeau’s death in 2000. Here is his summary from the 2000 article:

Under Pierre Trudeau’s Economic Leadership:

· The national debt grew from $11.3-billion in 1968 to $128-billion in 1984 (that is a 1048% increase).

· The annual federal deficit went from zero to $25-billion.

· Ottawa's spending rose from 30% of Canada's total economic output to nearly 53%

· The Canadian dollar plummeted from around US$1.06 in 1970 to 66 cents.

· The unemployment rate ran between three and five percentage points higher in Canada than in the United States

· Canada reduced itself from being one of the world's three richest nations 30 years ago (along with Switzerland and the U.S.) to one of the three leading debtor nations in the West, alongside Belgium and Italy.

Where are we now under Justin Trudeau’s Leadership:

· The combined federal and provincial net debt is $1.3 trillion. The combined debt equals 64.8% of the economy or $35,827 for every man, woman or child living in Canada

· Spending on interest payments consumes government revenues and leaves less money available for other important priorities such as spending on health care and education or tax relief. Canadian governments (including local governments) collectively spent an estimated $60.8 billion on interest payments in 2014/15. That works out to 8.1% of their total revenue that year

· Justin Trudeau ran an election campaign of increasing deficits and ultimately increasing the federal debt.

· Trudeau is jet setting around the world spending billions of tax payer’s dollars on climate change, foreign aid and refugee resettlement.

· He has only been in power for 3 months and with Canada’s economy in a steep nose dive he claims that his election promise of running $10 billion deficits was only a guideline. He claims that in reality the deficits will likely be much larger.

And How About Kathleen Wynne’s Economic Leadership:

· Ontario is the largest sub-national debtor in the entire world, just one alarming distinction. Its debt is more than twice that of California, a state with three times the population and one that has its own severe fiscal problems.

· Ontario’s debt is $294 billion, or over $21,000 per capita.

· In 2015 the Ontario deficit was larger than the deficit of the federal government and the other 9 provinces combined.

· Ontario’s net debt to GDP is up 48 per cent in the past 10 years to almost 40 per cent.

· Last year’s interest obligations totalled $11.4 billion, about the same as the cost of community and social services.

· Not surprisingly, Standard and Poor’s downgraded Ontario’s bond credit from AA- to A+, citing a very high debt burden and very weak budgetary performance

Hold onto your hats – Canadians will suffer very tough economic times under Justin Trudeau’s and Kathleen Wynne’s “tax and spend” governments. We cannot afford a Liberal government in Ontario and a Liberal government in Ottawa bankrupting our future for their own political gains.
Well Justin blew these numbers right out of the ball park.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,747 Posts
The thing is many Canadians don't know how to manage money.
Many are only a hundred dollars from major financial problems, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/200-financial-insolvency-2019-1.4986586
That was before COVID19, I don't imagine it's better.

Lots of people think the government should just "print money".
They honestly don't understand how any of this works.

So they think that Trudeau helping them is good, and they'll vote for it.
they don't understand enough to see how destructive his plans are.

Just like Daddy, he's a wannabe socialist dictator. I just wish he wasn't so politically capable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,577 Posts
Trudeau and Morneau did a good job of having Canada in great financial shape to deal with the pandemic spending. We are the envy of the world.

Unfortunately, the wealth and income gaps continue to create widening disparities and they have reached a critical point.

It was a situation that was predicable and well understood by economists. Wealth gaps are a natural side effect of any capitalist system.

That doesn't mean capitalist systems are inherently bad, but rather that they need adjustments to offset the known negative side effects.

Some economists have suggested a tax on production, instead of labor. Others have suggested a universal basic income as a solution.

Still others have proposed wealth taxes, changes to capital gains taxes and exemptions, and other redistribution measures through the tax system.

It will be interesting to see if November's financial budget provides some insight into how the government plans to address the problem.

They may choose to sweep the problem under the rug, as past governments have done for decades, or they may boldly initiate a solution.

Any changes will no doubt spark considerable debate and may be the basis for policy platforms in the next election.
 
61 - 80 of 121 Posts
Top