reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims to help the environment while creating jobs, enabling them to stand up to the Americans from a position of strength. In response to criticisms about oil and gas subsidies and the industrial carbon tax, the speaker states that capital cost allowances are standard across corporate garments of industry. They claim to have answered this question previously, suggesting the questioner doesn't understand the tax code. The speaker also states that the biggest component of that was the cost of building.

Speaker 0 questions the legitimacy of government spending, implying items like hammers and toilet seats don't actually cost $20,000 and $30,000 respectively. Speaker 1 objects to this line of questioning, stating it is devastating to their case.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

Speaker 1 states that a deal with Canada is not being held up, but rather, there are different concepts being considered. Speaker 1 favors tariffs because they are simple, easy, and precise. Mark has a more complex, but also very good, idea. They are going to consider both concepts. Speaker 1 believes a deal is achievable if both parties agree.

The speaker wants viewers to see something important before opening a link. The link is to a Bank of Canada post from February 22, 2022. The post addresses the question of whether the Bank of Canada printed cash to finance the federal government, stating that they didn't. It explains that the Bank of Canada bought existing government bonds from banks on the open market to support and ensure a strong and stable economy during the pandemic. This action was intended to unblock frozen markets and support households, companies, and governments.

The speaker explains how private banks and the government operate, highlighting how the government borrows money from banks with interest, leading to inflation and less real money for Canadians. They discuss how banks create money out of thin air through loans, resulting in a debt-based economy. The speaker advocates for the government to borrow directly from the Bank of Canada to eliminate debt, suggesting a fair tax system to repay the bank. They emphasize the need to stop the current banking system's exploitation and ensure a debt-free future for the next generation.

**Speaker 0:** 212 Democrats voted against no tax on tips, Social Security, and overtime. If the government makes money and spends it responsibly, taxes aren't necessary. The new administration is holding the government accountable, and people are mad about it. **Speaker 1:** There's no tax on tips, overtime, or Social Security in the budget resolution. Taxes are normal. This utopia where nobody pays taxes isn't going to work. Read the budget before lecturing people about it.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about their populist strategy, which involves appealing to people's emotions and using strong ideological language. Speaker 1 denies talking about left or right and questions who would say they are like Donald Trump. Speaker 0 mentions that many Canadians might think so, but doesn't provide specific names. Speaker 1 asks for evidence and the conversation becomes unclear. Speaker 0 then asks why Canadians should trust Speaker 1 with their vote. Speaker 1 responds by promising to bring common sense to the country, criticizing the current government's handling of the economy, and pledging to cap spending, cut waste, balance the budget, and reduce inflation and interest rates. They claim to have the only common sense plan to improve people's buying power.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government funding for scientific and medical research, focusing on a grant referred to as a Doge grant and a series of other NSF-funded projects. The exchange opens with Speaker 0 asking, “What is a birthing person?” and presses Speaker 1 to identify who birthing people are, including whether it is another word for a woman. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with the Doge grant and notes that he takes a position that “all kinds of government research, medical, pharmacy” should be considered, but does not clarify the term further. Speaker 0 labels the term as erasure language and asks again whether a conference titled “gender equity in the mathematical study of commutative algebra” is a valid form of government spending. Speaker 1 replies that mathematical research of all types is deserving of government support. Speaker 0 asks about “women and non binary mathematicians” as described on the National Science Foundation’s website. Speaker 1 again supports government investment in mathematics broadly, stating, “I think all kinds of government investment should be dedicated toward mathematics.” When Speaker 0 questions whether there should be any limit on spending, Speaker 1 reiterates that he is talking about Doge, and notes he is not familiar with the particular grant but supports government investment in mathematical biology. Speaker 0 introduces another grant, “TranscendentHealth, adapting an LGB plus inclusive teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys,” and asks whether that is a useful form of tax spending. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with that grant but emphasizes that bench research and government investment in scientific and pharmacotherapy are important, though he does not describe the grant’s specifics. Speaker 0 then asks about “the racialized basis of trait judgments from faces,” stating it is a $500,000 NSF grant, and asks for Speaker 1’s view. Speaker 1 confirms unfamiliarity with the subject matter but again asserts that government investment in all kinds of scientific research is of utmost importance. The conversation moves to “prostate steroid therapy and cardiovascular risk in the transgender female,” with Speaker 0 pressing on the usefulness of funding. Speaker 1 maintains that government investment in scientific research is important, without further qualification. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 thanking Speaker 1 for his testimony, and Speaker 1 acknowledging appreciation for the opportunity to testify.

The speakers discuss the allocation of funds to Ukraine and the need for clarity on whether it is additional money or part of the existing budget. Speaker 2 strongly advises against a motion that suggests taking the funds from the existing budget. Speaker 3 discourages the motion as well, but Speaker 5 believes there is a chance it will pass. Speaker 2 emphasizes that if the motion is approved, they will not execute it. Speaker 4 suggests removing a certain part of the motion to ensure the funds for Ukraine remain secure.

Speaker 0 states this is the most important election in most of their lifetimes. They claim Trump has made unacceptable threats against the economy, workers, and sovereignty. They believe a particular leader can address these issues and needs support. Speaker 1 accuses Catherine McKenna of losing track of 20,000 contracts worth $236,000,000,000, which they claim is why she is no longer in parliament. Speaker 1 repeats the accusation and insults Speaker 0. Speaker 1 continues to harass Catherine, repeating the $236,000,000,000 figure and using abusive language. Speaker 1 then states that everyone is "fucking retarded."

The speakers discuss the allocation of funds to Ukraine and the need for clarity on whether it is additional money or part of the existing budget. Speaker 2 strongly advises against a motion that suggests taking the funds from the existing budget. Speaker 3 discourages the motion, but Speaker 5 believes there is a chance it will pass. Speaker 2 emphasizes that if the motion is approved, they will not execute it. Speaker 4 suggests removing a certain part of the motion to ensure the funds for Ukraine remain secure.

The speaker is asked about their strategy and is accused of using populist tactics. They deny talking about left or right and being influenced by Donald Trump. The questioner asks why Canadians should trust them with their vote, but the speaker doesn't understand the question. They then explain their plan to bring common sense back to the country by capping spending, cutting waste, balancing the budget, and reducing inflation and interest rates. They claim to be the only one with a plan to improve the buying power of Canadians' paychecks.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a written proposal regarding extending Biden-era COVID subsidies under the ACA. Speaker 0 asks if there is a proposal in writing they can read. Speaker 1 confirms there is a simple proposal: two sentences to be added to any proposal that would extend the ACA benefits for one year. He says this would be the right thing to do and could be put into Leader Thune’s open-government proposal, as it “doesn't need a vote. It can't be blocked by anybody.” He notes that the current IAC fix would be without income caps, meaning people who earn very high incomes would continue to receive subsidies, and says they would negotiate once the credits are extended, which he claims the other side previously refused to do. Speaker 0 questions whether, for one year, people making millions of dollars would still receive the COVID-era subsidies. Speaker 1 responds by saying the senator from Ohio “ignores that 99% of people” and asserts the goal is not to hurt ordinary people but to address the difficulties faced by those paying thousands of dollars more. He says they are willing to fix what was proposed in negotiation, but without hurting everyday people, and asserts he yields the floor. Speaker 0 asks for clarification of what was heard from the minority leader, to recap for those who missed it. Speaker 1 summarizes: the minority leader acknowledged there is no written proposal from Democrats for people to review; he acknowledged that his plan would allow millionaires to receive Biden-era COVID subsidies, with “no income caps.” Speaker 0 indicates he would have asked further questions if the minority leader had remained, including whether he would continue $0 premiums and whether the funds would go directly to insurance companies. Speaker 1 asserts additional points for emphasis: this money “does not go to people on Obamacare,” it is “a check written from the federal government to the wealthiest insurance companies on the planet,” and the plan would preserve subsidies for millionaires, provide $0 premiums that are alleged to have “enormous levels of fraud,” and “enrich insurance companies even more.”

Speaker 0 questions whether they are at war and what the cause and resources are. They claim prolonging the war is not helping Ukraine or Ukrainian people seeking shelter in their own country. Speaker 1 responds that the parliament has been united in providing military, infrastructure, and financial support to the people of Ukraine. They state that the Ukrainian people clearly want to be part of a free Europe and not part of the Russian Federation, where there is no democracy or freedom of speech.

A company that never had federal government contracts suddenly received a billion dollars for IT, even though it doesn't do IT and has only 4 employees in a basement cottage headquarters. The speaker questions why this suspicious company started getting contracts exactly 21 days after the prime minister took office. The prime minister's response is that the relevant authorities need to investigate the situation. Meanwhile, the focus on the government's side is on making life more affordable for Canadians, such as attracting healthcare workers, forgiving student loans for rural doctors and nurses, and accelerating housing construction. The conservative party is blocking these initiatives, but the government will continue to support Canadians.

Do you support cutting Medicaid, particularly regarding federal investment known as FMAP? I consider it a restroom break. President Trump hasn't instructed me to cut Medicaid; he wants to improve it. So, if President Trump asked you to cut Medicaid, would you do it? It's not my decision to cut Medicaid; that falls to Congress. I will focus on working with them. You seem hesitant to answer. Let’s move on. Do you know how many states will be affected?

Justin Trudeau claims he doesn't need to explain how he will fund his promises, suggesting that the budget will balance itself. However, he has now acknowledged that he will run a modest deficit for three years, which he describes as so small it’s barely noticeable. This modest deficit is projected to be around $10 billion each year. We've seen similar situations before, particularly in Ontario, where modest deficits have led to significant financial issues.

Thank you. It’s good to be here. We've been discussing how to pay for my plans. They're logical, but Washington isn't. How will I convince a divided Congress to support them, given their past behavior? It will involve taxes. Economists across the spectrum agree, although Congress isn't made up of economists. I understand the concern, but that's the reality.

Speaker Jared Bernstein at the White House explains that the US government prints money and then uses that money to sell bonds, which is how it borrows. He emphasizes that the government definitely prints money and definitely lends that money by selling bonds, so the government prints money and then lends it by selling bonds. He acknowledges that some of the language around this topic—and the concepts—can be unnecessarily confusing, particularly the terms used in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), but he insists there is no question that the government prints money and uses that money to lend by selling bonds. He repeats the sequence: the government prints money, and they use that money to sell bonds and borrow. He admits confusion, saying, “I’m just I don’t I can’t really talk,” but reiterates the basic point: the government clearly prints money, and it clearly borrows, otherwise the debt and deficit conversations wouldn’t exist. Speaker 1 continues by trying to clarify the mechanics in simple terms: the government prints money and then uses that money to sell bonds, which is how borrowing occurs. He repeatedly confirms the process: money is printed, used to issue bonds, and people buy those bonds, providing the funds the government borrows. He notes that sometimes the language and concepts can be confusing, but the core idea remains that money is printed and bonds are sold to lend that money to the government. Speaker 3 then poses a meta-question, asking whether conventional economists truly understand what is being discussed or if they do not understand the topic at all, suggesting skepticism about whether mainstream economic understanding aligns with the descriptions being given or with the terminology used to discuss these issues. He questions whether conventional economists grasp what is being spoken of, or whether they are not understanding it. Across the exchange, the central mechanism discussed is that the government prints money and uses that money to sell bonds, with bonds being purchased by lenders, thereby financing government borrowing. The speakers acknowledge the potential confusion surrounding the terminology, especially in relation to Modern Monetary Theory, but they maintain that the fundamental process is clear: money creation by the government, followed by borrowing through the sale of bonds. The dialogue concludes with a reflective note from Speaker 3 about the level of understanding among conventional economists regarding these concepts.

Speaker 0 asks about the amount of money from USAID that went to Wuhan and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the accusation and admits to not having the specific details of USAID funding. Speaker 0 presses for a clear answer, but Speaker 1 deflects and requests respectful questions from the audience. Speaker 0 insists on a denial, calling Speaker 1's response a nondenial denial.

Speaker 1, the minister of finance and deputy prime minister, clarifies that it is not their responsibility to designate who is a terrorist. They explain that there are authorities specifically assigned to handle such tasks. Speaker 0 mentions a meeting with Dave from CSIS, where they discuss the need to designate a group as terrorists. However, Speaker 1 reiterates that it is not their role to make that designation.

Speaker 0 asks what you are here to talk about, says “Thank you very much,” and asks, “Any votes in the prime minister?”

Mister President, can you address the funding pause? I don’t think this is the right time for that question. The government is performing well, and we are making significant cuts. Thank you.

Speaker 0 expressed disappointment with a large spending bill, claiming it increases the budget deficit. Speaker 0 connected this to the work being done by the Doge team. Speaker 1 stated that everything done on Doge gets wiped out in the first year due to the bill. Speaker 0 stated that a bill can be big or beautiful, but not both, in their opinion.