Politics in 2017
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 2,535
- Points
- 1,260
:nod:Chris Pook said:
Which I guess we'll see if the new Global Affairs Minister tries going to Russia - although they know where she stands on the whole Ukraine thing.dapaterson said:
I'm kinda intrigued by Dion's "well, I'll have to think about it" according to the CBC. I guess he doesn't quite get the concept of "here's your hat - what's your hurry?".
- Reaction score
- 2,535
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
milnews.ca said:
Damn! They are good. They targeted her way before she was elected and would become the Minister of Global Affairs.
- Reaction score
- 268
- Points
- 780
I'm not quite sure what the issue is with the PM's selection to head GAC. Who else has the experience she has, the linguistic capabilities, the global connections, and name recognition? I actually think having spent so much time outside Canada should be lauded as an asset and not a detraction, as her job is to be the Face of Canada abroad.
captloadie said:
It's twofold. Don't let anyone say otherwise. This was also a calculated move to send Russia a message. She is in fact one his most capable ministers. McCallum going to China was also calculated and will likely impress Beijing.
My only beef with the entire shuffle is Monseif but I did hear at least one credible explanation that I'm willing to accept for now as to why she stayed.
- Reaction score
- 2,535
- Points
- 1,260
One issue is how well she (as well as her boss) can navigate the Russian position given 1) her history w/Russia and 2) PEOTUS's suggestions to date that he can make a "deal" with Russia.captloadie said:
Agreed. That said, I don't know about her competence one way or another, but I know she's been pretty anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine, and my only question is how her boss will manage all of that in dealing with Russia and the U.S. down the road.Remius said:
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Jarnhamar said:I was going to post this in the meme thread but it seems more relevant than tounge in cheek.
It would seem that with Trudeaunomics, the PM will make all Canadians equal for generations to come. Equally impoverished. Thanks for nothing, all you Harper haters that brought this crowd into power.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
God, it wouldn't surprise me.
- Reaction score
- 268
- Points
- 780
But unless we reverse current policy, we have already made our choice. We are currently pro-Ukraine/anti-Russia, put in simplified terms. That's why we have trainers in the Ukraine and will be a leading nation in Latvia.milnews.ca said:
- Reaction score
- 2,389
- Points
- 940
Do tell.Remius said:
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Journeyman said:
"Quota"
Trudeau wants to fill quotas.....Not select on merit......Although he really doesn't have much to work with.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 9,632
- Points
- 1,260
Journeyman said:
I'm guessing to keep the gender and minorities rep.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,454
- Points
- 1,010
Don't act daft, Remius. You know very well that is not what this graph shows.
What we have to look at is that, in 2014, the Harper government had a plan for dealing with public finances that would have seen surpluses small at first, then increasing, that would have wiped the national debt by 2038, based on current projections.
Then, the Trudeau government came along and introduced a new, high spending plan. That plan, when projected in the future would not reduce, but rather double the national debt in the projection horizon of 30-33 years.
The important figures to keep in mind in our shorter term horizon of one to three election cycles is that, by the end of their current mandate, the Liberals will have added 146 more billion dollars to the national debt than the Conservatives would have under their plan.
Second thing to realize is that, if a new government wanted to go back to the Conservative plan's level after next election, they would have to be able to generate an average of $55 billion $ surplus in each year to do it in a 5 year horizon or a 45 billion$ in each year to do it over a 10 years horizon.*
Another way to look at what the Liberal plan is doing is the following: Imagine that after the next election, the new government wants to make debt reduction an issue again. First, they would have to eliminate the operation deficit in the budget (i.e. "balance" the budget). Then debt reduction can slowly start. To imagine, mentally move the Conservative plan line down to the Liberal debt level for say 2023 (balanced budget 1) and, because we are staring from a greater debt and the greater, the harder to get out of it, flatten the Conservative curve somehow: then look how far to the right the "zero" debt intersection occurs in terms of years. It's probably somewhere around eight to ten years later.
There will be pain and suffering all over again and bigger than what it has been under Harper (because most of the pain had already been inflicted by the Harper government to get to this debt free status).
* The calculation is actually a matter of differential equations resolution as we are dealing with two curves and the difference in the surface between the two curves. However, an easy and quite valid evaluation is to do the following, which is what I did: (1) take a given period; (2) calculate the difference between the number generated by each plan at the beginning and then at the end of the period; (3) average the two numbers; and (4) divide the resulting average by the number of years in the period. This gives you the "average" surplus that must be generated to reduce the debt to get from one plan to the other (smaller debt) one.
In my case, I took the following "differential" figures: in 2021, 150 billion more $; in 2026, 400 billion more $; and in 2031, 750 billion $ more.
So: 5 years horizon: $(150b + 400b)/2 = $275b, over 5 years (divide by 5): $55b.
10 years horizon: $(150b + 750b)/2 = $450b, over 10 years (divide by 10): $45b
What we have to look at is that, in 2014, the Harper government had a plan for dealing with public finances that would have seen surpluses small at first, then increasing, that would have wiped the national debt by 2038, based on current projections.
Then, the Trudeau government came along and introduced a new, high spending plan. That plan, when projected in the future would not reduce, but rather double the national debt in the projection horizon of 30-33 years.
The important figures to keep in mind in our shorter term horizon of one to three election cycles is that, by the end of their current mandate, the Liberals will have added 146 more billion dollars to the national debt than the Conservatives would have under their plan.
Second thing to realize is that, if a new government wanted to go back to the Conservative plan's level after next election, they would have to be able to generate an average of $55 billion $ surplus in each year to do it in a 5 year horizon or a 45 billion$ in each year to do it over a 10 years horizon.*
Another way to look at what the Liberal plan is doing is the following: Imagine that after the next election, the new government wants to make debt reduction an issue again. First, they would have to eliminate the operation deficit in the budget (i.e. "balance" the budget). Then debt reduction can slowly start. To imagine, mentally move the Conservative plan line down to the Liberal debt level for say 2023 (balanced budget 1) and, because we are staring from a greater debt and the greater, the harder to get out of it, flatten the Conservative curve somehow: then look how far to the right the "zero" debt intersection occurs in terms of years. It's probably somewhere around eight to ten years later.
There will be pain and suffering all over again and bigger than what it has been under Harper (because most of the pain had already been inflicted by the Harper government to get to this debt free status).
* The calculation is actually a matter of differential equations resolution as we are dealing with two curves and the difference in the surface between the two curves. However, an easy and quite valid evaluation is to do the following, which is what I did: (1) take a given period; (2) calculate the difference between the number generated by each plan at the beginning and then at the end of the period; (3) average the two numbers; and (4) divide the resulting average by the number of years in the period. This gives you the "average" surplus that must be generated to reduce the debt to get from one plan to the other (smaller debt) one.
In my case, I took the following "differential" figures: in 2021, 150 billion more $; in 2026, 400 billion more $; and in 2031, 750 billion $ more.
So: 5 years horizon: $(150b + 400b)/2 = $275b, over 5 years (divide by 5): $55b.
10 years horizon: $(150b + 750b)/2 = $450b, over 10 years (divide by 10): $45b
Journeyman said:
Well aside from the gender parity issue, some pundits have guessed that this was a bit of a take the blame moment for Trudeau or at least as close as it will come to that. Basically he made a campaign promise on electoral reform with no real plan and essentially told her to make it happen with no real road map on how to achieve it. So sort of a his mistake/her fault sort of thing or whatever.
So moving her to something else so as to not punish her. he basically let her flail in the wind with no real direction.
Does not mean she isn't to blame for what happened just that it's a convenient way to let her off the hook for something he is ultimately responsible for.
I didn't see it that way at first but it sort of makes sense.
- Reaction score
- 2,535
- Points
- 1,260
Agreed -- she'll get to manage any friction from the U.S. & Russia, then, if this isn't the deal PEOTUS decides to go with. How will she do with such friction? How will her boss do? Have to wait & see ...captloadie said:
- Status
Similar threads
