world

Canada's approach to foreign issues to change with Trudeau

20 Comments
By ROB GILLIES

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

"...in an effort to woo Jewish voters in Canada. "

Funny. Mindless pandering to right wing Israelis and their pathetic supporters makes an enemy of this Jew.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

in an effort to woo Jewish voters in Canada

Who are we talking about? Harper or Trudeau? I believe that statement was aimed at Harper.

Anyway, I doubt it was ever clearly stated the plan was to woo Jewish voters. I am sure that is just a guess on the part of the press.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Funny. Mindless pandering to right wing Israelis and their pathetic supporters makes an enemy of this Jew.

Good on you Sabbath. I loath Harper with a passion, but then I feel the same way about ALL right wingers, politicians or otherwise.

The world needs a more balanced approach on global issues. Harper was a bane on Canada. Good on the great people of Canada for throwing Harper out. I also pray that this guy will have way more compassion for the poor syrian people.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Curious to see how PM Trudeau handles issues with other nation's Arctic claims. Beaver or polar bear?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I loath Harper with a passion, but then I feel the same way about ALL right wingers, politicians or otherwise.

I'm not a Canadian so I really don't care what happens in "America's attic" but I was reading another article on his victory when I came across this tidbit:

"The Liberals plan to run a C$10 billion annual budget deficit for three years to invest in infrastructure and help stimulate Canada's anemic economic growth." To translate that into American: So right off the bat Canada will be another $30B in debt, by spending more than it will take in. I'm no economist, so how exactly is that going to bring in more revenue to the government? If that's the case, one would be able to get a loan to pay off all of your debts, and then start spending again since the old debts are paid off, but forgetting that you have to repay the loan off in addition to the new debt you will incur.

But, it's what Canada wants, more power to them. Can't wait to see how he is parodied on South Park.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

With provincial budgets spending nearly 50% on Healthcare funding and many Canadians going out of country for private treatment, what does that tell you? Others could stop wasting time and effort advocating on the not so sustainable Public Only Universal Healthcare and accept the fact there will be a more private role in Canada's Healthcare in the not so distant future. Question is, do Canada want the troubled U.S. model or a more successful European model?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Alphaape: "The Liberals plan to run a C$10 billion annual budget deficit for three years to invest in infrastructure and help stimulate Canada's anemic economic growth." To translate that into American: So right off the bat Canada will be another $30B in debt, by spending more than it will take in. I'm no economist, so how exactly is that going to bring in more revenue to the government?

The goal is to stimulate the economy, not to make more money. The money spent on the projects will go into people's hands and those people will in turn spend them in Canadian stores (and probably some in the US). The goal is to keep money circulating and reverse downward trends and hopefully create a new upward trend.

What we've learned from the Great Recession is that cutting government spending when the private sector collapses is the absolute worst thing you can do since everyone loses.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

C$10 billion

That's like, $1 million American, right Canucks?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Still didn't get an answer to my question about Canada's Central Bank from the last article.

The goal is to stimulate the economy, not to make more money.

So, do you know, will these loans be interest free, or do the banksters still have their clutches on the Central Bank?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

"...in an effort to woo Jewish voters in Canada. "

If this were true, then Harper isn't nearly as shrewd as his critics claim. There are 3 times as many Muslims in Canada than Jews, and just about every Muslim on the planet is anti-Israel. Support for Israel would be a political liability given voter demographics.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@FizzBit, you probably didn't get an answer because there is no Central Bank in Canada. It's called the Bank of Canada.. Besides your question, as I recall, was a bit inane. Just my opinion, but I'm more a Canadian in the know than you.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

a compassionate Canada is back

Bravo! Welcome home, Canada.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@trevorpeace

Semantics. It's still considered Canada's central bank even they started calling it the houch parlor.

It's only inane if you have no answer, which it seems you don't.

I'm not Canadian, that's why I was asking.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And and yes, he supports both the Keystone Pipeline and the Environment, which basically means he's a feather in the wind.

I am not exactly a proponent of the pipeline...but...if not via pipeline how does Canada's oil go south? Will that be more environmentally sound?

Of course he could (try anyway) end all oil drilling and sales to really try and prove his environmental friendliness. Then he could see if he could survive the violent peasant revolution that will ensue from the entire country turning into Detroit in a few months. Won't that be fun?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What we've learned from the Great Recession is that cutting government spending when the private sector collapses is the absolute worst thing you can do since everyone loses.

Before the recession in the USA, government spending was at an all time high. Afterwards it still is and the economy has not fully recovered. Only the big businesses that are politically connected were able to make gains off the backs of the middle class taxpayers. If you want to have more money in the economy and not make money, wouldn't it be better to cut everyone's taxes instead? Since they would actually see more take home pay and have extra to spend instead of the .government doling it out to those whom they see fit. What good is it to have the government stimulate the economy with supposedly "shovel ready jobs" only to have high tax rates for those who will supposedly get the jobs. Might as well just give everyone in Canada a sum of money and tell them to go at it and stimulate the economy. We are gong to get it back by taxing you anyway so what difference would it make.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We don't have high tax rates. We have historically low tax rates. Bush's tax cuts added about $1.3 trillion to the debt, Canada is looking at a $30 billion stimulus package. Major difference in scope and cost, and we all know tax cuts are usually skewed to favor the rich which simply adds to their wealth and is not circulated in the economy. Canada will provide jobs to people who don't have them and those people will pay rent and buy groceries with them. It's a more targeted approach to the people who need it instead of padding the bank statements of the rich.

Do some research yourself if you don't believe me. Cutting government spending during a downturn is one of those things that exists only in the Republican bubble and is not support by a majority of economists, just like trickle down economics.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"....will these loans be interest free."

What "loans"? The issue here is fiscal stimulus, which isn't conducted by the BoC, but by the govt. Increasing govt spending to stimulate the economy during a downturn is standard practice. Canada faces basically no risk since it is a currency-issuing nation and inflationary pressure is basically non-existent.

"I'm no economist,..."

That much is clear.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Major difference in scope and cost, and we all know tax cuts are usually skewed to favor the rich which simply adds to their wealth and is not circulated in the economy.

@ SuperLib: For all the talk against the "Bush Tax cuts" and how they are the bane of liberals like yourself, why don't you look and see how much the USA took in tax revenues so far this year with those tax cuts in place. $2.67 trillion came in the first 10 months of the year. 46.5% of that total came in from individual income taxes, and 11% for corporate taxes. Interestingly, 33.5% of the taxes collected were from Social Security taxes paid by workers. So I am not seeing where these so called "Bush tax cuts" are only helping out the wealthy, since the vast majority of taxes still comes from the individual taxpayer, even with lower taxes with the cuts.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The question you asked why why they didn't just lower taxes for everyone. Like I said, different scope and purpose. Providing stimulus money is more of a targeted approach, a tax cut for all people will have a portion that is wasted on the rich since the money will not enter the economy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites