2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[lenaitch]

If our Premiers were smart (which they aren't), they would file suit against Trudeau, hopefully getting it to the SCC to review the division of powers under the constitution.

A lot of PMJTs actions are crossing well into the Provincial realm of governance. Could be a better way to re-establish provincial sovereignty than a Twitter post.

It falls under the heading of 'be careful what you wish for'. The provinces seem to like it when Ottawa doles out money for healthcare, transit and roads.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Both the book and movie glorified fascist and jingoistic ideals. I'll take a hard effing pass on that one.

That's an opinion.

Having said that, the idea that in order for a person to participate in the state they must contribute, in some way as its not just military service that provides that opportunity in the book, is of value IMHO. To incorporate that into our real life, you won't move in my my thought that people should not be able to draw on our social services if they themselves have never contributed.

My only exception would be for those who are incapacitated in such a way that they were never able to work.

We as a species have only advanced and existed this long because we are capable of caring for those incapable of caring for themselves. In fact, anthropologist have pin pointed the healing of a fractured bone as the the start of civilization as we know it. Someone was able to hunt, protect, and mend the person who was hurt, so they could recover and get back to it.

Again, the only exception should be for those who are incapacitated in such a way that they were never able to work.

In 2024, we still will have people of all walks of life that need a hand. That hand should not be tied to their productivity or ability to contribute to the "wealth redistribution."

There will always be greed in humanity, and I agree that those who abuse the system need to be taken to task accordingly. That said, I was raised to only look in someone else's bowl if you're making sure they have something to eat, not to bitch about who has more.

With that in mind, we often complain about how much we have to support without looking at the conditions that lead to people needing that support:

-Corporatism has commodified basic human necessities like food and shelter to the point where even working and contributing to society is not enough to make ends meet.

-Reganism, Thatcherism, et al in the 1980s deliberately weakened social welfare programs and organized labour to make profits higher and generate "economic growth." That trickle down never happened.

-the Post War boom in the 1950s was largely due to intense government regulation of housing, markets, and hand outs. Those actions would be seen as neo-Communism today, yet in the "glory days" we aspire to return to; it was Capitalism with restraint.

And yet with all the barriers you mention we still have wide swaths of people who manage to succeed be productive members of society. Like I have said, I am willing to help those in need, I am not willing to help those who make bad choices.

Do I think there are folks that take more than they give? Definitely. The question should always be "what led them to take more than they give?" and fixing the societal problems surrounding it. If its merely that Jackass McFuckface wants a free ride when they are more than capable, well then I can see the desire to turn off the taps for him.

Everyone has an excuse. Just like every inmate is innocent, just ask them. At some point people have to be responsible for their own plight. Make good choices.

We in the CAF need to be very careful to not drink our own bathwater in the belief that our service elevates our role in society. We all eventually go back to being Mr./Mrs./Ms./Xr. Bloggins at the end of this. We have veterans who DID serve, who are now in the line for handouts, possibly because of their service and not having the means to keep their head above water.

I never said any of that.

If you listen to the director's commentary, he said he did it on purpose to satire the political opinions expressed in the book. Its why there are some familiar looking uniforms, white folks from Buenos Aires, and a large amount of propaganda vignettes

That's because the world had become a one nation government and people could freely move all over the place. It has nothing to do with fascisim or racism. In fact the state of the world, the book, would be a left learners wet dream.

 

[IKnowNothing]

You mean redistribute my wealth.

No, I mean what I said. Ensure that a program that you agree is a "pillar of our social safety net" is being managed in a fiscally responsible way. In this context - means testing so that we're not spending billions a year in taxpayer funded welfare to subsidize the lifestyles of the well off.

Let's look at it from the other side. We as a democratic society have deemed the Canada Childcare Benefit as a good use of taxpayer dollars - supporting the cost of raising children with ~7k per kid (+/- a couple hundred depending on age). This program (or a version of it) dates back as far as OAS to the end of WW2- is it just as much of a pillar of our social safety net.

We have also decided that such support should only go to those that need it, not those that are already well off- and as such the program is means tested with that amount starting to be reduced at a family (not personal - combined family) income of 34k.

Would it be a good use of tax payer dollars to spend the billions a year to relax said means testing and line it up with that of OAS, so that families with combined incomes of 160, 170, 180k are getting 7k per kid from the government?

 

[Brad Sallows]

-Corporatism has commodified basic human necessities like food and shelter to the point where even working and contributing to society is not enough to make ends meet.

"Corporatism" is a political philosophy, which we don't really follow. Corporations, though, are an immensely beneficial social advance. They facilitate specialization, which increases productivity. Back when basic human necessities were less commodified, plenty of people lived rough and died of famine.

-Reganism, Thatcherism, et al in the 1980s deliberately weakened social welfare programs and organized labour to make profits higher and generate "economic growth." That trickle down never happened.

The UK in particular was being strangled by unions. The trickle down happened as it always happens - the pie gets bigger. It's obvious by inspection that more economically productive nations are improving more quickly than less productive ones.

-the Post War boom in the 1950s was largely due to intense government regulation of housing, markets, and hand outs. Those actions would be seen as neo-Communism today, yet in the "glory days" we aspire to return to; it was Capitalism with restraint.

The post-war boom was due to many more factors: infrastructure rebuilding in war-ravaged countries; consumer demand after a few years of limited consumption options; return of millions of demobbed soldiers to an expanded work force that now included millions of women who had decided they wanted to continue working.

Airline deregulation triggered changes which ultimately lowered air fares. Telecomm deregulation triggered changes which ultimately lowered costs. We are currently governed by people who think we can regulate our way to prosperity and who don't grasp that a relatively unencumbered economy is critical to funding social welfare on the scale they envision.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We as a species have only advanced and existed this long because we are capable of caring for those incapable of caring for themselves. In fact, anthropologist have pin pointed the healing of a fractured bone as the the start of civilization as we know it. Someone was able to hunt, protect, and mend the person who was hurt, so they could recover and get back to it.

There's your key. Incapable of caring for themselves. Not lazy, won't look for work, won't relocate in some cases, to work. Doesn't like the job. "A hand up, not a hand out." should be a defining factor. I'd like a scheme where people were paid to attend a trade school, etc. We have millions of acres of forest that need clearing to prevent fires. We need plumbers, carpenters, electricians.

A series of physical checks should be initiated for the program. If they have beer in the fridge, a big screen TV, a car, they don't need help except to figure out their priorities.

The truly needy need care and comfort. The ones that takes a cab to the liquor store, not so much.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

There's your key. Incapable of caring for themselves. Not lazy, won't look for work, won't relocate in some cases, to work. Doesn't like the job. "A hand up, not a hand out." should be a defining factor. I'd like a scheme where people were paid to attend a trade school, etc. We have millions of acres of forest that need clearing to prevent fires. We need plumbers, carpenters, electricians.

So I will buy that for a dollar, but I would also offer that the external factors (such as high CoL, lack of educational supports, undiagnosed or untreated mental illness) are far more of a pressure than an internal moral or personal failing.

There has to be a middle ground where we are able to provide supports to alleviate external pressures to enable self sustenance and decreased dependency on supports.

Show me generational poverty and I will show you often unmet generational psychosocial needs. Those cost money, but so do the problems created from a lack of support.

A series of physical checks should be initiated for the program. If they have beer in the fridge, a big screen TV, a car, they don't need help except to figure out their priorities.

Is it a matter of priorities or self-medicating other issues?

The mental health> impulsivity> addiction> poverty pipeline is relatively quick, and the statistics show that this can continue for generations unchecked.

My mom drank/smoked because her mom drank/smoked because
... all to "settle the nerves." When I took a grip of my alcoholism, figured out it waa ADHD, got treatment and medication... what do you know I didnt need a drink to steady myself in the morning. I no longer craved a smoke.

My medication is cheaper than my vices were and less socially/physically damaging, but then again, I have access to medical care, drug coverage, etc.

"Bad choices" aren't always skewed priorities. It is often times a lack of supports or executive functioning.

I don't agree with enabling those bad choices, but I wholeheartedly believe in providing alternatives instead of admonishment.

The truly needy need care and comfort. The ones that takes a cab to the liquor store, not so much.

Again, needy all depends on how you view it. There are people who appear perfectly fine and able to function in society, but cannot cognitively function in the world as it exists.

My daughter is one of them. She will most likely not be able to work, nor will she be able to live independently. We are luckily able to provide support to her at 17, but if you were meet her in the street you'd have no idea. There is literally nothing provided for her, and if she were to move out at 18, she'd probably be homeless in a few months.

That's my daughter. That's one real world example, not a statistic.

There are many others like her that were thrown to the wolves in the 1990s when there were massive cuts to mental health services. Those who were cast out then became the same people who needed a hand out. They also were folks who, while not visibly infirm or mentally incapable, still can't function in society without some form of support (which costs money).

We pay to support these folks so they can, eventually, contribute something. If we don't, we pay to fight homelessness, addicition, overdose, welfare, increased criminality, theft, prisons, and the list go on.

 

[TacticalTea]

"Corporatism" is a political philosophy, which we don't really follow. Corporations, though, are an immensely beneficial social advance. They facilitate specialization, which increases productivity. Back when basic human necessities were less commodified, plenty of people lived rough and died of famine.

The UK in particular was being strangled by unions. The trickle down happened as it always happens - the pie gets bigger. It's obvious by inspection that more economically productive nations are improving more quickly than less productive ones.

The post-war boom was due to many more factors: infrastructure rebuilding in war-ravaged countries; consumer demand after a few years of limited consumption options; return of millions of demobbed soldiers to an expanded work force that now included millions of women who had decided they wanted to continue working.

Airline deregulation triggered changes which ultimately lowered air fares. Telecomm deregulation triggered changes which ultimately lowered costs. We are currently governed by people who think we can regulate our way to prosperity and who don't grasp that a relatively unencumbered economy is critical to funding social welfare on the scale they envision.

Despite all that, people aren't happier.

Seems globalization offshored lots of meaningful, well-paying jobs, to the sole benefit of financial elites.

At the same time, open borders policies generated downward pressure on labour costs at home, keeping wages low.

Addendum: no, corporatism is not just a political philosophy. It's also used to describe an economy which favours multinational corporations to the detriment of the human spirit. As with countless other words, it can have more than one meaning.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Despite all that, people aren't happier.

Some people are. Attitudes vary by age band.

Seems globalization offshored lots of meaningful, well-paying jobs, to the sole benefit of financial elites.

Incorrect. The people to whom the jobs were offshored are better off than they used to be. We may not like that prosperity here was traded for prosperity elsewhere - often where it made more of an absolute difference in living standards - but that's the way it is.

At the same time, open borders policies generated downward pressure on labour costs at home, keeping wages low.

Addendum: no, corporatism is not just a political philosophy. It's also used to describe an economy which favours multinational corporations to the detriment of the human spirit. As with countless other words, it can have more than one meaning.

"favours multinational corporations to the detriment of the human spirit" is intangible gobbledegook. Please quantify the criticism.

 

[TacticalTea]

Some people are. Attitudes vary by age band.

So screw young people. Got it.

Incorrect. The people to whom the jobs were offshored are better off than they used to be. We may not like that prosperity here was traded for prosperity elsewhere - often where it made more of an absolute difference in living standards - but that's the way it is.

Since when is our government supposed to represent the interests of other countries?

Didn't take you for a partisan of L'Internationale.

"favours multinational corporations to the detriment of the human spirit" is intangible gobbledegook. Please quantify the criticism.

No. I provided a definition, not a thesis. Don't know what you expect here.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So screw young people. Got it.

"Some people are happier" == "screw young people"?

Since when is our government supposed to represent the interests of other countries?

What I wrote concerns the interests of people as individuals, not countries, and the behaviour of relatively free markets, not federal policy. Regardless, international security is improved when more people are better off, and more international security serves our interests, not least because it reduces the transactional costs of trade.

No. I provided a definition, not a thesis. Don't know what you expect here.

You can prove anything if you make up your evidence (including definitions). That definition doesn't really mean anything. I can play the game, too: "grinding subsistence poverty, disease, famine, poor water quality, etc are detrimental to the human spirit".

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So I will buy that for a dollar, but I would also offer that the external factors (such as high CoL, lack of educational supports, undiagnosed or untreated mental illness) are far more of a pressure than an internal moral or personal failing.

There has to be a middle ground where we are able to provide supports to alleviate external pressures to enable self sustenance and decreased dependency on supports.

Show me generational poverty and I will show you often unmet generational psychosocial needs. Those cost money, but so do the problems created from a lack of support.


Is it a matter of priorities or self-medicating other issues?

The mental health> impulsivity> addiction> poverty pipeline is relatively quick, and the statistics show that this can continue for generations unchecked.

My mom drank/smoked because her mom drank/smoked because
... all to "settle the nerves." When I took a grip of my alcoholism, figured out it waa ADHD, got treatment and medication... what do you know I didnt need a drink to steady myself in the morning. I no longer craved a smoke.

My medication is cheaper than my vices were and less socially/physically damaging, but then again, I have access to medical care, drug coverage, etc.

"Bad choices" aren't always skewed priorities. It is often times a lack of supports or executive functioning.

I don't agree with enabling those bad choices, but I wholeheartedly believe in providing alternatives instead of admonishment.


Again, needy all depends on how you view it. There are people who appear perfectly fine and able to function in society, but cannot cognitively function in the world as it exists.

My daughter is one of them. She will most likely not be able to work, nor will she be able to live independently. We are luckily able to provide support to her at 17, but if you were meet her in the street you'd have no idea. There is literally nothing provided for her, and if she were to move out at 18, she'd probably be homeless in a few months.

That's my daughter. That's one real world example, not a statistic.

There are many others like her that were thrown to the wolves in the 1990s when there were massive cuts to mental health services. Those who were cast out then became the same people who needed a hand out. They also were folks who, while not visibly infirm or mentally incapable, still can't function in society without some form of support (which costs money).

We pay to support these folks so they can, eventually, contribute something. If we don't, we pay to fight homelessness, addicition, overdose, welfare, increased criminality, theft, prisons, and the list go on.

I don't deny any of that. Like I said. Those that need it. I just didn't want to type every qualifying scenario. If there's a discrepancy, that can be investigated.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And get rid of "You need Grade 12 to get a job here." There's plenty of good paying trades that you can do just fine in without a grad certificate. I once lost out on a job where I was the top candidate. Until they found out I only had Grade 10. That was the deciding factor.

 

[dimsum]

Poilievre interviews with Comox Valley Record during tour in Courtenay

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre offers short one-on-one interview Friday morning

www.comoxvalleyrecord.com

He’s engaging with the media, which is good.

However, I wonder what he means when he says “no more woke” but then say “treat our citizens with respect”. Because as a visible minority citizen, those two statements seem at odds.

I also dislike the “warrior” (as opposed to soldier) term for the military, same with “warfighter”, but that’s a different rant.

He also says he’ll fix the budget, and since DND is the largest line number in the federal budget, I see a crosshairs at us - again, seemingly at odds with another statement he makes.

Finally, can the federal govt order a municipality to make X% of housing? Granted I haven’t really followed the LPC’s housing announcement recently aside from money involved with strings, but isn’t this also the same (or very similar) proposal?

And no, I’m not being this skeptical because of PP the person. I’m being this skeptical because it reads like campaign promises, however vague.

 

[Good2Golf]

He also says he’ll fix the budget, and since DND is the largest line number in the federal budget, I see a crosshairs at us - again, seemingly at odds with another statement he makes.

Not even close. Pay for the fed public service is $60B+ and then there is the Payments to Individuals line item.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Not even close. Pay for the fed public service is $60B+ and then there is the Payments to Individuals line item.

OAS is way bigger than Defence.

as is Indigenous Affairs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

However, I wonder what he means when he says “no more woke” but then say “treat our citizens with respect”. Because as a visible minority citizen, those two statements seem at odds.

"Woke" is meaningless without the speaker/writer defining the term. To some, "woke" means "play along with someone else's mind games".

 

[dapaterson]

The GoC distinguishes between budgetary and statutory expenditures. DND is budgetary, OAS is statutory.

In 23-24 a one time settlement pushed Indigenous Services budget above that of DND in the Main Estimates. For 24-25, DND is again the department with the largest budget.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The GoC distinguishes between budgetary and statutory expenditures. DND is budgetary, OAS is statutory.

In 23-24 a one time settlement pushed Indigenous Services budget above that of DND in the Main Estimates. For 24-25, DND is again the department with the largest budget.

I know.

I am just sayin…

 

[Good2Golf]

PS is pseudo budgetary since the Government deliberately increased the PS by 40% for…checks KPIs…0% more PS productivity…

 

[Good2Golf]

The GoC distinguishes between budgetary and statutory expenditures. DND is budgetary, OAS is statutory.

In 23-24 a one time settlement pushed Indigenous Services budget above that of DND in the Main Estimates. For 24-25, DND is again the department with the largest budget.

And to be pedantic, less about 1.2B of non-budgetary expenditures, ALL federal government expenses are budgetary.

Within budgetary expenditures, some are statutory expenditures like OAS, and some like DND, and other Departments and agencies are voted.

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/planned-government-spending/government-expenditure-plan-main-estimates/2024-25-estimates.html#ToC2

The 2024–25 Main Estimates present a total of $449.2 billion in budgetary spending, which reflects $191.6 billion to be voted and $257.6 billion in forecast statutory expenditures. Non-budgetary expenditures of $1.2 billion are also presented.