jimmer Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 This is one depressing thread, sorry guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLINKER Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 The Toronto star mentioned the other day that as a result of previous governments we deffer 100 billion in taxes. Now Mr. O'leary who I don't believe is going to run anyway, wants to run gov. like a business. What business gives away 100 billion in income? So O'Leary = 100 billion increase in taxes, see what the tar sands thinks of that. I think Trudeau used the word eventually. Economics slows down the tar sands every few years when the price of oil drops to where they can't compete, anyone who has lived in Fort McMurry long has experienced this. Eventually the economics of the tar sands will shut them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headhunter Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Had I had an opportunity to ask the PM a question, I would have asked him who now is responsible for paying for the 35k immigrants that have been in Canada for a year, which takes the federal component of their support away. They will fall into the welfare system that is provincially funded and downloaded to municipalities. Is his government prepared to fund Ontario's growing welfare obligations? Also, as an aside... it doesn't seem like the budget is taking care of it's self! HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 I'm sure he would answer, correctly, that study after study has proven immigration provides a net benefit to Canada. Study after study has also shown that without immigration our population would decline at a rate that would not sustain economic growth. This isn't rocket science, people. But it is science. Everybody has their own gut feel about things, but if your gut feel tells you we need to cut back on immigration, then your gut feel runs contrary to the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirCranksalot Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 They will fall into the welfare system that is provincially funded and downloaded to municipalities. That would go against all past trends. Immigrants have historically been a boost to our economy, not a drain on it. Look it up---Google it. This is well documented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headhunter Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 That would go against all past trends. Immigrants have historically been a boost to our economy, not a drain on it. Look it up---Google it. This is well documented. My statement was not anti-immigration, not sure where you got that. My question was who is going to take on the burden of paying for these folks. When they arrived, the feds said they would fund them for a year. That year has passed and to the best of my knowledge, only 10% have found jobs. There are various valid reasons for the lack of jobs, but that in no way takes away from the fact that the feds have basically down loaded the cost of carrying these people to the provinces and municipalities. As you so aptly put it, look it up! Last time I checked, Ontario is already struggling to meet it's current obligations. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) When you say who is paying the cost, you are missing the point. On the whole, immigration returns more to Canada than it costs us. On the flipside, stopping immigration because of an erroneous perception that it costs us money, would actually have the reverse of the intended effect. Canadians are not having enough children to sustain our tax base. Without immigrants' contribution to Canada, the government would have to cut social programs further, or run higher deficits. Edited January 17, 2017 by Dutch01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Last time I checked, Ontario is already struggling to meet it's current obligations. HH Ontario is struggling because of horrendous mismanagement by the Wynne crime gang, not because of immigrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Actually, the truth is that Trudeau's immigration numbers are the same as the previous government, possibly slightly less. Harper was bringing about 25-30,000 refugees per year with 200,000 immigrants Basically the same as all of the Lieberal policies adhering to Conservative initiatives including health care transfers to provinces. The only difference is that Trudeau had to do it with a bunch of fan fare and celebration to make himself look like a hero. The problem is he did it all at once and clogged the system instead of gradually throughout the year so they could be properly taken care of. Hey, if you can't show off, whats the point of being Prime Minister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch01 Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Actually, the truth is that Trudeau's immigration numbers are the same as the previous government, possibly slightly less. Harper was bringing about 25-30,000 refugees per year with 200,000 immigrants Basically the same as all of the Lieberal policies adhering to Conservative initiatives including health care transfers to provinces. The only difference is that Trudeau had to do it with a bunch of fan fare and celebration to make himself look like a hero. The problem is he did it all at once and clogged the system instead of gradually throughout the year so they could be properly taken care of. Hey, if you can't show off, whats the point of being Prime Minister It probably could have been implemented more smoothly, but you're right that the "new" policy is pretty much the same as the "old" policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SylvanOwner Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Seems to me we've passed the point of people venting towards a political thread and are now reading some very intelligent and productive discourse. My $0.02 worth is to note that Harper also had a plan to phase out the tar sands. His timeframe was much longer than the current gov't, by 2100 was the previous plan. Had a quick look but couldn't find a date for the current gov't but I did hear on the news the other night that it was shorter/sooner. Conservatives had 2030 for phase out of coal and current Liberals have chosen to stick with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headhunter Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 So Ontario is broke due to miss-management. I think we can all agree on that! How does dumping tens of thousands of people onto the province and municipalities welfare roll, equate to making Canada a thriving country? You do realize that the government of Canada uses population numbers as "collateral" with the IMF to secure credit ratings? Each one of us is collateral against loans. Had the fed liberals taken some time to organize and prepare for the influx of new people, ie setting up ESL classes upon arrival vs screwing around for months on end, we might not be looking at the numbers we are seeing on welfare rolls. Anyone want to consider why the feds moved the cabinet around? Could it be because the immigration portfolio was so poorly administered? HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scuro2 Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 I agree there is a problem, what I want to know is: How is taxing Canadians to the point where they have to decide between eating and freezing is going to solve the problem? Do you understand that as a senior in Ontario I get $578.53 a month in pension, I have lived worked and paid taxes here since I was 15 years old and I am now 71. $578.53 doesn't even cover my heating but our wonderful leaders can give billions of $ to other countries because they are poor? I'm not asking you to do anything. It would be foolish to ask our seniors to be the solution to this problem. Seniors are better informed and more active then any other segment of our population and will lead us by example. As I said before, global warming is a real and obvious problem, with an obvious horribly bad outcome, and it has an obvious solution. Simply the world has to decrease our C02 output in aggregate. If we don't do that then the world as we know it will no longer function properly and money will lose most of it's real value. We have one problem but there are many ways to solve this problem. A lot of members think that solving this problem requires them to completely change their lives. It doesn't. People can make changes to their lives but what is needed is societal changes which requires government. I'd put Trudeau and Wynne more in the category of understanding the problem but not executing the best solution. Would we solve this problem simply by first eliminating the world's burning of coal, which is the most dirty of fossil fuels? It would be a great first and may be final step. By no means is the only solution or necessarily the best solution, but take our best minds and have them determine a solution. Then have politicians ONLY implement their plan. When the will of the people is unified politicians will do whatever the people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bacon Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 (edited) I'm sure he would answer, correctly, that study after study has proven immigration provides a net benefit to Canada. Study after study has also shown that without immigration our population would decline at a rate that would not sustain economic growth. This isn't rocket science, people. But it is science. Everybody has their own gut feel about things, but if your gut feel tells you we need to cut back on immigration, then your gut feel runs contrary to the facts. That would go against all past trends. Immigrants have historically been a boost to our economy, not a drain on it. Look it up---Google it. This is well documented. I am pretty sure that HeadHunter meant refugees. I assume that the net benefit of a refugee is less than the net benefit of an immigrant; although it may still be positive. Having said that, the point of bringing refugees into Canada is entirely different from the point of immigration. As a matter of principle, I still think that the federal government (not provincial or municipal) should be responsible for providing any necessary support that is required by people that they chose to settle in Canada. Edited January 17, 2017 by JohnBacon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headhunter Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Yes I did John, apologies to all. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.mech Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 An interesting article on the phase out of coal in Ontario and what it has accomplished: http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2017/01/17/shutdown-of-coal-plants-raised-electricity-rates-failed-to-reduce-pollution-report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 The government spins it how they want, same as the global warming effects of greenhouse gasses. Nobody really knows and the scientists are all paid by government to report what they want. The government needed another revenue tool and carbon tax is it. Not a dime will be spent on research for alternative fuels. The 2100 timeline that Harper predicted is way more realistic than Trudeaus Thanks for the link Gmech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 He is down in New Brunswick consoling the herring chokers today...can't wait for tonights news clips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Ironmaker Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Many points made as to what's wrong. Any solutions to all the myriad of problems outlined in this thread? We have some sharp people here on OFC that articulate well. Lets think tank a few solutions here. I think our immigration policies should mirror the policies of the last century. Just as both sets of my Grand Parents who emigrated to the US and Canada as far back as 1917 they needed a sponsor that took full responsibility for their welfare in order to get past Ellis Island or Halifax. Simple, the Gov. pays not one nickel to an immigrant. The sponsor houses them, feeds, clothes them all and lines up employment and education for them. Too simple to work again? Refugees are a different form of immigration. The Gov will rescue them so we Canucks can get a warm and fuzzy feeling and brag about our compassion when we go away on vacations outside the country. Of course I have a story. Flying home from Amsterdam in business class the man next to me is dressed to the nines in 98'. The flight attendant asked me to give him his declaration slip when he woke. He spoke only Russian. I tried to help him fill his papers. He reached in his pocket and handed me a slip of paper and it said "I am a refugee". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Refugee's don't have to be broke. They are just fleeing a war ravaged country. Some are quite wealthy and educated. Just the country they are from went for a crap and they have to get out or die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Ironmaker Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 I think the guy was running away from the Russian Mafia more than the Russian gov Dara, maybe both. I could see the tats from neck to sleeve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Dara I just received my propane bill. I was led to believe that the Carbon Tax applied to my bill was not to be taxed (pst). Now I'm a little perplexed to the point of becoming very upset. The Carbon Tax was not a huge amount ($11.00) - but then it was added to pro/lr and delivery charges and the total taxed. This is a scam. I have had it with the people that are "hired" by the electorate. Wynne's pretty cool and a proven liar/Trudeau - I can't wait to see his Carbon Tax roll out. GMech Thank you for the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Pike Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 So, did he catch anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 Dara I just received my propane bill. I was led to believe that the Carbon Tax applied to my bill was not to be taxed (pst). Now I'm a little perplexed to the point of becoming very upset. The Carbon Tax was not a huge amount ($11.00) - but then it was added to pro/lr and delivery charges and the total taxed. This is a scam. I have had it with the people that are "hired" by the electorate. Wynne's pretty cool and a proven liar/Trudeau - I can't wait to see his Carbon Tax roll out. GMech Thank you for the link I only get natural gas. I thought that was why Kate wanted the carbon tax hidden in the delivery charges, so she could tax the tax. Wait till you see the electric bill without provincial tax. My bet is that its only taken off the actual electric used, not delivery or global rectification charges or whatever they call that crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmer Posted January 17, 2017 Report Share Posted January 17, 2017 I just had a long conversation with a friend about how some of us are headed for housing issues as costs keep soaring and we look at retirement. We talked at length about a commune type setting where people would have their own living quarters and there being a central location for cooking and entertainment. After we were finished, I couldn't believe we were having this conversation in Canada. Still not sure if her caught anything though. Nobody reported on that. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts