bigroy

Tell this to separated moms with kids. In most cases Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to the separated dad. Remember, it's the parent with the lower income that gets the 1200 dollars - which will be the dad - because with the child support, the mom's income is most often higher than the dad's. She's not taxed on child support income ... but it's still income. In most cases, Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to dads who've left their families. And, no separated mom has to be reminded that the dad only has to pay her the amount of child support that is ordered by the court. So, the money for his children, will go into his new family unit - assuming he's remarried which most are. Just ask separated moms, how often the kid's dads give more money to the mom, than the amount ordered by the courts. Harper - some policy wonk - emphasis on the wonk

Tell this to separated moms with kids. In most cases Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to the separated dad. Remember, it's the parent with the lower income that gets the 1200 dollars - which will be the dad - because with the child support, the mom's income is most often higher than the dad's. She's not taxed on child support income ... but it's still income. In most cases, Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to dads who've left their families. And, no separated mom has to be reminded that the dad only has to pay her the amount of child support that is ordered by the court. So, the money for his children, will go into his new family unit - assuming he's remarried which most are. Just ask separated moms, how often the kid's dads give more money to the mom, than the amount ordered by the courts. Harper - some policy wonk - emphasis on the "wonk." bigroy p.s. - the only parent getting the money without clawback is the parent who is in the middle-high income bracket - that's what Harper said - middle&high income brackets only get it without clawback.

I'm thinking this non-confidence motion is not constitutional. I can't see any motion being defined as a non-confidence motion unless it is a money bill. I'm prepared to be educated on the subject. I recall studying the King-Byng affair of 1924 ... if you're interested, see: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/parli...al/history.html I'm thinking the GG has the power to tell the gov't that this, so-called "non-confidence motion" is not a non- confidence motion, at all. And to get back to work. Which is what the majority of Canadians are telling them - we don't want an elex'n right now and the polls all confirm that. Hey, not that we should be governed by polls, but we don't want an elex'n and we don't want to be governed by a crew of foaming at the mouth politicians in rut over the possibility they may gain some minute edge on the other - at our great expense.