I get where you're coming from on that, but you really have to pay attention to how she says things and compare that with reality.

First she says that people have saved quite a bit of money because there "hasn't been much to do" in the pandemic, particularly well off households. Nothing is really locked down in Canada, people can do pretty much everything they could do before the pandemic, the only difference is that the border with the US is closed and if a Canadian were to travel abroad and come back, they'd be under a mandatory 2 week quarantine, and maybe they don't travel abroad because of that. But that traveling abroad doesn't make money for Canada does it? Guess what does make money for Canada....American tourism, which is gone because Canada has kept the border with the US closed since March.

So what she's really doing is trying to say that since Canadians have "saved soo much money" because of the "lockdowns", and that is "extra" money not being spent. When in reality, people haven't really saved anything. Especially when you consider that people who might have had to forego a vacation due to travel restrictions, are either saving that money to go on vacation later, or already spent it shopping online while they were at home with nothing to do. And again, that vacation money was never really going to make money for Canada, because Canadians don't vacation in other parts of Canada, they travel abroad to vacation.

So either way you look at it, the actual reality is that money is as good as spent, there are no actual "extra" savings. If a family vacation is delayed, the money they have to use on that vacation is NOT "extra" savings.

She even outright says what she wants the money to go on: Tourism, hospitality, and domestic services. What are domestic services? WELFARE programs.

Guess what would help their tourism and hospitality industries? Opening the border with the US. You sure as heck couldn't entice Canadians with spending money on local tourism and hospitality services....because they already spend money on things like eating out and visiting places within their own country. It would be like trying to entice people to spend money on Canadian souvenirs....as Canadians.

So the fact is, she can't possibly expect Canadians to spend money as if they're tourists within their own country. If a Canadian eats out, that's just them living their lives. But if an American goes to Canada and eats somewhere, that's tourism. Clearly you can't have Canadians fill that gaps, because they can't suddenly eat twice as much food to fill in the gap, nor make twice as much income to spend that twice as much money.

Now keep all of that in mind, then combine that with what I said about this soo called "extra savings" Canadians supposedly have. There is no actual extra money, in fact, there's even LESS money, because all of those businesses that have suffered from lockdowns and closed borders, are owned by these "better off" households she talked about. They're not "better off", they're drowning. Now the government wants their rainy day money, or money that isn't even for a rainy day, but rather money that they were going to do stuff with. And let's keep in mind that these "better off" households might only have money in the bank because they've liquidated their assets instead of going under and losing everything. So to take from these people, would be like taking the last $20 from a homeless guy.

And let's keep in mind, you can't just make up for a year of lost income by dashing a little money here and there. If you couldn't pay your bills for a year, and still owed it all on credit, how long do you think it will take to pay that back? YEARS, even if you went back to full income again in an instant.

So they're not trying to stimulate the economy. They're trying to use that as a distraction to disguise taking peoples money. Their problem could be solved by simply ending this lockdown madness. And it won't be solved any other way. So how else can they get that "extra" money out of people? By offering nothing, and simply taking. Now clearly they don't want to do that and offer bonds with interest, because they would drown in the interest 10-20 years down the road when people want to cash in those bonds, and there will be people who don't even have 10-20 years left to live, so would never see that money back, so they clearly want to avoid bond interest altogether.

So that leaves only one thing: She want to come up with a way to simply take peoples money, with no promise of repayment. So she's not looking for ideas on how to boost the economy, she's looking for ideas that will allow the government to confiscate that money directly, with as little backlash as possible, without ever having to pay it back. In fact, they already know that's what they want to do, they're just pitching it publicly so it looks like they're looking for ideas from the people, so they can spin it as the will of the people when they finally decide to steal peoples money.

I get where you're coming from on that, but you really have to pay attention to how she says things and compare that with reality.

First she says that people have saved quite a bit of money because there "hasn't been much to do" in the pandemic, particularly well off households. Nothing is really locked down in Canada, people can do pretty much everything they could do before the pandemic, the only difference is that the border with the US is closed and if a Canadian were to travel abroad and come back, they'd be under a mandatory 2 week quarantine, and maybe they don't travel abroad because of that. But that traveling abroad doesn't make money for Canada does it? Guess what does make money for Canada....when American tourism, which is gone because Canada has kept the border with the US closed since March.

So what she's really doing is trying to say that since Canadians have "saved soo much money" because of the "lockdowns", and that is "extra" money not being spent. When in reality, people haven't really saved anything. Especially when you consider that people who might have had to forego a vacation due to travel restrictions, are either saving that money to go on vacation later, or already spent it shopping online while they were at home with nothing to do. And again, that vacation money was never really going to make money for Canada, because Canadians don't vacation in other parts of Canada, they travel abroad to vacation.

So either way you look at it, the actual reality is that money is as good as spent, there are no actual "extra" savings. If a family vacation is delayed, the money they have to use on that vacation is NOT "extra" savings.

She even outright says what she wants the money to go on: Tourism, hospitality, and domestic services. What are domestic services? WELFARE programs.

Guess what would help their tourism and hospitality industries? Opening the border with the US. You sure as heck couldn't entice Canadians with spending money on local tourism and hospitality services....because they already spend money on things like eating out and visiting places within their own country. It would be like trying to entice people to spend money on Canadian souvenirs....as Canadians.

So the fact is, she can't possibly expect Canadians to spend money as if they're tourists within their own country. If a Canadian eats out, that's just them living their lives. But if an American goes to Canada and eats somewhere, that's tourism. Clearly you can't have Canadians fill that gaps, because they can't suddenly eat twice as much food to fill in the gap, nor make twice as much income to spend that twice as much money.

Now keep all of that in mind, then combine that with what I said about this soo called "extra savings" Canadians supposedly have. There is no actual extra money, in fact, there's even LESS money, because all of those businesses that have suffered from lockdowns and closed borders, are owned by these "better off" households she talked about. They're not "better off", they're drowning. Now the government wants their rainy day money, or money that isn't even for a rainy day, but rather money that they were going to do stuff with. And let's keep in mind that these "better off" households might only have money in the bank because they've liquidated their assets instead of going under and losing everything. So to take from these people, would be like taking the last $20 from a homeless guy.

And let's keep in mind, you can't just make up for a year of lost income by dashing a little money here and there. If you couldn't pay your bills for a year, and still owed it all on credit, how long do you think it will take to pay that back? YEARS, even if you went back to full income again in an instant.

So they're not trying to stimulate the economy. They're trying to use that as a distraction to disguise taking peoples money. Their problem could be solved by simply ending this lockdown madness. And it won't be solved any other way. So how else can they get that "extra" money out of people? By offering nothing, and simply taking. Now clearly they don't want to do that and offer bonds with interest, because they would drown in the interest 10-20 years down the road when people want to cash in those bonds, and there will be people who don't even have 10-20 years left to live, so would never see that money back, so they clearly want to avoid bond interest altogether.

So that leaves only one thing: She want to come up with a way to simply take peoples money, with no promise of repayment. So she's not looking for ideas on how to boost the economy, she's looking for ideas that will allow the government to confiscate that money directly, with as little backlash as possible, without ever having to pay it back. In fact, they already know that's what they want to do, they're just pitching it publicly so it looks like they're looking for ideas from the people, so they can spin it as the will of the people when they finally decide to steal peoples money.

I get where you're coming from on that, but you really have to pay attention to how she says things and compare that with reality.

First she says that people have saved quite a bit of money because there "hasn't been much to do" in the pandemic, particularly well off households. Nothing is really locked down in Canada, people can do pretty much everything they could do before the pandemic, the only difference is that the border with the US is closed and if a Canadian were to travel abroad and come back, they'd be under a mandatory 2 week quarantine, and maybe they don't travel abroad because of that. But that traveling abroad doesn't make money for Canada does it? Guess what does make money for Canada....when American tourism, which is gone because Canada has kept the border with the US closed since March.

So what she's really doing is trying to say that since Canadians have "saved soo much money" because of the "lockdowns", and that is "extra" money not being spent. When in reality, people haven't really saved anything. Especially when you consider that people who might have had to forego a vacation due to travel restrictions, are either saving that money to go on vacation later, or already spent it shopping online while they were at home with nothing to do. And again, that vacation money was never really going to make money for Canada, because Canadians don't vacation in other parts of Canada, they travel abroad to vacation.

So either way you look at it, the actual reality is that money is as good as spent, there are no actual "extra" savings. If a family vacation is delayed, the money they have to use on that vacation is NOT "extra" savings.

She even outright says what she wants the money to go on: Tourism, hospitality, and domestic services. What are domestic services? WELFARE programs.

Guess what would help their tourism and hospitality industries? Opening the border with the US. You sure as heck couldn't entice Canadians with spending money on local tourism and hospitality services....because they already spend money on things like eating out and visiting places within their own country. It would be like trying to entice people to spend money on Canadian souvenirs....as Canadians.

So the fact is, she can't possibly expect Canadians to spend money as if they're tourists within their own country. If a Canadian eats out, that's just them living their lives. But if an American goes to Canada and eats somewhere, that's tourism. Clearly you can't have Canadians fill that gaps, because they can't suddenly eat twice as much food to fill in the gap, nor make twice as much income to spend that twice as much money.

Now keep all of that in mind, then combine that with what I said about this soo called "extra savings" Canadians supposedly have. There is no actual extra money, in fact, there's even LESS money, because all of those businesses that have suffered from lockdowns and closed borders, are owned by these "better off" households she talked about. They're not "better off", they're drowning. Now the government wants their rainy day money, or money that isn't even for a rainy day, but rather money that they were going to do stuff with. And let's keep in mind that these "better off" households might only have money in the bank because they've liquidated their assets instead of going under and losing everything. So to take from these people, would be like taking the last $20 from a homeless guy.

And let's keep in mind, you can't just make up for a year of lost income by dashing a little money here and there. If you couldn't pay your bills for a year, and still owed it all on credit, how long do you think it will take to pay that back? YEARS, even if you went back to full income again in an instant.

So they're not trying to stimulate the economy. They're trying to use that as a distraction to disguise taking peoples money. Their problem could be solved by simply ending this lockdown madness. And it won't be solved any other way. So how else can they get that "extra" money out of people? By offering nothing, and simply taking. Now clearly they don't want to do that and offer bonds with interest, because they would drown in the interest 10-20 years down the road when people want to cash in those bonds, and there will be people who don't even have 10-20 years left to live, so would never see that money back, so they clearly want to avoid bond interest altogether.

So that leaves only one thing: She want to come up with a way to simply take peoples money, with no promise of repayment. So she's not looking for ideas on how to boost the economy, she's looking for ideas that will allow the government to confiscate that money directly, with as little backlash as possible, without ever having to pay it back.

I get where you're coming from on that, but you really have to pay attention to how she says things and compare that with reality.

First she says that people have saved quite a bit of money because there "hasn't been much to do" in the pandemic, particularly well off households. Nothing is really locked down in Canada, people can do pretty much everything they could do before the pandemic, the only difference is that the border with the US is closed and if a Canadian were to travel abroad and come back, they'd be under a mandatory 2 week quarantine, and maybe they don't travel abroad because of that. But that traveling abroad doesn't make money for Canada does it? Guess what does make money for Canada....when American tourism, which is gone because Canada has kept the border with the US closed since March.

So what she's really doing is trying to say that since Canadians have "saved soo much money" because of the "lockdowns", and that is "extra" money not being spent. When in reality, people haven't really saved anything. Especially when you consider that people who might have had to forego a vacation due to travel restrictions, are either saving that money to go on vacation later, or already spent it shopping online while they were at home with nothing to do. And again, that vacation money was never really going to make money for Canada, because Canadians don't vacation in other parts of Canada, they travel abroad to vacation.

So either way you look at it, the actual reality is that money is as good as spent, there are no actual "extra" savings. If a family vacation is delayed, the money they have to use on that vacation is NOT "extra" savings.

She even outright says what she wants the money to go on: Tourism, hospitality, and domestic services. What are domestic services? WELFARE programs.

Guess what would help their tourism and hospitality industries? Opening the border with the US. You sure as heck couldn't entice Canadians with spending money on local tourism and hospitality services....because they already spend money on things like eating out and visiting places within their own country. It would be like trying to entice people to spend money on Canadian souvenirs....as Canadians.

So the fact is, she can't possibly expect Canadians to spend money as if they're tourists within their own country. If a Canadian eats out, that's just them living their lives. But if an American goes to Canada and eats somewhere, that's tourism. Clearly you can't have Canadians fill that gaps, because they can't suddenly eat twice as much food to fill in the gap, nor make twice as much income to spend that twice as much money.

Now keep all of that in mind, then combine that with what I said about this soo called "extra savings" Canadians supposedly have. There is no actual extra money, in fact, there's even LESS money, because all of those businesses that have suffered from lockdowns and closed borders, are owned by these "better off" households she talked about. They're not "better off", they're drowning. Now the government wants their rainy day money, or money that isn't even for a rainy day, but rather money that they were going to do stuff with. And let's keep in mind that these "better off" households might only have money in the bank because they've liquidated their assets instead of going under and losing everything. So to take from these people, would be like taking the last $20 from a homeless guy.

And let's keep in mind, you can't just make up for a year of lost income by dashing a little money here and there. If you couldn't pay your bills for a year, and still owed it all on credit, how long do you think it will take to pay that back? YEARS, even if you went back to full income again in an instant.

So they're not trying to stimulate the economy. They're trying to use that as a distraction to disguise taking peoples money. Their problem could be solved by simply ending this lockdown madness. And it won't be solved any other way. So how else can they get that "extra" money out of people? By offering nothing, and simply taking. Now clearly they don't want to do that and offer bonds with interest, because they would drown in the interest 10-20 years down the road when people want to cash in those bonds, and there will be people who don't even have 10-20 years left to live, so would never see that money back, so they clearly want to avoid bond interest altogether.

So that leaves only one thing: She want to come up with a way to simply take peoples money, with no promise of repayment.

I get where you're coming from on that, but you really have to pay attention to how she says things and compare that with reality.

First she says that people have saved quite a bit of money because there "hasn't been much to do" in the pandemic, particularly well off households. Nothing is really locked down in Canada, people can do pretty much everything they could do before the pandemic, the only difference is that the border with the US is closed and if a Canadian were to travel abroad and come back, they'd be under a mandatory 2 week quarantine, and maybe they don't travel abroad because of that. But that traveling abroad doesn't make money for Canada does it? Guess what does make money for Canada....when American tourism, which is gone because Canada has kept the border with the US closed since March.

So what she's really doing is trying to say that since Canadians have "saved soo much money" because of the "lockdowns", and that is "extra" money not being spent. When in reality, people haven't really saved anything. Especially when you consider that people who might have had to forego a vacation due to travel restrictions, are either saving that money to go on vacation later, or already spent it shopping online while they were at home with nothing to do. And again, that vacation money was never really going to make money for Canada, because Canadians don't vacation in other parts of Canada, they travel abroad to vacation.

So either way you look at it, the actual reality is that money is as good as spent, there are no actual "extra" savings. If a family vacation is delayed, the money they have to use on that vacation is NOT "extra" savings.

She even outright says what she wants the money to go on: Tourism, hospitality, and domestic services. What are domestic services? WELFARE programs.

Guess what would help their tourism and hospitality industries? Opening the border with the US. You sure as heck couldn't entice Canadians with spending money on local tourism and hospitality services....because they already spend money on things like eating out and visiting places within their own country. It would be like trying to entice people to spend money on Canadian souvenirs....as Canadians.

So the fact is, she can't possibly expect Canadians to spend money as if they're tourists within their own country. If a Canadian eats out, that's just them living their lives. But if an American goes to Canada and eats somewhere, that's tourism. Clearly you can't have Canadians fill that gaps, because they can't suddenly eat twice as much food to fill in the gap, nor make twice as much income to spend that twice as much money.

Now keep all of that in mind, then combine that with what I said about this soo called "extra savings" Canadians supposedly have. There is no actual extra money, in fact, there's even LESS money, because all of those businesses that have suffered from lockdowns and closed borders, are owned by these "better off" households she talked about. They're not "better off", they're drowning. Now the government wants their rainy day money, or money that isn't even for a rainy day, but rather money that they were going to do stuff with. And let's keep in mind that these "better off" households might only have money in the bank because they've liquidated their assets instead of going under and losing everything. So to take from these people, would be like taking the last $20 from a homeless guy.

And let's keep in mind, you can't just make up for a year of lost income by dashing a little money here and there. If you couldn't pay your bills for a year, and still owed it all on credit, how long do you think it will take to pay that back? YEARS, even if you went back to full income again in an instant.

So they're not trying to stimulate the economy. They're trying to use that as a distraction to disguise taking peoples money.