Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Trudeau’s crazy COVID plan for 2021?

  1. #41

    Cain is King

    I like the parable. Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve as cloning operations. I find Laurence GARDNER a good lead. I have both his books nearby.

    Search his name please.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    The State of Soleterra
    Spencer Fernando
    December 3, 2020

    There was widespread, bipartisan support for large-scale financial support for Canadians amid the China Virus pandemic.

    For example, before the Liberals had proposed sending out money to Canadians, I was calling for everyone to get $2,000 quickly, to prevent an economic collapse as the economy shut down.

    The Opposition parties also supported the CERB program, and it was a bipartisan effort to ensure Canadians had the support they need.

    Since then however, the Liberals have moved from temporary crisis measures, to what looks like a dangerous expansion of the centralized federal government. We are watching the Liberals add on to the largest deficit in history, with $100 billion in additional spending.

    However, there is something more concerning than the dollar figure, it’s where the Liberals plan to spend it.

    Imagine for a moment if the Canadian government brought in big tax cuts for low income and middle class Canadians, provided support for key Canadian industries like energy and manufacturing, eliminated the carbon tax, strengthened our military spending, and actually started to build real, tangible infrastructure.

    We would see a massive economic recovery, a surge of good-paying jobs, and a rise in prosperity that would benefit Canadians across the country.

    That would be a way to make $100 billion in spending turn into real economic growth and long-term benefits.

    But instead, what the Liberals are doing is to push for spending on expanded government programs, creating new and larger bureaucracies, while doubling-down on their "green agenda," meaning more taxes, more regulations, and more limits on economic growth.

    For example, there is already a new fuel tax, the carbon tax is going up, and there’s a new tax coming on streaming services, meaning more money will be taken out of the pockets of Canadians who are already struggling.

    History has shown that large surges in debt are sustainable, but if—and only if—they are followed by strong GDP growth.

    But we have never seen a government massively rack up debt, then simultaneously sacrifice economic growth on the altar of politically-correct international schemes.

    The Liberals are piling on the debt, while imposing policies that will severely weaken growth, making it extremely difficult for our country to handle that debt.

    What that means is, that when interest rates grow up, or even when confidence in our ability to pay that debt starts to diminish, things could take a turn very quick. And, considering that Canadians have some of the highest levels of indebtedness in the world, the damage will be significant.

    That will lead to debt-ridden stagnation, with more and more of our spending taken up by paying off debt, leaving less for tax cuts, and less for essential programs. It’s not a future any Canadian should want to see our nation subjected to.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    The State of Soleterra

    Freeland opined in her interview with Bloomberg that Canadians managed to save some money during the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the lack of ability to travel or spend leisurely. She feels the government can tap into these savings, but is asking for ideas on how to do so. Freeland believes the government needs to somehow force Canadians to spend.

    “Maybe it happens by itself, that’s the best case scenario for me, but if people have ideas how we can really try to unleash that and particularly unleash it in parts of the economy that really need support, tourism, hospitality, domestic services, let me know,” said Freeland.

    The Trudeau government just announced last week that it is going to be adding $400 billion to the national debt. Critics argue that Canada does not have the capacity to deal with such a sizable debt increase. The Liberals nonetheless believe it necessary.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    The State of Soleterra
    Very good interview. Very intelligent woman.

    Catherine Austin Fitts | Full Interview | Planet Lockdown

  5. #45
    I have been watching Katherine Austin FITTS for almost two decades. It would take some doing to convince you but her predictions and forecasts do nothing for me.

    I did find something quite interesting. As a child she played around her grandfather's cabin, and there was no road to it. She said you had to hike 3/4 a mile to it. But that was the meeting ground for the Iron Mountain summit, that cabin and Catherine Austin was there, a little girl playing around while several wealthy pundits hashed out the possibilities of ending war.

    I have attached three pieces. The Dial Press is the original and I have heard it is the only one you want to read. So I have only read the Dial Press from the federal repository. But the Free Press rendition is attached and might be exact for all I know.

  6. #46
    We talk of the ‘government’ and the ‘state’ as if these were real entities of a
    different and higher order of reality from the mundane things we encounter in daily life. But the
    government is simply a name for a particular group of people acting, or being willing to act, in
    particular ways at a particular time and place. Such being the case, the (rebuttable) presumption
    will have to be that such people are bound by the normal rules of conduct that apply to us all.
    What is good for one is good for all; what is bad for one must be bad for all. If it is presumptively
    wrong for me to initiate aggression against you, it must be presumptively wrong for those people
    calling themselves the government to do so .Furthermore, the central characteristic of representation by agency is
    that the agent is responsible to his principal and is bound to act in the principal’s interest. Can a
    political representative be the agent of a multitude? This seems unlikely. What if the principals
    have interests that diverge from each other? A political representative must then of necessity
    cease to represent one or more of his principals. The best that can be done in these
    circumstances is for the politician to serve the many and betray the few. and betrayal is a election promise.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts