Cultural Imperial posted:

The truth is, big ears teddy likes to bang uggos

Cultural Imperial posted:

Really

These dumb bitches told big ears teddy after getting beat up that they wanted more and then had the temerity to try and pass their encounters off as assault.

Sorry but we should be vilifying these retarded sluts for the damage they've done against true victims of assault.

JVNO posted:

You know he just bails when backed into a corner right? This call out is futile.

Of all the poo poo posters in this thread he is unequivocally the worst, because he's poo poo posting in sincerity.

eXXon posted:

Every once in a while he comes back to write a two or three paragraph long "effortpost". I just hope people remember his propensity for making poo poo up and lying outright the next time he vomits out one of those obfuscated screeds on business/finance, where he claims to have some actual expertise.

Cultural Imperial posted:

You can read this testimony in oh like everywhere for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

eXXon posted:

Every once in a while he comes back to write a two or three paragraph long "effortpost". I just hope people remember his propensity for making poo poo up and lying outright the next time he vomits out one of those obfuscated screeds on business/finance, where he claims to have some actual expertise.

Eox posted:

His legal counsel consists of saying "Common Law" three times in front of a mirror with the lights off

bunnyofdoom posted:

Ah Hal. The poster who, by comparison, makes my posts good, nonpartisan and factual

MA-Horus posted:

You're still a piece of poo poo.

cowofwar posted:

Every angry social media article begins with the assumption that Gomeshi is guilty and the complainants were assaulted and being wholly truthful and that the acquittal was a rejection of the complainants' allegations.

Judge was simply not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Their testimony was a joke and they sunk their own case by loving around.

Illavick posted:

gently caress off pussy.

RBC posted:

yeah there's a big difference between lying and not remembering or misremembering things that happened a decade ago

Ikantski posted:

How many dudes have you given handjobs to and forgotten about?

RBC posted:

yeah there's a big difference between lying and not remembering or misremembering things that happened a decade ago

RBC posted:

How many times have you made up being choked by your boyfriend?

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

Ok gas this thread this is getting ugly

Trees and Squids posted:

Shad is a bad radio host

PK loving SUBBAN posted:

Ok gas this thread this is getting ugly

eXXon posted:

Every once in a while he comes back to write a two or three paragraph long "effortpost". I just hope people remember his propensity for making poo poo up and lying outright the next time he vomits out one of those obfuscated screeds on business/finance, where he claims to have some actual expertise.

bunnyofdoom posted:

Ontario launches free legal advice program for sex assault survivors Pilot program in Ottawa, Toronto and Thunder Bay, giving 4 hours of free legal advice.

quote:

Unbalanced budget: Does it show 'prudence' or a 'nightmare scenario'?
Finance minister defends budget's long-term strategy while Tory leader wonders if Liberals have a 'road map'
By Katharine Starr, CBC News

The Liberals' first federal budget may be a $30-billion bet that big spending will lead to big growth, but Finance Minister Bill Morneau feels confident that taking the risk will stimulate the economy and pay off in the long term.

"When you think of it as spending, I'm really not on the same page. I think of it as an investment in the future," Morneau told host Chris Hall in an interview on CBC Radio's The House.

"Yes, we're making investments that are going to make a difference, and yes, some of them are going to be continuing, but it's going to get us to a higher growth rate."

Morneau's budget predicts deficits over the next five years and beyond to finance a new tax-free monthly child benefit, more money for First Nations, infrastructure spending and extended employment insurance benefits to hard-hit regions.

But he maintains that spending for stimulus can be done in a fiscally prudent way, and that balancing the books remains the ultimate objective.

"Balancing the budget matters because over the long term, we need to live within our means. With the growth that we're anticipating, in about five years we should be able to get back into balanced budgets," he said.

But there's a caveat, Morneau added.

"That's not a precise estimate, because we are aiming to increase growth in order to get there. We believe it's the right thing to do."

Procurement to promote innovation

One of the ways the government will try to stimulate growth will be to focus on innovation. Part of the Liberals' strategy to strengthen the innovation sector will be for Ottawa to deal more with Canadian entrepreneurs, according Navdeep Bains, the minister of innovation, science and economic development.

"How do we use government procurement?" Bains told The House in a separate interview.

"If there's a good idea, if there's a small company in Canada, if there's an entrepreneur that has an idea, I think the government should do business with that person. Because when that person goes abroad, wants to go global or deal with other businesses, they always ask the question: Are you doing business with the government?"

Bains also said that the Liberals listened to entrepreneurs when they chose to disregard an election promise to increase taxation of stock options.

"We're not proceeding with the changes to stock options," he said.

"It's something that we realized from our conversations, in terms of growing the economy, it is a legitimate vehicle and means to be able to help companies start up and grow."

Tories call budget a 'nightmare scenario'

Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose says she doesn't buy that explanation, nor is she happy with the choice to keep the small business tax rate at 10.5 per cent, calling the 2016 budget a "nightmare scenario" for Canadian taxpayers and small business owners.

"[The Liberals] broke that promise to small businesses. Now if you couple that with the EI increases and CPP payroll increases, this is a hit to small businesses," Ambrose said on The House.

She pointed to the loss of tax credits like the child fitness tax credit as well as the rolling back of the Conservatives' increase for tax free savings account limits as additional tax hikes for Canadians.

Morneau defended his decision to back away from the campaign promise to lower the small business tax rate to nine per cent.

"What we believe is the thing that a small business needs most is a strong and growing economy," he said.

"I'm someone who has spent a career in business, and when a businessperson wakes up in the morning, they're worried about a growing economy so they can have the opportunity for their business."

Morneau also refused to speculate on whether his government would potentially cut the tax rate at some point over the rest of the mandate.

"We are going to each year put forth a budget that reflects our view of where the economy is at that particular time," he said.

"We are proud of what we did this year, and that's where we're at."

Road map to getting back to balance?

Ambrose said the 2016 budget doesn't have a clear road map showing how the government will get back to balance.

"[Morneau] says five years, but there isn't actually a plan showing, OK, this is where we're going to save, this is how we're going to do it, this is the plan to get back to a balanced budget, and that's important because what it signals to everyone is that taxes won't go up any further."

Ambrose added she's concerned about other "big ticket items" the Liberals promised — but that didn't show up in the budget.

"If those promises — like a health-care accord — aren't in there, how much more will taxes have to go up to make sure [the Liberals] can actually implement those promises? A balanced budget just seems like a fantasy right now."

NDP question prudence of budget

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair shocked Canadians during the election campaign when he promised four straight years of balanced budgets if elected.

He told Hall the NDP would have sought to balance the budget by looking to increase revenue with corporate tax hikes, while still being able to offer universal pharmacare and child care.

"I think the smart way to ensure the long-term stability of your social programs is to make sure everyone pays their fair share of taxes, including corporations," Mulcair said.

"You don't hesitate to go into debt if the situation requires, but as a general rule, the best way to ensure those programs are there long term is to be a good prudent public administrator."

It's the question of prudence that Morneau himself keeps coming back to, saying the Liberal fiscal brand — previously defined by former prime minister Paul Martin's balanced budgets as finance minister in the 1990s — remains the same.

"We are going to maintain a level of prudence, and that is something I will be watching for during my time in this role, but we're recognizing that right now, Canadians asked us to invest in the economy. That's what we're going to do."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-house-federal-budget-opposition-1.3506789

World watching as Canada casts aside austerity and gambles on a fiscal surge
A global economic debate plays out in Canada as our government goes from miser to spendthrift
By Don Pittis, CBC News

Canada has abruptly switched sides in one of the perennial political and economic battles over how to restart a sagging economy.

To put it in a way that would not please either side, it is the contest between the misers and the spendthrifts. After years of the penny-pinching approach, Canada has switched tack to become a big spender.

And despite some very strong feelings on either side, it is not absolutely clear which is the right path to prosperity. The world will be watching.

The clash over the best way to boost a moribund economy is by no means solely a Canadian argument. Nor is it just a modern debate.

Historical debate

Countries from China and Japan, to Greece and Ireland have taken different views on the subject.

Historically, the dispute has arisen repeatedly — notably during the Great Depression, when the first response of austerity was blamed for making the problem worse. But when governments then altered strategy, new spending failed to lead to a miracle recovery.

There is plenty of evidence on both sides. As I noted back in 2010, Japan and Ireland backed opposing strategies. But the countries' circumstances are so different it is hard to declare a definitive winner.

China and Greece switched sides. Greece was driven by the ballot box toward bigger spending, then restrained by their stern European central bankers. China faced alternating worries, first cutting back on fears of overheating and then suddenly spurring new spending on fears of falling growth.

Canada is a special case. It's an example of a country that, following an election, consciously changed from one strategy to the other when they tossed out the Conservative government of Stephen Harper and elected the Liberals under Justin Trudeau.

"This budget is a nightmare scenario for taxpayers who will be forced to pick up the tab for today's Liberal spending spree," said Harper's interim replacement as party leader, Rona Ambrose.

Ambrose and her Conservatives still back what you might call the Irish model. During their 10 years in power, the Harper government cut taxes, both for business and for the population at large. And with revenues depleted by tax cuts, it began paring down government spending to make expenditures match income.

Austerity's intuitive appeal

The austerity argument has a lot of intuitive appeal. If your family gets into financial trouble, the wisest strategy is to hunker down, cut back on spending and get everyone out looking for work.

Besides the analogy to family finances, another argument — once called liberal or neo-liberal, now usually known as conservative — says the best way for governments to solve economic problems is to get out of the way and let the forces of business and market economics find a solution.

As with any real-life economics, doing double-blind tests to discover the truth doesn't work. In Canada, the strategy of government austerity and business-led recovery did not have a good result, although things may have been different if had been tried at a different time.

As it was, the private-sector economy — spurred by tax breaks and directed by market forces — poured the country's wealth and human capital into a resources boom just as the boom turned to bust.

Private-sector investment in the economy began to dry up.

In Tuesday's budget speech marking the change of direction, Finance Minister Bill Morneau harked back to an earlier time.

"After the dark days of the Great Depression and the Second World War, Canadians believed the future could be brighter," he said, pointing out that post-war government spending on roads, shipping and communication systems made the economy grow and prosper.

Perhaps so, but most economists say the recovery from the Great Depression was not based on insipid attempts to boost peacetime spending, but the massive borrowing and spending boom of the global war effort itself. It was a simultaneous mixture of personal austerity and government spending on the war machine.

Post-war comparison

It is not at all clear that the near $30-billion deficit, and the $120 billion worth of infrastructure spending promised over the coming years, large as they seem, are enough to restart the country's economic engine in a similar way.

It is also not obvious that the new strategy will have the same effect as the "Greatest Generation" returning from war to rebuild the country after some 15 years of consumer privation.

But compared to the techniques other countries have tried in attempting to push their economies back into growth, it is not so crazy.

Monetary policy has not proved itself. There are growing fears that negative interest rates create new dangers.

Reports in the foreign press — from those that noticed — are mildly supportive of the switch. Economics columnists have frequently recommended fiscal stimulus, and even cash handouts called helicopter money, to break Europe out of a cycle of deflation and negative real interest rates.

Just like the business-led austerity plan that came before, the new strategy is a living experiment with Canadians as the laboratory rats. Just as in the previous experiment, the results may depend on many outside factors beyond the current government's control.

If it works, Trudeau and his finance minister will be heralded for their genius. If it doesn't, there will be no shortage of people ready to say "I told you so."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-budget-austerity-vs-spending-1.3503968

Dallan Invictus posted:

edit: sorry vyelkin, you're right I'll try not to contribute to the Ghomeshi derail: as a lawyer this whole situation is just one long multifaceted nightmare and I'm better off forgetting it.

The Pittis article is definitely as much acknowledgement that Maybe The Keynesians Are Onto Something as I expected to see in what I will with gritted teeth call "the mainstream media", but I have to admit that I'm utterly at a loss for what the "n-word" in "once called liberal or n-word" might be.

vyelkin posted:

This thread has gotten way off the rails. Instead of gassing it, let's just try and move away from unproductive Ghomeshi-chat. How about some articles on the new budget?

quote:

One of the ways the government will try to stimulate growth will be to focus on innovation. Part of the Liberals' strategy to strengthen the innovation sector will be for Ottawa to deal more with Canadian entrepreneurs, according Navdeep Bains, the minister of innovation, science and economic development.

"How do we use government procurement?" Bains told The House in a separate interview.

"If there's a good idea, if there's a small company in Canada, if there's an entrepreneur that has an idea, I think the government should do business with that person. Because when that person goes abroad, wants to go global or deal with other businesses, they always ask the question: Are you doing business with the government?"

quote:

Don Pitts is growing self-aware, people. Aside from the completely unquestioned remark about household budgets () he at least acknowledges that Canada tried austerity over the past few years and it didn't work to spur growth, and also that Canada's private sector is stupid and bad at investing money to improve the long-term economy, as shown by their dumping all their money into resource extraction (if only he would have mentioned housing we could have had a double whammy). But at the end, after a significant amount of waffling back and forth over "well different countries have tried different approaches and who's to say if anything works, but BY THE WAY *~economists~* say austerity is the poo poo you guys" he acknowledges that monetary policy has reached the limit of its usefulness, fiscal stimulus is needed, and also that we live in a global economy where, let's be honest, Canada has much less control over the state of our economy than we might like to pretend we do.

vyelkin posted:

This thread has gotten way off the rails. Instead of gassing it, let's just try and move away from unproductive Ghomeshi-chat. How about some articles on the new budget?


The above article is noteworthy for its complete lack of questioning the orthodox assumption that balanced budgets are a necessary and fundamental thing that government should always strive for, though to be fair to the journalist who wrote it, all the politicians she was writing about go on at length about the importance of balanced budgets. Morneau says this is just a temporary thing and the goal is to balance the budget off stronger growth. Ambrose says the goal is to balance the budget through austerity. And Mulcair says the goal is to balance the budget through taxing corporations (while also doubling down on his "we're politicians just like everyone else but we are prudent administrators also" schtick). But there's no actual detailed discussion of why a structural surplus or deficit is a good or bad thing, or how a structural surplus can become an annual deficit (and vice versa) because of temporary conditions. Instead, this article just takes the "balanced budget = good" approach that's so common to our media and runs with it.