To reach its goal, the government would need to be building at least 100,000 homes a year. The statement projects the highest number of starts to be 95,300 in 2027, which is a decrease of 500 from the 2024 budget. 

but, given that the birth and death rate roughly cancel each other out in canada (domestic population growth is roughly 50,000 per year), population growth over these years is going to be due almost solely to immigration and should be in the 400,000/yr range. almost all of that will end up in ontario.

why is the government setting targets of 100,000 houses per year (that it cannot meet) when it knows immigration will be over 300,000/year for the next ten years?

targets in the short run should be closer to 500,000 per year than 100,000 per year.

in response, the government wants to send you $200, but only if you paid taxes last year.

do we want to be a third world country? this is a policy framework that has no outcome besides the imminent ghettoization of our cities. when the number of people greatly exceeds the structural framework to house them (by hundreds of thousands of people, or millions of people, if you follow the numbers in the projections), the only possible outcome is widespread slums, as people struggle to exist on the streets.

are they expecting people to die of covid? of opiate overdoses? of starvation? of exposure to the cold?

how do these numbers zero out?

i'd like to get out of here, if i only could, but i'm trapped here. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/fall-economic-statement-ontario-2024-ford-bethlenfalvy-1.7367635

yeah. the media wants us to hate india for some reason, as though i care about indian separatists.

india is an ally.

i'm more concerned about the chinese, who are actually our enemies, and i consider this sudden two minutes of hate directed at india to be an extremely foreboding red flag as to the level of infiltration by the chinese into the liberal and conservatives parties.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cse-cyber-threats-china-1.7367719

i mean, i hope harris is at least enjoying her joyful happy 15 minutes of fame, because her political career, which should have been permanently over after her disastrous 2020 run but which got a lifeline she didn't deserve by a person with very bad judgement, will actually be permanently over in about a week.

i mean, she gets to go on stage with beyonce and stuff. wow. fun times.

hope she's taking pictures.

is she trying to win an election or is she trying to mediate through a divorce proceeding?

this is why she's on track for a startling loss that would have seemed impossible six months ago: she's trying to take some kind of high road, instead of trying to win.

https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-trump-election-garbage-supporters-3d2ea66e3027ddc4bc2b30c13bf7b554

this article claims somebody hacked the s-300s.

likely.

but, it's not immediately clear who, and it might not be who you think.

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/f-35-vs-s-400-predecessor-after/

these systems should be able to take an israeli jet or two down, but russia never shoots on israel - not in syria and now not in iran.

this suggests some level of communcation.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-strike-on-iran-took-out-radar-sets-to-guide-ballistic-missiles-report/

kamala harris would make an absolutely terrible president.

if you listen to election strategists, they will almost all tell you that calling your opponents garbage is a better strategy than pretending you represent everybody (when you obviously don't and can't). i don't think many of the people in the audience at msg last week are very excited about the premise of kamala harris representing them. in response, they might call her a stupid cunt.

the example is sort of cartoonish, but it actually demonstrates the problem with kamala harris' strategy, which she doesn't appear to understand is the core of the reason she's losing. you don't win elections with happy happy, joy joy. you have to savage your enemies.

biden's approach may have been a little garbled, but that's biden. that's always been biden.

how many elections has biden won as a senator, vp and/or president?

how many elections has kamala harris won? i actually believe the answer to this second question is one. she has a long track record of failure when running for office, and there's a reason for it.

you expect a person like kamala harris to blame everybody else except herself, including the person that got out of her way, and shouldn't have. democrats should interpret that as a failure of character and very briskly move on.

the liberals bizarrely actually think this is a beneficial narrative for them.

it could be a gigantic gift to the ndp if the election actually gets framed this way. singh is hapless and hopeless, but this might be the narrative required for them to win their first election in canada, as soft left voters abandon the liberals in droves over their refusal to fund oas fairly in the midst of record inflation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bloc-bring-down-government-1.7366655

this is going to be a final prediction.

the chances of the democrats winning are very slim.

the chances of a comfortable republican win are much higher.

in the end, this is more of a vote against kamala harris than a vote in favour of donald trump, where it matters.

i hope the democrats learn their lesson about candidates that are like kamala harris.