The facepalming one?well, at least it's not Mike Harris.
Hey, which emoticon expresses sighing in resignation to this bullshit?
Maybe.The facepalming one?
Well, at least it's not Mike HarrisOr this one
That isn’t a silver lining, it’s mercury.'m starting to worry that Ford's gonna make Harris look good, the way Trump makes Dubya look like a statesman.
I'm not surprised. Not that I don't think it's not important, but being that thousands of people's jobs are on the line, having a former prime minister (who still holds great sway in the opposition party) sneaking behind our governments back with a famously irrational dickweed wannabe dictator is complete garbage.I think it's far more interesting how Justin turned out to be a groping scumbag, despite his "feminist" credentials.
No habla espanol!?I don't get the joke.
Are you upset no one's talking about Spain? (You're Spanish, right? )
Good news Canada, Denbrought does care about you.
Or maybe he's just pretending to get into your pants, i don't know, you guys figure it out.
Not with your, my, or anyone else's dick.Fuck Saudi Arabia
It wasn't even Trudeau, it was a minister.Diplomacy by tweet has worked so well for trump I guess trudeau had to try it out.
Like every other industrialized country, Canada will have to face its declining population. Since many of these social systems are based on having a younger work force to bear the burden - a fine plan if your country is growing - they will fail when the workforce starts to decline - which necessarily happens when the fertility rate drops below the replacement rate.2041 Quebec is fucked.
Your post initially said 2039 with no context, and the only Quebec 2039 thing that I could find in the news was the Quebec pension plan projected failure.Did you need to get that off your chest? Because my post was regarding the Churchill Falls contract expiring. When 15% of Quebecs hydro will jump from 1971 prices to 2041 price overnight.
What is immigration?Like every other industrialized country, Canada will have to face its declining population. Since many of these social systems are based on having a younger work force to bear the burden - a fine plan if your country is growing - they will fail when the workforce starts to decline - which necessarily happens when the fertility rate drops below the replacement rate.
Ah yes, i think we all remember the giant upheaval of Canadian society 40 years ago, in the late 1970's... no other place was plagued by so much upheaval at that time...That happened in Canada 40 years ago. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm
So the social systems must adjust, and like a pyramid scheme the ones at the bottom of the pyramid get screwed the most. The ones at the top - now long dead - had to pay little into the system and got the most out of it. The ones facing the bankruptcy of the social system get to pay the most, and get the least out of it.
That's the problem foisted off onto them by the architects of the social system. The side effects aren't often felt until generations later, and while the rich will weather the storm, the poor will suffer due to the failure of such systems.
You missed the post right above his... and the norm that forum posts can be responses to the previous post if they directly follow it, with quotes only for when it doesn't.Your post initially said 2039 with no context, and the only Quebec 2039 thing that I could find in the news was the Quebec pension plan projected failure.
I know you enjoy posting cryptically, but are you really surprised when someone guesses wrong?
I suspect this is only a short term fix. As other countries rise economically, immigration to a low birth rate country is less desirable.What is immigration?
This assumes that the economy is closely coupled to people's wages. It's possible for the economy to grow while wages stagnate, and in fact I suspect that's happening in the US as corporations and the rich are constructing economic systems that pass profits to them, skipping the lower and middle class entirely.The funny tihng about SS is that you can always pay it if your economy is growing (yes, i know, progressive taxes are socialism)
And if he had posted "2041" in the first place rather than an edit later I might have caught it. As it is the wikipedia post mentioned nothing about 2039, and google brought me nothing but the Quebec pension system failure date.You missed the post right above his... and the norm that forum posts can be responses to the previous post if they directly follow it, with quotes only for when it doesn't.
In the long term, all solutions are short term...I suspect this is only a short term fix. As other countries rise economically, immigration to a low birth rate country is less desirable.
Yeah, a square would be the best shape... but then the old people with the most time on their hands to go vote would object to their pensions being too low...It's better, IMO, to fix the social system so it's not a pyramid in the first place.
Hence teh "(yes, i know, progressive taxes are socialism)" part, which you even quoted yourself...This assumes that the economy is closely coupled to people's wages. It's possible for the economy to grow while wages stagnate, and in fact I suspect that's happening in the US as corporations and the rich are constructing economic systems that pass profits to them, skipping the lower and middle class entirely.
I don't see the relevance of the year, especially since it didn't jump out at me even after skimming the links Eriol posted.And if he had posted "2041" in the first place rather than an edit later I might have caught it. As it is the wikipedia post mentioned nothing about 2039, and google brought me nothing but the Quebec pension system failure date.
Second, the problem we're in here is that we disagree on both the problem and the solution here. Is income inequality a problem in the first place? It arguably is if people are dying as a result of it, but by its very nature? That's something separate. And then after that, let's just say it is a problem, is taxation really the best solution to such? Giving more money to government, who is more easily influenced by power players, just seems like a means to entrench power in those elites even more. I'm just re-stating @stienman here though, as the government is the one who usually most heavily influences which "system" we're in.Hence teh "(yes, i know, progressive taxes are socialism)" part, which you even quoted yourself...
Nope: after skimming the links Eriol posted.First, the year was posted by @HCGLNS not me. Minor, but if you re-read your post, you think it was me.
Fix it in another way, i'll wait.Second, the problem we're in here is that we disagree on both the problem and the solution here. Is income inequality a problem in the first place? It arguably is if people are dying as a result of it, but by its very nature? That's something separate. And then after that, let's just say it is a problem, is taxation really the best solution to such?
It's like you don't believe in democracy as a concept.as the government is the one who usually most heavily influences which "system" we're in.
Completely agree. Still pissed at fucking W and his goddamned hand holding with those backwards dipshits. I support Canada standing up to those pricks.Again, fuck Saudi Arabia.
The John Baird that sits on the advisory board for Barrick which has substantial mining interests in SA? That John Baird? (Asshole)Add John Baird to the list hypocritical traitors doing everything to undermine Canada on the international stage. 3 years ago the Saudi flogging of a protestor waa a concern but now it's Canada sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong? Fuck you. Stay in Saudi Arabia you piece of shit.