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

CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,790
Points
940
I think the net result from this pandemic is that the US healthcare system will look the same, but CDC will be reorganized and refocused as a research unit/ expert advisory board and as the crisis management board for national response to another such situation. For years there has been criticism of the CDC continuing to expand it overview and mission, where the critical role was subdued/semi-forgotten. I expect a tighter more focused CDC will eventually emerge with extraordinary powers but within a smaller arc relating to fighting viral epidemics. 
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
973
Points
910
>Which is impossible to tell without mass testing.

What is impossible to tell?

>As long as there arare asymptomatic people out there spreading it this thing will continue to double every few days.

I think I understand what you might mean, but what you wrote is not strictly true.  It is possible for asymptomatic carriers to be spreading the disease while the overall number of cases continues to fall from a peak.  I doubt that is the current situation, of course.

If Trump thinks the US is just going to reopen for business by Easter, he is wildly overoptimistic.  But it should be possible for "the authorities" to carefully choose venues in which restrictions can be reduced.  Even very cautious moves toward restoration of normalcy should help to reduce stress and give people patience to endure continued restrictions where such cannot yet be removed.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
129
Points
480
Altair said:
If Canada and the west(US about to dump 2 trillion in stimulus) could survive the spending that went along with 6 years it took to defeat Hitler,  then they can survive a year of this

Where do you think that 2 trillion is coming from? Its not savings. They are literally pulling it out of thin air, think Germany 20s-early 30s style. Unlike WWII which caused a economic boom after a decade of hardship, this is doing the opposite.

I'm not saying our system is going to collapse tomorrow, or this year, simply long term if we continue down this path it ends in default, like Greece, or many of the South American countries. Events like this will just speed it up slightly.

Right now I am exceptionally concerned with the actions of our governments. They have gotten increasingly authoritarian without even having any real due diligence in suspending peoples rights and freedoms. I am not saying actions do not need to be taken, however I do not like how quickly we are willing to jump to the most draconian measures due to fear.

I also do not like how they have suspended parliament due to their fears when we need them most at this time. If the House of Commons is too small for the social distancing you can set something up in another place where there is the space, or even better using the internet or other technology we can have them work from home without the requirements to be physically in location. This is 2020, if they were able to run parliament during the Spanish Flu, they can certainly do so now with all the benefits modern technology brings us.
 

garb811

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
7
Points
530
Eaglelord17 said:
Where do you think that 2 trillion is coming from? Its not savings. They are literally pulling it out of thin air, think Germany 20s-early 30s style. Unlike WWII which caused a economic boom after a decade of hardship, this is doing the opposite.
...
You might want to rethink that. WW2 was funded by massive debts being incurred by all countries involved, the US included, which had a debt to GDP ratio of 113% at the end of it all.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
566
Points
910
Eaglelord17 said:
Where do you think that 2 trillion is coming from? Its not savings. They are literally pulling it out of thin air, think Germany 20s-early 30s style. Unlike WWII which caused a economic boom after a decade of hardship, this is doing the opposite.

I'm not saying our system is going to collapse tomorrow, or this year, simply long term if we continue down this path it ends in default, like Greece, or many of the South American countries. Events like this will just speed it up slightly.

Right now I am exceptionally concerned with the actions of our governments. They have gotten increasingly authoritarian without even having any real due diligence in suspending peoples rights and freedoms. I am not saying actions do not need to be taken, however I do not like how quickly we are willing to jump to the most draconian measures due to fear.

I also do not like how they have suspended parliament due to their fears when we need them most at this time. If the House of Commons is too small for the social distancing you can set something up in another place where there is the space, or even better using the internet or other technology we can have them work from home without the requirements to be physically in location. This is 2020, if they were able to run parliament during the Spanish Flu, they can certainly do so now with all the benefits modern technology brings us.
WW2 wasn't funded by savings either.  They printed/borrowed money to fund the war. A obscene amount.

A correction to the stimulus actually,  the Americans are up to 6 trillion.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,114
Points
990
For comparison, WW2 cost the US over $4 trillion in today’s dollars.
 

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
54
Points
330
Explainer: Trump has little power to restart U.S. economy

Legal experts say a U.S. president has quite limited power to order citizens back to their places of employment, or cities to reopen government buildings, transportation, or local businesses. Here is why.

What does the Constitution say about who makes decisions about public welfare?

The United States is a federalist system, meaning power is shared between a national and state governments.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-reopen-explain/explainer-trump-has-little-power-to-restart-u-s-economy-idUSKBN21B3F5
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
129
Points
480
They did print money and take on debt in WWII, however there was one major fundamental difference. They were on the gold standard at that point in time.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,114
Points
990
Eaglelord17 said:
They did print money and take on debt in WWII, however there was one major fundamental difference. They were on the gold standard at that point in time.

Whereas now America’s currency is backed by the world’s faith in the stability of America’s economic and political institutions. I don’t see the issue?
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,316
Points
1,060
Wednesday morning, after the bill passed, Scheer released a statement highlighting oversight measures included in the final draft, including shortening the period during which the federal cabinet has special spending powers to keep the government moving and requiring regular reports on spending to House of Commons committees.

This is what an "effective Opposition" looks like, he said.

The Conservative position on the bill was complicated by one of its own MPs, Scott Reid, who threatened on his website Tuesday to show up in the Commons despite not being one of the designated 11 Tories who were supposed to be present, and deny the unanimous consent needed to expedite the bill's passage.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid19-coronavirus-ottawa-hill-economic-legislation-1.5509178

It's great to get people emergency money fast. It's great the Conservatives stopped the Liberals unsurprising power grab attempt.

This still highlights a problem with our government. Citizens elect MPs they want to represent us in Parliament. MPs are put in a tricky position of championing what their constituents want and towing their party line, which isn't always the same. MPs who don't tow the party line get intimidated, threatened or even forced into compliance.

Here the Conservative government (and I'm guessing others) appeared to selected only MPs that would vote yes and push this through. How is a handful of hand picked "yes" MPs representative of Canadians?
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
567
Points
960
How are only 10% of MPs representative of the whole country?
 

Kilted

Sr. Member
Reaction score
239
Points
560
ModlrMike said:
How are only 10% of MPs representative of the whole country?

Because they had to keep the number under 50. Regardless of the number of MP's present, the bill was agreed upon ahead of time by all parties. Even if the House was full, party discipline would have resulted in a much similar outcome.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,114
Points
990
Kilted said:
Because they had to keep the number under 50. Regardless of the number of MP's present, the bill was agreed upon ahead of time by all parties. Even if the House was full, party discipline would have resulted in a much similar outcome.

They didn’t have to, they chose to. They picked just enough to allow a reasonably proportionate participation by the parties. But as correctly stated, they were there basically to ratify a cross-party agreement on legislation assembled by a negotiation team.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
895
Points
1,040
Brihard said:
They didn’t have to, they chose to. They picked just enough to allow a reasonably proportionate participation by the parties. But as correctly stated, they were there basically to ratify a cross-party agreement on legislation assembled by a negotiation team.

Which is what I want to see from EVERY party, and special interest group, right now....cooperation, until we kick this bugs $ss....then we can get back to digging our trenches.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,316
Points
1,060
Brihard said:
They didn’t have to, they chose to. They picked just enough to allow a reasonably proportionate participation by the parties. But as correctly stated, they were there basically to ratify a cross-party agreement on legislation assembled by a negotiation team.

That seems like it defeats the purpose of electing 338 MPs to represent 37 million Canadians to me, They picked a hand full of MPs who agreed beforehand to vote yes to a plan the parties already agreed to out of Parliament. It's like posting a job where someone is already picked, just to make it legal.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
895
Points
1,040
Or one could say it defeats the purpose of having a military but keeping them at home instead of "militaring".  [bet its not a word]  But these aren't normal times.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,114
Points
990
Jarnhamar said:
That seems like it defeats the purpose of electing 338 MPs to represent 37 million Canadians to me, They picked a hand full of MPs who agreed beforehand to vote yes to a plan the parties already agreed to out of Parliament. It's like posting a job where someone is already picked, just to make it legal.

Depends. There are lots of routine matters that require legislation and that parties are in agreement on (routine spending measures are a good example). Lots of votes don’t have a ton of members in the house.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
652
Points
1,060
Jarnhamar said:
That seems like it defeats the purpose of electing 338 MPs to represent 37 million Canadians to me, They picked a hand full of MPs who agreed beforehand to vote yes to a plan the parties already agreed to out of Parliament. It's like posting a job where someone is already picked, just to make it legal.

The bill needed unanimous consent of the House. Flights are being cut all over the country. How do we get the MP from Yukon back, or ones from Nfld who when they go back have to lock themselves in their houses again? The bill was negotiated, Liberals tried to pull a fast one, got called out on it and the original agreement finally got tabled. As much as I agree with Scott Reid's, I think he's just trying to get his name out there then actually doing anything constructive. Did he honestly think Pierre Pollievre or Andrew Scheer were going to let those power grab provisions pass? He wanted headlines.

I can see why they sent all the MPs home to be with their families, but I also am of the mind that they should have been quarantined in Ottawa and still continued to sit. That would have taken 338 people off the roads/airplanes, especially considering Ottawa has a decent concentration of the cases and MPs are more likely to come in contact with people who travel internationally. Pretty sure we ran Parliament through the Spanish Flu, so why not now?
 
S

stellarpanther

Guest
PuckChaser said:
The bill needed unanimous consent of the House. Flights are being cut all over the country. How do we get the MP from Yukon back, or ones from Nfld who when they go back have to lock themselves in their houses again? The bill was negotiated, Liberals tried to pull a fast one, got called out on it and the original agreement finally got tabled. As much as I agree with Scott Reid's, I think he's just trying to get his name out there then actually doing anything constructive. Did he honestly think Pierre Pollievre or Andrew Scheer were going to let those power grab provisions pass? He wanted headlines.

I can see why they sent all the MPs home to be with their families, but I also am of the mind that they should have been quarantined in Ottawa and still continued to sit. That would have taken 338 people off the roads/airplanes, especially considering Ottawa has a decent concentration of the cases and MPs are more likely to come in contact with people who travel internationally. Pretty sure we ran Parliament through the Spanish Flu, so why not now?

Unless absolutely necessary, everyone who can be should be home with their families including MP's, Military etc.  A lot of MP's live in hotel rooms during the week and need to go out to get food etc which would obviously put them at risk. It's not like we're going to bring in cots and MRE's for them and all of the security and other support staff that would be required.
 
Top