• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

Most PS jobs don't have mandatory annual physicals or medicals so it can become a matter of peer pressure or self realization that they can't keep up.

As CZ operators, we had to submit medical reports every five years, under age 46, every three years, age 46-64, every year, age 65 and over.

If you returned to 9-1-1 Operations after an injury, you had to have an MD declare you Fit for Duty.

As far as shift work goes, only thing harder than our 20 twelve- hour shifts every six weeks, were the eight-hour shifts we worked prior to January, 1976.

Pity the poor TFS firefighters on their 24-hour tours. Lol emoji.

 
Well that's finished then. Because politicians always follow the rules.

No one always follow the rules, but it's a lot harder (not impossible, but harder) to be crooked when you are under a microscope. Imagine how much damage politicians could inflict if they had zero oversight and required no accountability?

Like political parties?
No, not like political parties.
 
No one always follow the rules, but it's a lot harder (not impossible, but harder) to be crooked when you are under a microscope. Imagine how much damage politicians could inflict if they had zero oversight and required no accountability?
We are quite possibly about to find out if Carney gambles on triggering for a majority. The self-assassination of Pierre is nearly complete, between his shooting his mouth and his d*ck off at the same time.
 
Can they panic the people into going even deeper in debt? We'll see I guess...


Carney taking a ‘gamble’ with large deficit in fall budget: Desjardins economist​



OTTAWA — A Desjardins economist argues the surge in government spending in the Liberals’ upcoming fall budget is a “gamble” that will lead either to unsustainable levels of public debt or a new era of economic growth.

Desjardins deputy chief economist Randall Bartlett released an analysis of federal finances Wednesday ahead of the much-anticipated fall budget, set for Nov. 4.

In an interview, he called this year’s federal budget — the first under Prime Minister Mark Carney — “unprecedented.”

“What sets this budget apart from previous budgets is the size of the deficit outside of a recession or pandemic,” Bartlett said.

Bartlett said that, outside flashpoints like the COVID-19 pandemic or recessions, the closest comparison to the scale of this deficit would be Canada ballooning debt crisis of the 1990s, which required a sharp fiscal correction. Ottawa’s fiscal position is much stronger today, Bartlett noted.

Finance Minster François-Philippe Champagne has argued the threats to Canada’s economy posed by U.S. tariffs and global trade disruption require a “generational” level of investment.

While governments often run steeper deficits in times of economic hardship, Bartlett argued the situation is different today.

 
And tell me how you think it would go if we had a national referendum on semi automatic rifles and pistols? Or guns overall.

Not sure you would like that outcome.
If held today, given the outsized LPC government backed influence of those small but vocal anti-gun lobby groups, it would be devastating to firearms users of all stripes, except for the first nations and criminals.

Would the outcome be different under a CPC government? Yes, I believe it would. However, we are years away from finding that out.

The biggest influencer of the outcome, in my opinion, would be the actual wording of the question.

PMMC would never do this because the promise of gun bans are a guaranteed vote getter. And you can't promise to ban guns once you've banned all the guns.
 
Sounds fair enough to me.

In April, the federal government offered auto companies exemptions from Canada's 25 per cent retaliatory tariffs on the American auto sector.

But that benefit came with strings attached: The automakers had to continue making vehicles in Canada and complete the investments they’d already planned.

If companies broke that condition, the government warned it would limit how many tariff-free vehicles they could import from the U.S.

Effective immediately, the government is reducing the amount of American-assembled vehicles GM can import tariff-free by 24 per cent and cutting Stellantis's amount by 50 per cent, sources said.

Ottawa limits how many American vehicles Stellantis and GM can import tariff-free
 
Oh no!

Lol

So, the beef that the Reagan Foundation has with this is honestly kind of legit; they DID modify his radio address. However, two key things about what they did in their add:

1. They only removed a few lines that were not critical to the overall message. In the radio address, he talks about a lot of specifics about their trade situation with Japan, but details and expositions such as these are wedged between his overall comments/opinion on tariffs and free trade. They basically just made it shorter so as to fit in a TV commercial time-frame.
2. The overall "Raegan message" portrayed by the Ad is the exact same as that conveyed in his full radio address: Free Trade Good; Tariffs bad.

However, Trump's post make it sound like they took his address completely out of context, or modified it so much as to change the overall message. To wit, they presented a "fake" Raegan position statement. And, his supporters will absolutely believe him (because people are stupid; see my post in the LPC thread).

We are so fucked.

Full Radio Address for reference:

My fellow Americans:

Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan will be visiting me here at the White House next week. It's an important visit, because while I expect to take up our relations with our good friend Japan, which overall remain excellent, recent disagreements between our two countries on the issue of trade will also be high on our agenda.

As perhaps you've heard, last week I placed new duties on some Japanese products in response to Japan's inability to enforce their trade agreement with us on electronic devices called semiconductors. Now, imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take. And in a moment I'll mention the sound economic reasons for this: that over the long run such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. But the Japanese semiconductors were a special case. We had clear evidence that Japanese companies were engaging in unfair trade practices that violated an agreement between Japan and the United States. We expect our trading partners to live up to their agreements. As I've often said: Our commitment to free trade is also a commitment to fair trade.

But you know, in imposing these tariffs we were just trying to deal with a particular problem, not begin a trade war. So, next week I'll be giving Prime Minister Nakasone this same message: We want to continue to work cooperatively on trade problems and want very much to lift these trade restrictions as soon as evidence permits. We want to do this, because we feel both Japan and the United States have an obligation to promote the prosperity and economic development that only free trade can bring.

Now, that message of free trade is one I conveyed to Canada's leaders a few weeks ago, and it was warmly received there. Indeed, throughout the world there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot-Hawley tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery.

You see, at first, when someone says, ``Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports,'' it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while it works -- but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is: First, homegrown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition. So, soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.

The memory of all this occurring back in the thirties made me determined when I came to Washington to spare the American people the protectionist legislation that destroys prosperity. Now, it hasn't always been easy. There are those in this Congress, just as there were back in the thirties, who want to go for the quick political advantage, who will risk America's prosperity for the sake of a short-term appeal to some special interest group, who forget that more than 5 million American jobs are directly tied to the foreign export business and additional millions are tied to imports. Well, I've never forgotten those jobs. And on trade issues, by and large, we've done well. In certain select cases, like the Japanese semiconductors, we've taken steps to stop unfair practices against American products, but we've still maintained our basic, long-term commitment to free trade and economic growth.

So, with my meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone and the Venice economic summit coming up, it's terribly important not to restrict a President's options in such trade dealings with foreign governments. Unfortunately, some in the Congress are trying to do exactly that. I'll keep you informed on this dangerous legislation, because it's just another form of protectionism and I may need your help to stop it. Remember, America's jobs and growth are at stake.

Until next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.
 
So, the beef that the Reagan Foundation has with this is honestly kind of legit; they DID modify his radio address. However, two key things about what they did in their add:

1. They only removed a few lines that were not critical to the overall message. In the radio address, he talks about a lot of specifics about their trade situation with Japan, but details and expositions such as these are wedged between his overall comments/opinion on tariffs and free trade. They basically just made it shorter so as to fit in a TV commercial time-frame.
2. The overall "Raegan message" portrayed by the Ad is the exact same as that conveyed in his full radio address: Free Trade Good; Tariffs bad.

However, Trump's post make it sound like they took his address completely out of context, or modified it so much as to change the overall message. To wit, they presented a "fake" Raegan position statement. And, his supporters will absolutely believe him (because people are stupid; see my post in the LPC thread).

We are so fucked.

Full Radio Address for reference:
They don’t like us showing them up, educating the general public. It’s embarrassing for them.
The pending US Supreme Court decision on the legality of their tariff policy is also worrying Trump as a loss will up end their entire platform and put egg on their face.
 
EDIT: replied on the wrong thread.
Not really. The story got dropped in both threads so now we have the discussion going on in two places.

Don't we have a dedicated "Canada-US Trade" thread?
 
Not really. The story got dropped in both threads so now we have the discussion going on in two places.

Don't we have a dedicated "Canada-US Trade" thread?
Yup, I just didn’t mean to clutter up the domestic government thread.
 
Are you ready to prove your loyalty and make some big sacrifices?

Carney says Canadians must make ‘sacrifices.’ He isn’t yet saying on what

In reality, truthfully, I've been doing it since July 2002 when my wife finished her graduate degree from U of T and we choose Canada instead of moving back to Boston. I have little doubt that my and her incomes would have been higher after 23yrs of working there than staying here in Canada. We choose overall quality of life in raising kids here vs there. If it was all about dollars and cents, well we would have moved back to Boston.

So, what's another few more years before I retire.

I understand that my situation and opinion may not be the same as others and I respect that.
 
Are you ready to prove your loyalty and make some big sacrifices?

Carney says Canadians must make ‘sacrifices.’ He isn’t yet saying on what


Carney telling the youth of this nation to continue sacrificing has to be one of the most tone deaf speeches I've ever heard. You have a man worth 10s of millions, ethically conflicted, telling a group who will never own a home, can barely pay their rent, being burdened with insane inflation, lost multiple years of their youth to lock downs to continue sacrificing? Don't forget that it was hours before hopping on a private jet to hang with the Blue Jays before setting of on a vacation to Asia.

And I thought cutting Disney+ was a bad take.
 
Back
Top