Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionseconomyStarted 3yrs agoActive 11mos ago

Should the government increase funding for small businesses?

The Business Development Bank promotes entrepreneurship through three main programs: BDC Financing, BDC Subordinate Financing and BDC Venture Capital. BDC Financing provides commercial loans to eligible businesses that include more flexible terms than loans provided by conventional lenders. Loans are available for everything from start-up costs and working capital to market expansion and business succession. The program also provides a special set of lending services specifically targeted to Aboriginal entrepreneurs.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Province/Territory:

37 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3yrs3Y

Yes

 @9JRZ6PZConservativefrom Ontario  agreed…11mos11MO

peoples stores are being closed down because they cant afford it and the government should fund them or at least give them more money while there looking for a new job.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3yrs3Y

No, but decrease taxes for small businesses and encourage entrepreneurship

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3yrs3Y

No

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3yrs3Y

Yes, but funding should come from large corporations instead of taxpayers

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3yrs3Y

Yes, as long as it is not based on race

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3yrs3Y

Yes, but only for environmentally sustainable business ideas

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...3yrs3Y

Yes, but only during COVID

 @9DZP8FJfrom British Columbia  answered…1yr1Y

the government should not subsidze any businesses

 @9DW7GRSfrom Ontario  answered…1yr1Y

Low interest loans with negotiated term length

 @9DQSF44from Alberta  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but only if the government gets a share or dividends. And any research or innovations discovered to be at public interest should be non patient-able.

 @957XY3Dfrom Alberta  answered…2yrs2Y

only until they can support themselves

 @6X6BJL2from British Columbia  answered…3yrs3Y

No, instead increase taxation and reduce funding for large corporation

 @syraxaxefrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

No the government should not fund anything but Healthcare and military

 @8VK26TNfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Not a bail out fund. But a low interest fund

 @8VJYCRWConservativefrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Sustainable business ideas

 @8VJW4MYfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

It depends on the circumstances and on a case by case basis

 @8VJNWNBfrom Alberta  answered…3yrs3Y

No, but decrease taxes for small businesses to encourage entrepreneurship

 @8VJFBM5Conservativefrom Alberta  answered…3yrs3Y

Only if they are struggling because of the current pandemic.

 @8VJDVKCfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Tax benefits for low revenue/ small businesses.

 @8VJD58YPeople’sfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

During covid yes

 @8VJCKT9from Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Yea but not to refugees . Big corps should pay a bit more to support small businesses

 @8VJ9TBNfrom Alberta  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, in the form of grants, not in subsidies.

 @8VJ7CMYfrom Alberta  answered…3yrs3Y

But only for small start ups or family run businesses that gross below a certain threshold of profits.

 @8VJ399Dfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, as long as it is accessible for all Canadians

 @8VHZW9Qfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Only for essential businesses.

 @8VHYFKKfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Depending on its importance, prior revenue and quality of business

 @8VHXKHKfrom British Columbia  answered…3yrs3Y

yes but the small business should have a certain amount of money before

 @8VJY7NCfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes but they shouldn't be making it race based, as they are doing.

 @8VJ8ZRDfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, to help small business with 6 or less employees

 @8VJ7P3Xfrom British Columbia  answered…3yrs3Y

The funds should come from the taxation of big business

 @8VJ6F57from Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

dfercxmkj, hi

 @8VHKCHKfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes as part of Covid-19 recovery

 @9BDQNWJfrom Newfoundland  answered…2yrs2Y

if this business is good to the government, that is for sure.

 @97V598Pfrom Ontario  answered…2yrs2Y

Right now is good

 @97BRZXPfrom Ontario  answered…2yrs2Y

yes, but decreasing taxes and contribution burdens on smaller businesses could be productive

 @957Y89Sfrom Alberta  answered…2yrs2Y

yes, only till they get on their own feet (within one year)

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 12hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree