Trudeau more unpopular than popular for the first time since election: survey

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, johngould21 said:

I heard $100M bandied about, now I'm not too sure if that's per year, or whatever deal is made with KM. That's what our cost is going to be. They can export sludge through our Province, yet we pay the freight. A tanker goes down, a pipeline decides to burst, I guess that's all on us in BC. But then, we'll pay for the disaster at the pump regardless.

 

 

what really cracks me up is all the talk about how much better lower taxes are and all that cowboy individualism... and then the $&!# hits the fan and they run with their hands out to the feds for a bailout. I guess other peoples taxes are OK to take eh, @Ryan Strome 

[johngould21]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

what really cracks me up is all the talk about how much better lower taxes are and all that cowboy individualism... and then the $&!# hits the fan and they run with their hands out to the feds for a bailout. I guess other peoples taxes are OK to take eh, @Ryan Strome 

Even though their economy is in the dumpster, they can't accept a sales tax. Go figure!

[Warhippy]

5 minutes ago, johngould21 said:

Even though their economy is in the dumpster, they can't accept a sales tax. Go figure!

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.

[Ryan Strome]

4 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

CC and the BC Libs, in power since 2001, are being blamed for results of their governing for 16 years.

 

Notley, in power since 2015, blamed for effects of oil crash in 2014, in a province governed by conservatives for 40 years prior. 

 

Totally the same, except not at all. 

I'm no BC liberal fan but clearly you're in the minority blaming CC and the BC liberals for BC's issues just like those people in Alberta blaming Notley are in the minority. Oil is a commodity and it dropped in price it's not her fault. That being said she didn't help by having a year long royalty review and raising taxes, there was next to nothing in investment most was going to Saskatchewan. But again she isn't to blame for oil prices crashing and the majority know that.

 

But keep shaking your head socialist guy. It looks good that you don't even realize BC became a have not province after 10 years of the ndp who also doubled BC's debt. You must have still been in eastern Europe at that time.

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I'm no BC liberal fan but clearly you're in the minority blaming CC and the BC liberals for BC's issues just like those people in Alberta blaming Notley are in the minority. Oil is a commodity and it dropped in price it's not her fault. That being said she didn't help by having a year long royalty review and raising taxes, there was next to nothing in investment most was going to Saskatchewan. But again she isn't to blame for oil prices crashing and the majority know that.

 

But keep shaking your head socialist guy. It looks good that you don't even realize BC became a have not province after 10 years of the ndp who also doubled BC's debt. You must have still been in eastern Europe at that time.

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 

[Ryan Strome]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

what does Alberta 'get back'? so you mean getting a unequal concentration of high paying jobs and being lucky enough to have imaginary borders drawn over oil fields is a burden to you? 

 

You love to claim that "Albertans do more". So lets take you for e.g., I'm assuming you wouldn't fake being from there. Lets say for the sake of example you pull in 70k per year. Please elaborate on how your federal taxes do more than anyone else making 70k anywhere else in Canada. I can't wait to hear how your money "does more". 

 

Now if you don't like how corporate revenues are shared in Canada, then start an independence movement. Or keep spouting bs that only Albertans believe. 

 

How about you present the facts, you know, numbers proving your point? 

So don't the feds take income tax revenue and redistribute it through transfer payments? Which province has the highest earners by a fair bit? That's Alberta so aren't we paying more in than others?

 

Lol imaginary borders eh? Well shouldn't you anti pipeline people forget about the imaginary border lines? Such a bad argument for you to use. You are an intelligent guy I expected something better then imaginary lines.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Ryan Strome

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

what really cracks me up is all the talk about how much better lower taxes are and all that cowboy individualism... and then the $&!# hits the fan and they run with their hands out to the feds for a bailout. I guess other peoples taxes are OK to take eh, @Ryan Strome 

What bailout did we get? 

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

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 

propaganda? BC ndp doubled the debt and made BC a have not province.

 

But whenever you like a person or party you blame the previous government and not the one that had a decade in power. You constantly do this except in the case of Saskatchewan where Brad Wall took a province with next to no hospitals, schools, or anything decent to drive on and made them rich, lowered taxes and built more hospitals then the ndp ever did. I wonder why you don't give him credit? I wonder, eh?

[Ryan Strome]

@Warhippy

You also said for nearly a year Harper left Trudeau a defecit and thats why his defecit was three times bigger than promised. Surprise you blamed conservatives(incorrectly) for a guy you supposedly don't support. Haha

[Ryan Strome]

4 hours ago, johngould21 said:

I can blame CC and the BC Liberals for just about all that's wrong in this Province. How about doing nothing while, and this is only an estimate, how $5B dollars managed to find it's way into BC real estate, luxury cars, and the casino's without doing nothing but patting themselves on the back with their economic numbers. Or, her 5 conditions for the pipeline, which amount to nothing more than lip service. As well as paying off the First Nation bands along the pipeline route. On top of all of this, Trudeau comes in prior to becoming Prime Minister, saying NO tankers will go down the Coast of BC, if he's elected. 

Yes, the raw logs export is nothing short of criminal, but how about allowing all of the sawmills, Oil companies, Natural Gas companies, being bought up by foreign investment? I care about the lumber industry, a hell of a lot more than most Albertans, as many of my family are still involved in it. Small town BC used to be alive with mills and logging contractors.

I can almost guarantee you I have more family in the logging industry and I can almost guarantee they have been logging in BC longer. You should stop generalizing and assuming.

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

propaganda? BC ndp doubled the debt and made BC a have not province.

 

But whenever you like a person or party you blame the previous government and not the one that had a decade in power. You constantly do this except in the case of Saskatchewan where Brad Wall took a province with next to no hospitals, schools, or anything decent to drive on and made them rich, lowered taxes and built more hospitals then the ndp ever did. I wonder why you don't give him credit? I wonder, eh?

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.

[Warhippy]

26 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

@Warhippy

You also said for nearly a year Harper left Trudeau a defecit and thats why his defecit was three times bigger than promised. Surprise you blamed conservatives(incorrectly) for a guy you supposedly don't support. Haha

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.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Warhippy

[Ryan Strome]

5 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

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.

You don't look at facts at all you make up your own facts. Yes Harris left a mess but what mess did he inherit? The worst mess in Ontario's history and I'm not surprised you didn't mention it as it was the ndp under Bob Rae. 

 

I never blamed Notley for low oil prices thats more of your nonsense I'm blamed Notley for the lack of new investment due to her decisions. That is a fact.

 

So a few years but for the ndp you love so much a decade isn't long enogh lol.

 

Did the ndp double BCs debt?

Did the ndp turn BC into a have not province?

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

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.

Ya Harper and his defecits eh? Again you make excuses for the ndp and liberals but blame the cpc for defecits during the worst recession in a hundred years.

 

Btw another fact-Trudeau promised 10 billion dollar defecits not 30 billion. He didn't inherit a 20 billion dollar shortfall.

 

He also said they would return to surplus lmao good luck Jt.

[Ryan Strome]

@Warhippy

Btw your numbers are wrong. Another fact for you the ndp doubled BCs debt.

 

When the NDP assumed power in 1991, the B.C. provincial debt was $17-billion. When it got kicked out in 2001, it was nearly $34-billion. The NDP doubled it.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Ryan Strome

[JM_]

48 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

So don't the feds take income tax revenue and redistribute it through transfer payments? Which province has the highest earners by a fair bit? That's Alberta so aren't we paying more in than others?

 

Lol imaginary borders eh? Well shouldn't you anti pipeline people forget about the imaginary border lines? Such a bad argument for you to use. You are an intelligent guy I expected something better then imaginary lines.

you're dodging the question. Tell us all, specifically, what you as an individual Albertan do that other Canadians in the same tax bracket do not. 

 

Oh, and it would be nice of you to write an open letter to people in Quebec that pay more tax than you, to thank them for all they've done to ensure AB can have its health transfer payments. 

[Ryan Strome]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you're dodging the question. Tell us all, specifically, what you as an individual Albertan do that other Canadians in the same tax bracket do not. 

 

Oh, and it would be nice of you to write an open letter to people in Quebec that pay more tax than you, to thank them for all they've done to ensure AB can have its health transfer payments. 

Quebec will be alright with all the billions they receive. Again if Alberta has the highest earners do they contribute more? You claimed Albertans don't contribute more.

 

Btw you can't say Canadians I don't get any transfer money, nor do you or your family in Saskatchewan.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Ryan Strome

[Warhippy]

40 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

1.  You don't look at facts at all you make up your own facts. Yes Harris left a mess but what mess did he inherit? The worst mess in Ontario's history and I'm not surprised you didn't mention it as it was the ndp under Bob Rae. 

 

2.  I never blamed Notley for low oil prices thats more of your nonsense I'm blamed Notley for the lack of new investment due to her decisions. That is a fact.

 

So a few years but for the ndp you love so much a decade isn't long enogh lol.

 

3. Did the ndp double BCs debt?

Did the ndp turn BC into a have not province?

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

Edited November 29, 2018 by Warhippy

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

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 $20.7 billion.  So no, again my facts are literally in your quoted response.

1) Absolutely, I have said that many times.

 

2) proof please

 

Again facts eh? Bob Rae and the ndp put Ontario in record debt and defecit and you're blaming Harris. Lol how convenient.

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

1) Absolutely, I have said that many times.

 

2) proof please

 

Again facts eh? Bob Rae and the ndp put Ontario in record debt and defecit and you're blaming Harris. Lol how convenient.

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