Can someone actually provide a credible reason why PP doesn't have security clearance and keeps refusing to get it? It just seems like a terrible hill to die on - all the other leaders have it and it sounds like it's par for the course for any leader to do it (I think?).

To me, this is one of the biggest disqualifiers of PP's asperations for me.

I haven't heard a single credible argument made by a pro-conservative to provide an excuse to him for this.

It's like someone wanting to become a cop, but not wanting to learn how to operate a firearm.

--Joe Biden has entered and stumbled around the chat--

I figure the analysis will happen later in the election cycle but it's pretty clear to me that neither the Cons or Liberals are planning to shrink the deficit any time soon. The Cons are cutting taxes to widen the deficit while the Liberals will be spending more to widen the deficit.

While it was super painful back in the day it was certainly nice when Hull Hogan and Paul Martin managed to balance the budget and even pay down some debt.

Under normal circumstances, they don't. But then you also had the Trump-Biden debate. That was literally the trigger that destroyed Biden's re-election hopes.

I don't think Carney would fare nearly as badly in the upcoming French debate as Biden did in his. But I am more or less expecting him to be a punching bag of sorts against PeePee in that French debate, and that worries me.

I just can't think of what cutting taxes is gonna do for people like most of us here. Like take a 150-250k household income and cons are talking about how they would put $1500 or so back in our pockets over a year. At what cost? Cutting programs and/or widening deficits by the billions for an extra $100ish a month? I'm all for larger tax cuts for people below that threshold, but unless your cutting my taxes by like 10k a year, it's no help if it comes with gutting public programs.

I dunno why the conservatives attack carney for brookfield, he doesnt own the company nor he was CEO involved in day-to-day operations. Yes, as chairman of the board he has responsibilities but they meet like every quarter.

I was telling this to a friend yesterday as he was touting a win by PP with a 2.25x proposed cut. I'm like.... It's $570 vs $1200. The difference is slightly over $600, as car enthusiasts, that doesn't even buy us insurance for a year, doesn't buy us a track day considering consumables, and definitely doesn't even buy a tire for his car.

That tax funds something that's significantly more substantial like cutting daycare costs. In the last few years they've increased subsidies for most daycares by $450 per child, not to mention for the lucky ones that get approved for $10/d.

For the lowest of the low incomes, yeah $600 a year is nothing to sneeze at, but for anyone making over 100k, that's $50 a month.

That is all before getting into the fact that Carney is already making that cut RIGHT NOW, whereas PP is using it as a campaign promise. You have a 50/50 chance at best with a politician delivering on promises after election. If it's such an important issue for PP then he should have tabled a bill for this last year. It's all just fucking lip service.

Wild idea but.. pay for your own childcare?

So far, PeePee has indicated that he will scrap the (national) pharmacare program as part of the "cost savings" to help pay for the tax cut. This essentially boils down to cancelling diabetes medications and contraceptives. I would expect the cancellation of covering contraception expenses to cause a slight uptick in teen pregnancy, as well as more unplanned pregnancies among the underprivileged people. These would probably increase the federal gov's overall child benefits costs, as well as creating some degree of additional social problems. But these costs would be more difficult to define and measure.

The thing I really don't like is the cancellation of diabetic medication. In the long run, I think a gov-covered plan for something like diabetic medication has far more social and financial benefits than the costs that would be incurred. When it has been detected and managed early, people with diabetes can live with a mostly normal and healthy life. This means they can work. That they don't get sick from the diabetic complications. That they can contribute to society just like most normal, healthy people do. But if you take away their gov-funded diabetic medications, some of them would not be able to afford this medication themselves. The health impact from that lack of medication / diabetes management doesn't just take a physical toll on the person, it also takes a toll on our public healthcare system (when the person gets really sick from diabetes), and it takes a toll on society (when they become too sick to work).

I am not a bleeding heart leftard, but the right-leaning part of my brain tells me that the financial savings alone in continuing to offer diabetic medication coverage is reason enough for us to keep offering the program.

can someone with better research skills find factual information regarding how much money is provided monthly to "new" canadians.

i don't want to believe the random posts on facebook or instagram showing the many thousands a month to support refugees and asylum seekers but if the numbers are accurate....how about we cut that funding back, and ya, i get subsidized childcare and reduces income tax. a benefit to the high taxes i pay.

Honda, you need to get a girl preggers to fully understand why even RS baller parents are in favour of having gov-subsidized childcare. Once you do, it'll all make sense. :ifyouknow:

i fully support that contraceptives should be free.

you point about diabetes medication is also valid. but at what point is live style and general care of ones health not considered? but overall, if the numbers work, if the net benefit is a cost savings and greater benefit the reduction in the impact to our already overworked health care system them the medication should be subsidized. you'd also think that a working individual should have some form of extended benefits that SHOULD be covering some of the cost as well

There’s nothing to cancel, it’s not even implemented yet. They haven’t even formed their stupid committees yet to study this.

Right from the pharmacare page in the most typical liberal wording possible:

The first phase of national pharmacare is focused on contraception and diabetes. Our objective is to “learn by doing” in a Canadian context.

I’m indifferent to it as virtually everyone I know has benefits which cover all of this. However who wants to set the line at cost overruns if it does ultimately go through?

30% over projected?

80%?

250%?

I’m a responsible person who makes life choices based on logic lol.

If I was going to have a kid, I wouldn’t be crossing my fingers I fell into some subsidies.

It’s lose/lose. Either you incentivize people to have kids or increase immigration to make up for it.

Been out of the politics loop for a while. Can someone explain to me like im 5 why a majority of Canadians favour Liberals over Conservatives?

lol @ everyone I know has benefits so fuck universal pharma and childcare

I mean god forbid anyone loses their job, retires, becomes a contractor/consultant, etc. Heavens no we can't have "the poors" spending my hard earned tax dollars!

Because PP and the cons did a monumental shit the bed leading up to Trudeau resigning and haven’t made up ground since.

No platform no ideas no tangible plan except cringe sneaky Carney commercials

I don’t really think there’s much else to it than that. No one has promised the moon or come up with ideas that weren’t already on the table.

- Most Canadians don't like Trump
- A lot of Cons like Trump (despite what they say in public)
- Ergo most Canadians don't like Cons

Well as I said, it’s not here.. so how are people surviving now?

And also how long till this is actually implemented? In 3.5 years? It’s half assly in place before the next election?

The welfare society we currently live in doesn’t seem to be providing much for the bottom end of society and we’ve been giving nothing but hand outs for quite some time. Poverty, homelessness, etc. rampant as is.

Provide some data, there is nothing on that site for the pharmacare other than “9 million people will have access to contraceptives” ok why? Who? Who will be eligible?

It sounds like this is years off regardless.

Honda, it makes no difference whether national pharmacare has been implemented or not. The case on paying for diabetic medication is very likely a "revenue positive" venture. It's kind of like adding flouride to water where the cost-benefit ratio is very favourable.

Google -- not its ultra crappy Gemini AI -- suggests that 60 - 65% of Canadians have extended healthcare coverage. That is higher than what I would have expected, but let's just go with it for now. That still leaves 35 - 40% of people without extended healthcare coverage, so I wouldn't say it is an insignificant figure. Furthemore, the type of jobs that would not offer any extended healthcare coverage tend to be low paying jobs, and these also tend to be the jobs that poorer people work, meaning that they are the ones least capable of paying for this medication themselves.

The drugged-out zombies roaming around DTES are not the ones we're talking about here. If you want people to take a risk and start businesses, stay at home to take care of the kids, or go back to school. You give them incentives like this so they don't lose all their insurance in order to do so. Yes you won't see the results immediately and it's not something readily quantifiable.

1) Voters' biggest ask in the past was to get rid of Turd. Now that Turd is gone, some -- or maybe even a big part -- of supporting Cons disappears.

2) Trump's bullying of Canada is turning voter sentiments towards Liberals.

Accurate or not, most people think Carney is the better candidate to stand up to and deal with Trump. His past experience as BoC and Bank of England governor in dealing with the 2008 financial crisis as well as the financial impact from Brexit gives people the belief that he is more qualified than PeePee is in deal with Trump and the accompanying financial difficulties.

There are lots of other reasons too, but I'd say these 2 are the biggest ones.

p.s. Axing the tax is probably a 3rd reason for PeePee losing support now as well. It was his signature battle cry for the better part of a year, but now the issue has just evapourated into thin air since the (consumer) carbon tax has already been cancelled.

buy Ferrari, beg govt. for oil change.

I’m not so naive as to not see the benefits of these types of programs but could we for once have data on something?

Affordability is the key to every single one of these issues. Funny enough this was the cornerstone of the 2015 election for the liberal govt.

How can anyone with a straight face believe your life will actually improve like this? Can’t help but think we’re reaching a tipping point bordering on Jason’s rants where people just become drones reliant on govt. handouts in order to simply open their eyes in the morning because you can’t afford a home, you can’t afford your child care, you can’t afford healthy food, so here’s your handouts to keep your little peon job from disappearing and please keep begging for more.

Imo the middle class, people who actually want to elevate their lives likely have a better chance of this under the cons fiscally. If your main concern is getting subsidies and handouts, the libs are your party.

You can watch Freeland shake uncontrollably as she announced another debt ridden idea