Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Warhippy

Members
  • Posts

    41,307
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    83

Everything posted by Warhippy

  1. Looking back, the context needed is how BAD many of those teams were that they gave almost pure rookies top 4 minutes, or how stacked they were that they could play and shelter those kids in top 4 roles. Juolevi is FAR from a write off as EVERY hockey body that has worked with him says. But what do we know, only the Euro coaches, Finnish WJC coaches, AHL coaches, London Knights etc all say he's got it. But you're right. D+3 instant gratfication I want my shiny toy or else he's a bust mentality has sunk it's teeth in to Vancouver again. Like it or not, many top 10 picks miss. Go through your parameters and list ALL of the top 10 players chosen since 2012 that have been utter misses or potential misses. Juolevi, while injured and concerning due to it will be fine.
  2. That shows growth. After numerous drops in stock prices and the market as a whole it shows growth. That is inarguable. The line now is higher than it was in 2008. The subsequent rises and falls show retraction followed by growth So, flat? Not hardly. A poor market to invest in? Sure. But, and this i a very very important thing to remember. The market is not indicative of the growth of this nation but a snapshot of the day for companies listed on it. ALL of the essential canadian services have grown since 2008. Nobody invests in the TSX for the same reason people don't invest in coal anymore. Markes that don't tend to make appreciable gains, like the TSX are never sound investments. The TSX has always fluttered between 15 and 23 on the indexes with occasional month to month blips but nothing worth speaking of. You're really arguing in to a corner on this one.
  3. Really? Here's the TSX over 10 years. While being ranked only 22nd out of 23 ranked stock indexes it is far from flat and has shown far from nil growth. I would also like to point out the clear losses and the years in which they happened vs clear and consistent growth over volatility and who was in charge during those years. So, ok. Prove it to me. https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/stock-market https://www.forecast-chart.com/historical-tsx-composite.html As for the billions of dollars we let other countries receive for oil, remember that the US receives an overwhelming amount of the money we spend on foreign oil. Like not even close, attributed to NAFTA and our reliance on American refining. So, again...prove it
  4. If I invested in the DOW. Yup, sure. Because the TSX has done...nothing in 10 years? According to you? if I parked my money in vancouver real estate 10 years ago I'd have seen a 37% increase which as of now is 19% better than the DOW over the same time line. But you claimed that we've sent billions to foreign lands as though somehow that's a Trudeau alone issue. Except, it's not. In fact our foreign aid send outs have only increased 12% and of that 12% less than 8 full % is actual monetary distribution with the rest being supplies. Your statement was in response to Kenney Scheer and Harper and BCs Wilkinsons plans or premise to cut business taxes over 100 employees and corporate taxes in general as job creation. You sluffed that off. economically speaking Harper DID do that, as did BC. the jobs never ever materialized. The ones that did were low paying, not full time and predominantly came with little benefits. The tax breaks given saw those companies hoard cash or purchase back shares in stock. So when you say "we are idiots that get what we deserve" and I say you have no idea what you're talking about I kinda mean it. Because you don't know what you're talking about and have no leg to stand on if calling out others for their intelligence while making statements like that
  5. We're looking at a few places. everything about the area works, cost, location and families. PLus new schools etc. Again, people are literally only hampered by their unwillingness to change things. We don't want to struggle anymore. $104,000 household income last year with a total family debt load of $8200 total and we're renting in penticton. We've a large downpayment but why blow it on a 25-30 year old house that needs immediate work and upgrades to plumbing and electrical. Wife will hate Alberta winters, but will enjoy cheap flights to mexico and hawaii
  6. Joe rich is unique in that it's a lot of farmland that is not in the ALR. The developers I know are licking their chops at the "next Squamish" which is what they're labelling the Joe Rich area because it's on the way to big white, has a tone of available land that is still dirt cheap/ Airdrie is where we're moving next summer and it's very comparable to calgary, but the houses we've put offers on are not only newer, larger but also more affordable than anything here in penticton. Literally no reason for that, like at all. 15 minutes from downtown depending on traffic and it's more affordable than frigging Penticton? Essentially, 30 minutes to an hour drive away from where people WANT to be there are options, but peoples unwillingness to commute, to move, to simply save or spend responsibly means housing is unaffordable in their chosen area. In places like Van and Toronto it is unaffordable period. But people have options if they want. They just dont want to. Took me 12 years to convince my wife to move out of Penticton. Now she's excited to get out of here
  7. Tioronto is unaffordable. Brampton isnt Calgary is unaffordable. Airdrie isn't. Winnipeg is unaffordable. Brandon isnt Kelowna is unaffordable. Joe Rich isn't The entire east coast is ridiculously affordable and if you want to start a business, are in trades or can work digitally there's literally no onus on living in the west. I see people complain about housing. But also drink $6 coffees every day, shop for new wardrobes twice a year and still manage to go to Mexico once or twice while renting and making less than $20 an hour Housing is over priced. NOBODY will argue that, but our parents for those of us over 30 lived in 1200 sq ft or less and raised multiple kids, they moved where the work was. Saved, if they needed something layaway. Credit card? What are those? It is, and was always about what you are willing to give up to succeed.
  8. Isn't it for the majority though? The vast bulk of them have bigger issues with country of origin than they do the reason why As for people struggling to find housing. Checking outside of major cities, I find housing to be relatively inexpensive. Housing is only expensive if you refuse to look at options. Nobody NEEDS to live in Toronot, Ottawa, vancouver, Montreal. But they refuse to move to smaller areas. Housing is only an issue if you A: Refuse to save B: Refuse to move C: Refuse to change your spending habits. Any 2 of those changes will see your housing costs lower by comparison.
  9. Because, Trudeau has literally done nothing different than what the previous government did and simply pushed through what legislation they had proposed. The irony is that people say it was good then, but bad now. He is, he was and he will never be any different than the Conservatives but people like to pretend he is.
  10. You're aware that the numbers of increased immigration is less than 50,000 per year by 2020 right? I know...a flood and horde of immigrants. I know that people think omg mexicans, arabs etc are coming. But the numbers are actually predominantly from China, the Philippinnes, India and Europe. There are major hurdles to cross. But whatever. Keep repeating the other stuff
  11. Incorrect, the NDP did not take power until Nov 1991, thus starting their fiscal year in Jan 1992 where the debt had already ballooned to $20.04 billion dollars. Again, context/facts/numbers But then the only part of that entire article you key in to was the potential doubling of the debt but not the fact that even with all the job losses, housing issues, NAFTA and sustainable forestry pratices act as well as the nation wide recession that the NDP managed to grow the actual economy, during an actual recession and the worst near decade of job losses in provincial history
  12. So again context, facts You murdered that guy! No...he was attacking my wife and children with a knife. Ya but you shot him he's dead you murdered him, why doesn't matter you murdered him. That's literally what you're doing. But hey, again for CONTEXT. Almost NO province in canada with a GDP that depended on forestry and manufacturing did well in the early through mid 90s. The government of Ontario's debt has risen under all governments since 1989. But let me use an oft repeated Conservative talking point. Buh Buh Buh Harper raised his debt under a recession and Trudeau isn't. But Rae/Harcourt/Clark all don't get the same consideration because NDP and the 90s had NAFTA and the forestry act and it is somehow someway totally different because context doesn't matter. As for Harris I will point out something very VERY simple via bolding it. I will hope you can explain why the recession in the early through mid 90s, the advent of NAFTA and the sustainable forestry act enacted by major lumber producing nations that saw 100's of thousands of jobs in canada lost through the forestry and manufacturing sectors is somehow completely not an important consideration or point of fact but I know, full well much like your inability or unwillingness to answer Jimmys very simple question, that you can't, you won't and you'll repeat yourself instead During the 1990s recession, the Ontario New Democratic Party (NDP) government of Premier Bob Rae increased the total debt from $35.4 billion in 1989-1990 to $90.7 billion in 1994-1995. The Progressive Conservative government of Premier Mike Harris increased the debt from $90.7 billion in 1994-1995 to $132.6 billion in 2002-2003, even while cutting services and downloading formerly provincially-run services onto the municipalities.[8] In the 1999-2000 budget, the Mike Harris government paid $3.1 billion towards the total deficit by selling the rights to the government-owned Highway 407/ETR in the form of 99-year lease to a private consortium.
  13. As I was editing my comment I will repost it. 1. Sorry I think I posted my facts pretty credibly. You can state otherwise but it's pretty frigging plain to see. They're literally right there in your quoted response 2. In fact you did, the thread still exists. You blamed Notley for chasing away investment in Alberta, you accused her of being part of the reason oil in Alberta was not getting to market and thus part of the reason Alberta was getting such low prices per barrel 3. Yes they were in fact in power when BC was labeled a have not province. Why again? My initial question which you absolutely didn't even try to answer. Like at all. I answered that, feel free to use my work if you want.. As for the debt by the numbers no they did not "double the debt" they increased it by under $14 billion while it was already sitting at $20.4 billion by the time they took office at the end of 1991 in November, essentially starting their fiscal year as of Jan 1st 1991. So no, again my facts are literally in your quoted response. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/bc-finance-historical-provincial-debt-summary-1969-1970-to-2011-12-table-a2-15/resource/aa954845-c0c3-4d1d-a48b-ed257206e122
  14. 1. Sorry I think I posted my facts pretty credibly. You can state otherwise but it's pretty frigging plain to see. They're literally right there in your quoted response 2. In fact you did, the thread still exists. You blamed Notley for chasing away investment in Alberta, you accused her of being part of the reason oil in Alberta was not getting to market and thus part of the reason Alberta was getting such low prices per barrel 3. Yes they were in fact in power when BC was labeled a have not province. Why again? My initial question which you absolutely didn't even try to answer. Like at all. I answered that, feel free to use my work if you want.. As for the debt by the numbers no they did not "double the debt" they increased it by under $14 billion while it was already sitting at $20.4 billion by the time they took office at the end of 1991 in November, essentially starting their fiscal year as of Jan 1st 1991. So no, again my facts are literally in your quoted response. https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/bc-finance-historical-provincial-debt-summary-1969-1970-to-2011-12-table-a2-15/resource/aa954845-c0c3-4d1d-a48b-ed257206e122
  15. In fact I did say that, and the numbers support it. Had the Harper government not sold the GM shares at a net loss to balance the budget as well as the ensuing sale of the Wheat Board the numbers (again very easily looked in to to verify what I am saying) would clearly indicate the 7th or was it 8th (?) consecutive deficit budget for the "fiscally responsible Harper Government" The spending of the Libs during the proverbial "march madness" spending period absolutely helped exacerbate the problem, but to claim that there was a massive surplus that was not built on the backs of sell offs of the Gm shares and the final sale of the wheat board prove that it is entirely false. You don't get to sell your assets and claim to be fiscally responsible True-Dough campaigned on deficit spending. He didn't lie about it at all. The economy is still doing well within reason, growth is not stagnant. Inflation is increasing at appropriate levels. He's an idiot, but he's not doing a fraction of the damage the idiocy claims he is You can state that I am blaming the conservatives. But I am not. I am simply saying what the numbers do. If I look at the sky and see it's blue I will tell you it is blue, I won't tell you it is cloudy https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact-check-did-the-federal-liberals-inherit-a-7-5-billion-surplus-1.2890583 Looking ahead, said Page, the Liberals "effectively inherited a fiscal track that had some small deficits built into it because the economy was weak. And their spending and tax measures are going to add to that deficit." THE VERDICT Parsing who's responsible for what portion of a surplus or deficit that will be worth less than half a percentage point of GDP either way is "a tricky one," in Perrault's assessment. It's a little like handing over the keys to a car in mid trip with half a tank of gas. If it arrives empty, or comes up short, who's at fault? "If I were to use that analogy what I would say is, whether they go directly to the final destination or they take a different route or make a couple of stops along the way or go somewhere else, is completely under their control," Conservative critic Raitt says of the Liberals. Driving the federal books $5.4 billion into the red this late in the year will be the Liberal government's responsibility, but that's not the same as saying they inherited a $7.5 billion surplus. For those reasons, the Conservative assertion contains some baloney.
  16. Why? Well let's see. Is Ford then the cause of Ontarios issues? Or did the LIberals under McGuinty inheirit a massive issue from Harris? I Look at facts. I don't look at arbitrary cut off dates. It took you quite a while to even admit or make the statement that Notley wasn't the cause of Albertas oil issues because you in fact do. It takes on average 12-16 months for a new governments policies to take effect and even then usually another 2-3 years full years for those policies to start affecting the economy. It's why i am against endless turnover of governments. 4 years is too soon, 8 is almost right and 12 is usually too much Wahl did a number of things right. One of the most important things he did was hide his books and create numerous accounting files to show a province in black. The moment he ran out of crown corps and assets to sell though the province has done what? His last two years saw the GDP shrink and the budget deficits start. He ran out of things to sell. He did quite well initially but when the goods ran out, so did he. The numbers since 2014 show the picture very starkly. Check Saskatchewans budgets from 2012 through this year. The hill descends sharply Now, in BC under the Socreds the BC NDP took over a province losing money everywhere and in their first 4 years brought a lot of those problems under control. The forest sustainability act and NAFTA destroyed BCs forestry industry. The leaky condo crisis broke the construction boom that started post Expo 86. The NDP took over at the absolute worst possible time and did quite well This is not pointing or assigning blame. This is simple math, simple facts and easily looked in to history Prior to the last provincial election in 2013, the Business Council of British Columbia released a study called "A Decade by Decade Review of British Columbia's Economic Performance." It compared the economic indicators of the three decades governed respectively by the Social Credit Party, the NDP and the B.C. Liberals. The result is that by certain measures the NDP of the '90s actually had the best economic performance. Here are the conclusions of the study: GDP growth: The Social Credit decade had an average growth rate of 2.12 per cent, the the Liberals 2.36 per cent and the NDP 2.72 per cent. The NDP decade is the best of the three. Job creation: Under the Liberals jobs grew by 1.58 per cent, under the Social Credit Party 1.91 per cent and under the NDP by 2.17 per cent. The NDP decade also had better performance. Unemployment: Social Credit had an average rate of 11.48 per cent, NDP 8.87 per cent and the Liberals 6.63 per cent. The Liberals scored. Business investment (non-private residential investment): As regards non-private residential investment, the Social Credit growth was 0.81 per cent, NDP got three per cent and the Liberals had 5.53 per cent. Export: B.C.'s exports remained generally unchanged over the past three decades, fluctuating between 42 and 43 per cent of the GDP. However, the study notes that the NDP's decade in power had the strongest export performance, whereas the Liberals' had the weakest. When the Social Credit left office in 1991, the provincial debt was $20 billion. When the NDP stepped down in 2001, they left $1.2 billion surplus and a debt load of $33.8 billion. Thus, the NDP had increased the provincial debt by $13.8 billion, whereas the B.C. Liberals have added $139.9 billion of debt under its governance up to now -- that is, 10 times more than that of the NDP. This is a fact to bear in mind in this election.
  17. And why did BC become a have not province that lost over 100k jobs in 8 short years? What point in time did the BC NDP of the 90s start turning around the mess left by the socreds? The full story sir if you please. We've had this conversation before and a lot of the history regarding the "lost decade" was nothing more than propaganda
  18. Alberta's economy is actually still leading the nation. For the first time in modern memory without oil. Notley has successfully steered Alberta out of a recession caused by low oil prices without an oil rebound by diversifying the economy in very specific places. This is something that has not happened since Oil was first produced in industrial levels. She will get literally 0 credit for this. She will get 0 credit for doing everything humanly possible to get her provinces product to market. She will be replaced by Jason Kenney who has promised to cut royalties, cut corporate taxes and make businesses invest in Alberta again...without any actual plan behind it.
  19. I am very much a left of center social person. Why? because it isn't up to me, you or anyone else to tell people how to live, what to do with their lives, who to love or what to do with their bodies. As long as your choices don't affect my family or pocketbook it's no big deal. THAT is what was lost in the reform/conservative merger. REAL Conservatives did not interfere. If a person wanted to identify as a lamp, lol go ahead idiot show me where the lightbulb goes. If a business said I need money or I am leaving, well. Bye Now...well the absolute opposite. Every aspect of personal life, religion, business is now a talking point and that aint right. You cannot govern a country if you are worried about what little timmy in Timmins is deciding to wear on Monday Scheer showed while being speaker of the house he is not impartial. He claims to be a common man but has worked in politics his entire life. His net earnings since he first sat as a Harper MP is over $6 MILLION. His hyper religious statements, views and actions before taking the leadership of the party are repugnant. If he now says I didn't mean them then that's even worse as he's a flopper. at least if he still owned up to it he'd appear to have some integrity or a backbone. Scheer is essentially a less aggressive form of Jason kenney without the pretending to be a cowboy. No platform, no plan just reactionary statements
  20. I loathe the reform/alliance myself. They;re the reason that the conservative brand allowed for more social conservative/religious politicking over fiscal conservative, let business live or die without help mandates In 1993, Kim Campbell who took over for Mulroney lead the Conservative party to a defeat which saw the 156 seat strong Conservative party reduced to...two It also saw the then NDP go from its 3rd strongest electoral win at the time to it's worst loss of seats at the time. When the NDP polls strong, it hurts the Liberals and helps the Conservatives. When they poll weakly like now it always historically hurts the Conservatives and helps the Liberals. The NDP now is where the Liberals of the 80s were. The Liberals now are where the Conservatives of the 80s were. The Conservatives...well they stepped back to the 50s and haven't come back yet since MacKay sold the party to the hyper religious let's separate reformers
  21. Majority for 4 years yup. Their first 3 years in power were due to Dionn/Ignatieff being so horrible at their jobs, literally the most unelectable leaders of a party until Singh came along, their last 4 years were on the backs of the memory of Layton with the NDP pulling almost all support from the Libs in very important ridings in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes There's a well known psuedo science around political circles. When the NDP poll well, the Conservatives tend to govern. I believe it is 3 or 4 of their last 5 majorities or leads in the country have been because the NDP pulled support from the Libs. Dionn and Ignatieff were about as poor a leadership choice as Scheer has been thus far. I mean if we'd like, we can go back to what happened to the Conservative brand post Mulroney
  22. Well, a few treehuggers in Burnaby speak for all of BC depending on who you ask in Alberta so
  23. I should say, I really think trudeau is a dismal frigging leader. Honestly. I get his appeal and all that but he's been meh at best in terms of policy advancement. But the other two, Scheer and Jaghmeet? Come on. One is a religious zealot that REFUSES to accept any kind of ownership from problems stemming from the previous government. The other a family made millionaire trying to represent what is supposed to be a party of the common man on the left/far left who was elected over a year ago but STILL holds no seat in parliament because he wants to cherry pick his riding. Like it or not, he's an idiot, but he's not doing the worst job at the moment. Certainly better than a guy who said give the US everything they want
  24. At least he's trying. Instead of the group that caters to only 1 very select denomination of the country. Sure he's a doofus, but he's better than the other alternative hands down
×
×
  • Create New...