The government is on the hook to make up shortfalls, so I have no issue with them reaping the benefits of good management. I'm the employee rep on our DB plan (Crown Corp, so managed pretty much the same as PS and CAF), and I can attest that the calculations used to declare a surplus are extremely conservative, and include huge amounts of contingency. Our plan, for example, recently achieved 103%, but the reality is it's more like 112%, because calculations on rates of return and so called black swan events are ridiculously conservative. The economy of the world would have to collapse completely before those pension funds slipped to a point where they could no longer cover obligations, and, as I said above, the government would still need to cover those obligations. So, I have no issues with the government using surpluses (though I would like to see them applied to deficits, not frivolous sh*t), and don't feel as if I deserve to have access to that money. I know what I signed up for, and as long as I get what I am owed, I'm happy. The idea that surpluses somehow belong to the employees is laughable union nonsense.
Trump administration 2024-2028
- Thread starter dimsum
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,741
- Points
- 1,160
Newsweek says you can tune in to see what POTUS47 is going to tell the WEF starting at 1100 Eastern/0800 Pacific/noon Atlantic/1230 NL at the WEF's YT channel
Cool stuff.
Not just Drill Baby Drill but Burn Baby Burn.
Doubling the annual energy output of the US to supply the AI economy. That means burning anything the US has available. Including coal....
Also calling for driving down the price of oil, ostensibly to shut down the Ukraine war by stifling the Russian economy.
...
There goes the neighbourhood.
...
Energy is not so much a valuable commodity as a feedstock. The cheapest energy wins the manufacturing race.
...
Question for Ontario
7 cents per kWh equates to $20 per GJ
As noted elsewhere
Natural Gas and Coal are available in Alberta for $2 per GJ, call it $6-8 per GJ for electricity with 2 to 3 free GJ of heat. And the Carbon is still recoverable for further processing.
CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 522
- Points
- 990
The only issue was that after this they said we had to start paying more into it. Can't recall now if there was anything substantial to it but do remember people took it that the money was there, they took it away, the fund is now short so we have to pay more in to sustain it. People certainly were not happy.
Rub it in
- Reaction score
- 5,035
- Points
- 1,260
For the record, and for any nit-pickers out there, POTUS47's info-machine's text (including Q&A material) ...Newsweek says you can tune in to see what POTUS47 is going to tell the WEF starting at 1100 Eastern/0800 Pacific/noon Atlantic/1230 NL at the WEF's YT channel
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM – The White House
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM Via Teleconference 11:06 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, Klaus. And hello
www.whitehouse.gov
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,044
- Points
- 1,160
No, he's putting an interpretation on what it says. Unless there is a precedent ruling that says that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (and there might be, IDK), I don't think it is true what the EO claims. Off the top of my head, the only people "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" are foreign diplomatic personnel and foreign military plus their families. There may be other groups. If a person in the US illegally commits a crime, do you not think they are subject to US law?
In a sense, you may be right that, if his position is ultimately endorsed by SCOTUS, then he doesn't need an amendment.
It seems a federal court judge has already blocked it temporarily, and 22 states have started actions against it. Not that he will care. His base will be happy and the deep state stands in his way.
Judge temporarily blocks Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'
A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
abcnews.go.com
Twenty-two States Sue to Stop Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
The lawsuit to block the president’s executive order is the first salvo in what is likely to be a long-running legal fight over immigration policy.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 9,005
- Points
- 1,040
The dispute is going to turn on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction". Pretty much everyone understands that they are subject to the laws of countries while they are visiting, but do not expect the right to vote or claim citizenship. If the liberal interpretation has to amount to permitting birth tourism, it will probably not prevail.
- Reaction score
- 29,479
- Points
- 1,090
The majority of the actuarial surplus withdrawn from the accounts has been restored over time. The last three OSFI reports for the PSSA saw over $17B returned. I have not dug deeper that that.
CFSA part I rates are fixed to those of the PSSA group one. This means that while the PS pay half of the cost of their future benefits, CAF members pay about 40%.
Much of the whinging about pension plans and surpluses is made by individuals who are not familiar with the law.
- Reaction score
- 29,479
- Points
- 1,090
The Act includes a definition of what a non-permitted surplus is. TB doesn't get to make up their own mind.
Non-permitted surplus
(5) For the purposes of this section, a non-permitted surplus exists when the amount by which assets exceed liabilities in the Canadian Forces Pension Fund, as determined by the actuarial valuation report referred to in section 56 or one requested by the President of the Treasury Board, is greater than 25 per cent of the amount of liabilities in respect of contributors, as determined in that report.
- Reaction score
- 8,741
- Points
- 1,160
No, he's putting an interpretation on what it says. Unless there is a precedent ruling that says that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (and there might be, IDK), I don't think it is true what the EO claims. Off the top of my head, the only people "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" are foreign diplomatic personnel and foreign military plus their families. There may be other groups. If a person in the US illegally commits a crime, do you not think they are subject to US law?
In a sense, you may be right that, if his position is ultimately endorsed by SCOTUS, then he doesn't need an amendment.
It seems a federal court judge has already blocked it temporarily, and 22 states have started actions against it. Not that he will care. His base will be happy and the deep state stands in his way.
Judge temporarily blocks Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'
A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.Twenty-two States Sue to Stop Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
The lawsuit to block the president’s executive order is the first salvo in what is likely to be a long-running legal fight over immigration policy.www.nytimes.com
The contrary proposition
Birthright Citizenship: Game On!
The Supreme Court will likely have the opportunity to acknowledge that the Claremont Institute’s view of the Citizenship Clause is correct.
americanmind.org
I reckon lots of lawyers are going to get rich on this one.
....
Claremont Institute - Wikipedia
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,044
- Points
- 1,160
It's an interesting discussion, and the opinions of talking heads or folks on a forum will mean little until it inevitably gets to a senior court. I'm certainly no legal scholar but did a quick Internet search. There doesn't seem to be a lot of precedent law on the topic, and none of it is recent.
This article isn't a ruling but an interesting discussion. In the mid-1800s, mass migration wasn't a thing, and the US didn't have troops stationed overseas (which would seem to exclude their offspring from natural-born citizenship - something the framers didn't think of). Also, Native Americans were originally felt to be excluded.
This case from 1989 granted citizenship to the child of a Chinese national is a decent summary. In a reflection of the times of rampant anti-Asian racism, the comments of the dissenting judge are interesting when he talks about the cultural fealty of all Chinese to their emperor.
If you consider the position of the judges that "subject to the jurisdiction" is absolute, it's a wonder that the US allows dual citizenship.
Anyway, its all academic until the courts decide. I suppose it is possible that a conservative Supreme Court like the US currently has could agree with executive order. Hopefully, the Court will rule on the basis of law, not politics. The practical implications should be for the government to deal with.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 34,542
- Points
- 1,160
I'm glad he's so confident ....
OTTAWA — U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest swipe at Canada in virtual remarks to the World Economic Forum, telling attendees that the U.S. economy could get along just fine without Canadian imports, drew a skeptical response from Canadian leaders.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in Ottawa for a caucus retreat, was quick to wave off Trump’s words as empty rhetoric.
Trudeau told reporters that Trump does, in fact, need Canada’s exports if he wants to make good on his campaign promise to deliver unprecedented prosperity to Americans.
“President Trump has announced that he wants a golden age for the American economy,” said Trudeau.
“That means they’re going to need more energy, more minerals… more of the things that Canada is already sending them as a reliable and trustworthy partner.”
In his first speech to the WEF since his first presidency ended in early 2021, Trump repeated talking points painting Canada as a self-serving trade partner, taking advantage of U.S. generosity.
“Canada’s been very tough to deal with over the years, and it’s not fair that we should have a 200 or 250 billion dollar (trade) deficit,” said Trump, referring to the small trade imbalance created by U.S. demand for Canadian energy exports.
Trump also repeated his now expected line about Canada becoming the 51st state of the U.S.
“As you probably know, I say you can always become a state and then if you’re a state we won’t have a deficit, we won’t have to tariff you,” Trump said.
ottawacitizen.com
'We don't need them': Trump's latest swipe draws skepticism from Canadian leaders
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was quick to waive off Trump's words as empty rhetoricOTTAWA — U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest swipe at Canada in virtual remarks to the World Economic Forum, telling attendees that the U.S. economy could get along just fine without Canadian imports, drew a skeptical response from Canadian leaders.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in Ottawa for a caucus retreat, was quick to wave off Trump’s words as empty rhetoric.
Trudeau told reporters that Trump does, in fact, need Canada’s exports if he wants to make good on his campaign promise to deliver unprecedented prosperity to Americans.
“President Trump has announced that he wants a golden age for the American economy,” said Trudeau.
“That means they’re going to need more energy, more minerals… more of the things that Canada is already sending them as a reliable and trustworthy partner.”
In his first speech to the WEF since his first presidency ended in early 2021, Trump repeated talking points painting Canada as a self-serving trade partner, taking advantage of U.S. generosity.
“Canada’s been very tough to deal with over the years, and it’s not fair that we should have a 200 or 250 billion dollar (trade) deficit,” said Trump, referring to the small trade imbalance created by U.S. demand for Canadian energy exports.
Trump also repeated his now expected line about Canada becoming the 51st state of the U.S.
“As you probably know, I say you can always become a state and then if you’re a state we won’t have a deficit, we won’t have to tariff you,” Trump said.
'We don't need them': Trump's latest swipe draws skepticism from Canadian leaders
OTTAWA — Canada's political class scrambled to respond on Thursday, after United States President Donald Trump took another swipe at Canada
ottawacitizen.com
- Reaction score
- 23,623
- Points
- 1,360
Trump or Trudeau?
I’m not sold on Trump as how I’d like to see statemen and women go about things, but Trudeau just needs to STFU. How about un-proroguing Government and voting to take action vs incessant talk-talk and hands on hip posturing (from a horribly weak position)?
- Reaction score
- 8,741
- Points
- 1,160
It is only since 1967, apparently, that the US did allow dual citizenship.
The oath doesn't seem to allow for it.
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America | USCIS
Oath "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignt
www.uscis.gov
- Reaction score
- 8,741
- Points
- 1,160
I still think Trump falls into the same category of negotiator as those West Coast fishermen I was talking about.
Quite willing to take extreme positions if it will help him get a better deal.
Wants and needs.
He doesn't need our lumber. He has trees of his own.
He doesn't need our oil, gas or coal. He has those as well.
He doesn't need our cars. He can build those himself.
But.
If we can supply better lumber at a lower price he might be interested.
If we can supply fossil fuels at a lower price, and maybe throw in some uranium and rare earths, he might be interested.
If we can build cars cheaper .... maybe. Although, as I recall the original autopact the problem was MacLaughlin couldn't build cars for the Canadian market as cheaply as the Americans could so we cut a deal that allowed us to piggy back on their supply lines to build enough cars for the Canadian market at prices close to the US prices.
And if we are still making a profit off him he wants us to spend it on National Defence, not pensions and medicaid.
- Reaction score
- 23,623
- Points
- 1,360
Which is exactly the point. Canada can help the US make MORE money, but the US makes PLENTY of money, even if Canada completely withdrew and sold 100% of its goods to China.
- Reaction score
- 8,741
- Points
- 1,160
All the more true when you are the bank.
- Reaction score
- 23,623
- Points
- 1,360
I think that some tend to give Canada too much credit as all that and a bag of chips. When a country could disappear and influence another’s GDP by less than a percent, you’re small potatoes.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 34,542
- Points
- 1,160
At least he's keeping the plot 
Trump tells Davos he will demand lower interest rates, oil prices
Some of his harshest criticism was reserved for traditional U.S. allies Canada and the European Union, who he threatened again with new tariffs, while berating them for allowing trade surpluses with the United States.NearingZenith
Guest
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 130
Countries & Regions
We shouldn’t sell ourselves short either. The latest official figures on the United States Trade Representative’s own website says that Canada is the top purchaser of US goods exports accounting for 17% of total US goods exports. That’s pretty impressive considering our smaller population compared to many other major countries/economies. Canada purchases more US goods exports than the entire EU (all 27 countries combined). If Canada disappeared I think America would notice.