-
Posts
9,555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
47
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Moonbox
-
Let's go over some math then. If rent and utility rates are the cause of distress for the poor, let's check the assumptions we have to make for the refund of 10% of a poor person's income to be justifiable. First, we have to agree that 100% of this person's income will NOT go towards paying utilities and rent. It's probably more like 60%. Gasoline is excluded under the plan, so we'll ignore transportation costs. Under these assumptions, a family with two kids making $20,000 a year would be paying $12,000/year in rent and utilities. If, like you said, a carbon tax would increase things like rent and utilities by 10%, then a $1200/year tax credit would be enough for them to break even. This family, however, is getting $2200 back, which is approaching DOUBLE what some very basic math is suggesting reasonable. According to you, this is where the tax is targeting the poor unfairly. Let's take things one step further though. Let's suggest that the remaining things the poor have to pay for, like food and consumer goods, also increases by 10%. If that's the case, then their cost of living goes up by a full 10%, for which the justifiable tax credit is STILL not $2200.00. It would be $2000. The only assumption that JUSTIFIES a $2200/year tax reduction for a family with 2 kids earning $20,000/year is if the cost of EVERYTHING they buy goes up by 11%. If the costs go up for them, then the cost for everyone else goes up as well. Regardless of whether or not an average income family can invest in more efficient energy usage, their cost of living under the only scenario that JUSTIFIES an 11% tax reduction for the poor (without being labled as income redistribution), goes up by 11%. Certainly they can save money by consuming less, but none of them are receiving anywhere near (in $$ value) the same sort of tax reductions the poor are receiving. Like I've already said, the Green Shift is one of two scenarios. Either: 1) It is income redistribution benefiting the poor or 2) The poor end up breaking even and everyone else ends up paying more for everything. Both scenarios highlight giant fibbing by the Liberals. Don Drummond's endorsement of the plan wasn't exactly glowing. He said the plan was 'sensible' and that there would be big winners and big losers. His position would suggest scenario #1.
-
I was browsing PEI newspaper websites and they were extremely negative on the carbon tax.
-
I highly doubt anyone is going to get banned for calling you Dobby. Way to nitpick though. I would really like a citation for that. I've not been able to find anything stating anything like that. I've not really been able to find anything PERIOD on what this will cost us. Assuming that the Green Shift WILL cost the poor 10% of their income in extra costs, care to explain where these costs are coming from? Is heating, energy or transportation going to get 10% more expensive, or everything in general? Forget the notion that the poor can't improve their energy efficiency for a second. What is it that makes life 10% more expensive for the poor? For what you're saying to be true that would mean that the Green Shift is ultimately a 10% tax on consumption. It's a 10% consumption tax where the ONLY people who get their money back are the poor. Under this scenario, providing you can prove to me that's what the experts were saying will happen, Harper is right and this is going to have an ENORMOUS negative effect on the economy. If people are being over taxed and the over taxed portion goes to the poor so that they can continue to live inefficiently (their fault or not), it stands to reason that the economic effect of this plan would be billions of dollars taken out of the economy. That's JUST what we need right now....right???? Dion's not lying? Wait...reallly: "Many of them (Canadians) think that the propaganda of the Conservatives is right, and that their taxes will go up because of the Liberals. No! It will be good for your wallet and good for the planet," Dion said in the community east of Ottawa. Dion says.... According to you, it's not good for the poor's wallet, which is the group standing to get the biggest tax cuts from the plan. If we go back to the math....assuming energy or transportation costs or whatever else we're talking about go up 10%, if the poor aren't coming out on top, who is? If not the poor, then nobody. Who's wallet IS it good for? My math is suggesting the poor, but according to you not even them. Just explain specifically how the carbon tax is going to cost the poor an extra $2200/year. We'll go from there.
-
This is coming from the guy who got upset someone called him 'dobby'. I already acknowledged it! Scroll up a little! My response was that there is no possible way to justify the AMOUNT of concessions made in the plan towards the poor. The math doesn't work out! Again, because you have such an amazing talent to squirm away from a question you can't answer, I'll repeat my question. Can you go over the MATH we me explaining how the carbon tax would increase the cost of living for the poorest Canadians by over 10%??? That would be the only way the government could justify a 10% income tax reduction for the poor, which is what the Green Shift calculator is showing. Don't even bother replying unless you're willing to address that. I've wasted too much time responding to your avoidance of the CENTRAL issue in my argument. This is the difference between my argument and yours. Your argument is fervent repetition of what Dion is telling us. My argument is going over numbers taken directly off the Liberal website. This is why I can't take your arguments seriously. I JUST went over this only 1 post previous. I asked you to stop bringing this up with me because I've OPENLY acknowledged that Harper has put ZERO priority on the environment right now and that it's VERY likely he'll never follow through on his plan. Does it make him a liar? As much a liar as Dion for claiming the Green Shift is revenue neutral. Revenue neutral for the government means NOTHING. Whether my money goes towards debt reduction, hospitals, welfare or thinly disguised subsidization of the poor (the Green Shift), the bottom line is that when the government takes more of my money and I get less back, it's not revenue neutral.
-
The carbon tax doesn't just tax people directly. Transportation, consumer goods etc ALL go up. I understand poor people have trouble being energy efficient. I understand they need to be helped a little. The 'help' in the case of a $20k/year income household with 2 kids, however, amounts to over 10% of their income back in refunds/credits/whatever at $2200. For myself, with a 40k income, I get $400/year back. I am not wasting energy. I live like half a block from work. My house is well insulated and new. The Green Shift doesn't care about this. The Green Shift aims to increase the cost of everything I buy through taxes and give a mathematically unjustifiable proportion of this back to people who can't find better work than Wall-Mart. The Green Shift is NOT going to increase the cost of living for a poor family by 10%. I challenge anyone to provide ANY sort of justification for this. For this to be the case the increased taxes on energy for a poor family would have to account for over 10% of their income! Given this, why are they getting 10% of their income back via the Green Shift? Income redistribution..........
-
That's you being overly sensitive. I directed no insults to you. I apologize if my tone came off as condescending, but it took me about 25 tries to get you to even acknowledge my repeatedly asking you for an answer as to why the poor are the ones seeing (proportionally) a ludicrously high tax benefit compared to the rest of us. This was the best answer you could provide me. What do you say to the fact that a family with 2 kids and a combined income of $20,000 stands to get about $2200 back from the Green Shift whereas a single person making 40k gets about 400? I understand that the poor have less flexibility with their income, but what that SHOULD mean is that they get their tax credits/refunds/reductions increased relative to how much it increases their cost of living. For this to be the case under the current formula, the Green Shift would have to raise carbon prices by over 10%. If that's what the Green Shift is going to do then it is going to be disastrous for the Canadian economy. If that's not happening, then this is income redistribution pure and simple. Again Jdobbin, you're really just towing the party line here. I'm going over MATH with you and you're just repeating what you see Dion saying. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. For the Green Shift to be anything less than income redistribution, someone making 60k a year should at LEAST get as much back as someone making 20k a year. This is 100% not the case. The only conclusion possible is that this is income redistribution. It's just increased taxes and the numbers show that. The economists and experts you have indicated who support the plan do so on the basis that it's an environmental plan that could reduce carbon emissions. NONE of them are refuting that this is income redistribution because economists work with numbers and they see this.
-
Jdobbin I can't be any clearer to you. The Green Shift, by the math, is geared to provide heavily tilted tax relief to Canada's poor. A junior-highschool student could grasp this logic. Follow along with me. The poor, with their miniscule incomes, pay FAR less taxes than the rest of Canadians. You following? In the Green Shift plan, on the Liberal's very own website, the poor are getting FAR MORE money in tax cuts/credits than everyone else. The benefit for a family (2 kids) with a household income of 20k gets $1700 more back per year than I do with a $40k income a year. The fact that I probably use less carbon than this family makes absolutely no difference. That simply isn't how the plan works. The trickle down of increased costs from the tax will end up being paid by everyone. When the poor are getting proportionally WAY WAY WAY WAY more back than they should considering how much taxes they pay, please answer this: HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THIS IS NOT AN INCOME REDISTRIBUTION PLAN?????????
-
Best Conservative Endorsement I have read so far
Moonbox replied to Moonbox's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Keng this is one of the stupidest things I've ever read in this forum. Robert Borden introduced income tax after Canada was involved in WORLD WAR I. R.B. Bennett could do very little about the Great Depression and to suggest that a PM from 80 years ago is a good indication of current conservatives is idiotic. Diefenbaker didn't destroy relations with the Americans any more than Trudeau or Chretien did. The best part is that you can squarely blame Trudeau for both our debt AND bad relations with the States. The debt under Mulroney was relatively SMALLER than it was under Trudeau by the way, when you compare it to GDP and inflation you get the actual REAL numbers. Trudeau ran the biggest deficits. I should add that nobody understands the gravity of the problem with the environment. The globe has been cooling lately, there are just as many experts refuting global warming as proclaiming it, and we're in the middle of economic crisis. Personally, and I guess in the opinion of many Canadians, the environment can wait for sweeping changes AFTER we're all sure we're going to keep our jobs. -
Best Conservative Endorsement I have read so far
Moonbox replied to Moonbox's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
I think the point of the article, especially the part I highlighted, was that the alternative, Dion, is trying to introduce sweeping tax reforms and increased taxes on businesses and households amid an economic crisis. The wisdom of this is non-existant. -
The fact that the Liberals were crippled by public opinion doesn't change the fact that it was a minority and all that all it would take would be a change in public opinion (which can happen in a matter of days) for your point to be meaningless. By changing their habits do you mean making less money and having more kids??? Those are the determinants for the Green Shift calculator on the Liberal's own website. It provides the MOST tax relief to the poor who are hardly paying any taxes anyways and the average Canadian like myself makes up the difference. The simple math indicates that IT IS just an income redistribution just like everyone is saying. Why do you keep bringing this up with me? You and I have had this discussion about 20 times and every time I tell you Harper's plan is a side note in his campaign with no timetable for implementation and no real substance to it. He had to have an environmental plan because it's always an issue that's brought up by the media and in debate. He's just putting ZERO priority on it right now given current economic conditions. Harper's plan is meaningless and I've acknowledged it as such with you. Bringing it up over and over is not scoring any points. It's a straw man policy. They're all lying! All of them! It's naivety on the GRANDEST scale to suggest that the campaign hasn't been absolutely full of distortions and mistruths. Dion has been lying that the current state of the economy is Harper's fault. Harper has been lying that the Green Shift will spark a Trade War. They're ALL lying. What you have to do is look at it from the MATH rather than what they say about each other. Jdobbin you complain most about Harper spending and tax policy. You say Harper spent too much and the GST cut should have been an income tax cut. Fair enough. The alternative that you support, however, is a party that is promising to spend as much or more and is promising the OPPOSITE to tax relief. The MATH, and that really is the most important determinant, shows that it is most certainly a tax increase for anyone but the very poor. Stop ignoring this simple fact. You yourself have cited sources to me saying EXACTLY that. Virtually all of your criticism of Harper is just one big partisan double standard. I've acknowledged all of your criticism of Harper. I don't think he's the best politician ever. His spending has been overboard. He hasn't followed through on election and senate reform. I'm dissapointed with that. Dion is promising worse however. He's promising more taxes for me (i have no kids yet poor me) and he's promising no spending relief whatsoever. His economic plan is non existant and the man can't even answer a simple question without a teleprompter in front of him. Oh and no, Flaherty never left a deficit. That's a fact. Look it up yourself. Dalton McGuinty crying about not having enough money amid massive spending increases doesn't count as evidence either.
-
This is from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. It is owned by the Toronto Star and is typically an EXTREMELY Liberal biased newspaper. I was extremely shocked to see them endorsing Harper but the way they did so I thought to be one of the most thoughtful endorsements I've read yet. Here's the main excerpt. I'll highlight the parts I really felt reflected how I feel: Let's be clear what's at stake. It is an understatement to call the situation grave. The International Monetary Fund warned yesterday that the world economy "is entering a major downturn in the face of the most dangerous financial shock . . . since the 1930s." So far, and Harper is correct to point this out, Canada has escaped the worst of it. We are not in recession. There have been no collapses in our banks or lending institutions. There have been no bailouts. Instead, the Bank of Canada has already intervened to secure the liquidity of our banks and facilitate the flow of money. But we are not an island that can escape the storm. We are a trading nation peering out at thunderclouds and surging seas. As the U.S. and other countries descend into recession, the demand for what we make and grow and take out of the ground will inevitably fall. Then we face losing jobs, businesses and factories. And then we will need not only tax dollars to help those in trouble but a leader with a workable plan of action for spending that money. Unfortunately, it is at this precise moment that Dion and his Liberals are asking Canadians to take a leap of faith that could land them on their backsides in the dust. It is at this precise moment that Dion wants voters to endorse his Green Shift and the major change in Canada's system of taxation and redistributing wealth it would bring. Throughout most of its history, The Record has endorsed Liberals in federal elections. In fact in the past 40 years, there have been only two other occasions on which we did not. However, the Green Shift is a stumbling block we cannot clear. K-W Record Endorsement
-
Why is Harper against the green shift
Moonbox replied to Topaz's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Harper's plan isn't good you're right. The difference is that Harper has placed ZERO priority on his own plan and it will likely never be implemented. -
Wow way to totally miss the point. Minority governments offer spending increases because they need to maintain public opinion or be defeated in parliament. Here is a comparison of pre-election spending promises between Martin 2005 and Harper 2008. Let's dispel the myth that the Liberals somehow don't go on spending benders. 2005 liberal spending announcements Conservative spending announcements 2008 Dude seriously. I already addressed the tax cuts. The tax cuts are not enough to offset the carbon tax. Do the math like I asked. I didn't say they had no choice. I said that a minority government is unstable and pandering by nature. The polls are the only things that keep them in power. Spending helps at the polls, generally speaking. Ask Trudeau. Wait...he's dead nevermind. You're twisting what I say and making it into something it's not. Haha, good one. Comparing Bob Rae, the premier who ran Ontario's biggest deficit EVER, to Flaherty, who balanced Ontario's budget afterwards, isn't really helping your cause. Here's what Drummond said: ""I think it will be revenue neutral, but there will be no individual or company in the country that will exactly get back what it pays back in carbon tax," Drummond told CBC News on Wednesday. "There will be a lot of winners and a lot of losers." That's exactly what I've been saying. It is an income equalization formula. It gives MORE back to the people paying little taxes and gives LESS back to the people who are actually paying high taxes. All you have to do is go to the Green Shift calculator to see this. I get about $400 back for it. A family with 2 kids making a household income of 20k gets $2100 back. What do you say about that?? THOSE are the income taxes you've been going on about.
-
Why is Harper against the green shift
Moonbox replied to Topaz's topic in Federal Politics in Canada
Harper is against the Green Shift because it is an income redistribution tax where the only people who will see a net benefit are the squirrels and the very poorest Canadians. Anyone with even a reasonable income will pay more taxes. You can prove this yourself with the Green Shift Calculator on the Liberal website by seeing how much a poor family gets in tax credits compared to an average or well off family. They don't even compare. -
The tories did not in any way shape or form rule with a majority. The tories ruled with a minority that was only sustained by extremely low approval ratings for Dion's Liberals. Dion made it very clear he was intent on bringing down the government...when it looked good for him. Given this fact it's impossible to argue that the CPC had free reign to do whatever they wanted. This is was the longest lasting minority ever and history has shown they pretty much never last. The record of the Chretien years is not really what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about what Dion's PLANS are. His PLANS are to raise taxes for the average household and spend heavily. In the absense of data showing Harper's spending has been as high as Dion's plans are to be, Dion naturally looks like he's going to have the looser wallet. Given that Harper HAS reduced taxes and Dion plans to RAISE them, it's a tough sell convincing anyone that Dion is going to leave more money in our wallets. Paul Martin was spending at an almost identical rate to Harper. You act like the 1% difference between them is meaningful. Harper had 1 year of good economic growth. 2007 started off well but the current credit crisis and Harper was warning people of impending economic decline back THEN. The Liberals had literally 13 of the best growth Canada's almost ever seen with hardly a hiccup the whole time. Mulroney was elected because Trudeau left the country in heavier debt (relative to inflation and GDP etc) than he did. Not that Mulroney was a good PM, but he at least had 2 recessions to deal with during his term, whereas Trudeau just dived into debt with no reason. The point I'm trying to make here is that if we go far enough back we can both find examples of horrible governing. The last conservative government was a full 15 years ago. We saw the difference between Chretien and Trudeau Liberals, and we're seeing the difference between Mulroney and Harper Conservatives. The comparisons are pathetically weak at best. This is the problem that a lot of people have with the Liberals, including myself. The fact that they balanced the budget something like 10 years ago and then rode the prosperity train does not magically make Dion the best choice for PM. He's a different man with a different group of people working for him. Just like Chretien wasn't Trudeau, Dion doesn't appear to be Chretien. Bob Rae is one of the Liberal's most prominent figures. He was the worst premier Ontario ever had. The Liberal party right now is full of bozos like Rae. No, they don't. Please provide me a citation, as you like to say, where any reputable economist explains how the Liberals are planning to to provide $4.5 Billion in tax credits to the poor without the average business and family in Canada paying the difference. The math is very, very, very simple. $15 Billion in extra taxes. $4.5 of that too the poor. $1B for Green research. Since the poor receiving the $4.5 Billion pay almost NO tax relative to the rest of us, the MATH indicates that the people who are actually PAYING the $15 Billion in taxes are only getting $9.5 billion back in tax credits. Are you following me? For every dollar we spend in carbon taxes and its trickle costs, we get less than $0.66 back. The economists ARE saying this. Your citation from the CTF the other day confirmed this. That's really not a compelling argument. Harper's spending announcements were largely costed and budgeted prior to the election and as far as I could tell they were over 4 years. Dion has promised over $80 billion over 10 years. Do the math. What spending promises has Harper come up with that fill in the spread? Really?
-
Well there's one thing you and I agree on 100% I agree with that again. I don't mind the idea of a Green Shift. If everyone benefited equally from it I wouldn't complain about it. The Green Shift as it stands to me is a blatent equalization strategy pandering to the poor. I'm ALWAYS against that sort of thing. I agree again. Harper ran a minority government where the Liberals were watching public opinion with their fingers on the election trigger. It's extremely difficult to push forward an economic platform when the majority of parliament is totally against you. With that said, our budget remained balanced and your claims have been wildly exaggerated. The record of the Chretien Liberals isn't really good enough to prove your point either. The debt compared to GDP was highest under the Trudeau Liberals. Liberals are EVERY bit as guilty for our current debt load as Mulroney PC's are and just because they cleaned up the mess they began doesn't mean they deserve our admiration. We all know how they DID balance the budget too. It was by hoarding wealth in Ottawa and leaving the provinces broke. The record I have to follow for Harper is that he lowered my taxes and he never ran a deficit. Dion is PROMISING higher taxes and higher spending. Regardless of whether or not Harper went over his own budgets, it's EXTREMELY loopy logic to claim that Dion is going to be spending less and lowering taxes when he is PROMISING to do the opposite. Absolutely. The very last thing we need right now is to have the banks get themselves in trouble. We are better off than the rest of the world right now because they have relatively speaking kept themselves out of the mess. Some of the posters here have right wing views well beyond my own. I think CPP is necessary but only because the majority of Canadians are too stupid to save for themselves. They're stupid with their money and they will depend on the government in their old age to support them. What you've done is pick a favorable reference point. On this logic the Liberals should never have been elected in 1993 because of Trudeau spending. Balancing the budget during pretty much the most prosperous time in the economy for the last 40 years is not a remarkable accomplishment for Chretien especially considering how he did it. Brian Mulroney was a lousy PM but you can't compare his spending to Harper's for the same reason you can't compare Chretien's to Trudeau's. They weren't even in the same league. Harper is being about as dishonest with this as Dion is about not increasing taxes. There are glaring omissions in both. For Harper, he omits that he hasn't set really much of ANY priority or time table for his plan. For Dion, he omits that his Green Shift is an income equalization formula and business and average taxpapayers WILL be taxed more. You pick your poison, but one of these plans is the focus of an entire election platform and the other is a side note. Which one do you think is less likely to be turned into legislation??? This is one of those fuzzy contradictions that you confuse the issues with. I've acknowledged this with you on dozens of occassions that Harper has broken numerous election promises. I look at the campaign pragmatically, however, and see that despite Harper's falling short of election promises, what he has done and proposes to do are MUCH better than what Dion has PROMISED to do. Your rebuttal is then to say that perhaps Dion is a liar and the Liberals central focus in the campaign may end up as a broken promise as well?????
-
You're a little sensitive I think. I've really not seen this. It's a fact you're right. It's also a technicality. When you're being highly critical of Harper's spending budget it's almost implied that there's a better alternative. If you're not arguing there's an alternative, then you're really just complaining. When it's suggested that Dion would be spending even more you automatically revert to the fact/technicality that Harper went over his own budget. It wasn't a good example. You said: "Given that the market's solution in the last weeks was to stop lending and let the whole economy crash, you place a lot of faith in the market to pick winners." Your statement's implication was that the banks were somehow making a bad decision and were screwing the rest of the economy over. You tried to argue the danger of free market economics with an example of the free market acting responsibly and cautiously. Again, it was either a contradiction or an example of you not understanding what you were talking about. I've not seen a single example of this. Please remember politics are all about comparisons. It's one alternative over another. Why are you going on and on about Harper's spending when Dion's promised worse? Why would you complain about his tax cuts when Dion will end up taxing the average Canadian more in the end? It doesn't make sense. Political discussion is pointless without side by side comparisons. That's what it's all about. You don't look at one politician in a vacuum. "But the Liberals" is a rational response. Because I can't argue that Harper hasn't been over budget, when you bring this up as a reason he should not be re-elected you have to compare the alternative. I know what it means. Dion has failed to mention that it is NOT revenue neutral for the vast majority of Canadian families or businesses. It means more taxes for the people who are actually paying decent taxes and it means less taxes for the people who are hardly paying any taxes already. This is not good for the economy in any way shape or form. and this is pretty much a moot point considering the priority Harper has placed on the environment. His cap and trade plan will likely never be implemented. You and I both know this. Dion is the only person standing to be elected her who's going to increase taxes on productive members of the country.
-
I didn't see those articles but it would be a stupid newspaper to suggest that Dion affects the financial system itself. I imagine what was really being said was that Dion was fanning the flames of panic, which he is most certainly doing.
-
Yep, pretty much. I think I called it a month ago when I said Elizabeth May was going to totally bork the party.
-
I don't think anyone is blaming him. He's not in charge of anything. People ARE blaming Layton and Dion for being alarmists and worrying people though, that's all.
-
I personalize how silly you sound. Regardless of what Harper does, it's automatically the wrong thing to do. It's wrong for Harper to increase spending but you've never a critical word for Dion's planned spending increases which dwarf Harper's. Your response to this argument has consistently been the technicality that Harper went over-budget. That's fine, point acknowledged, but the alternatives are promising bigger spending increases, so unless you're abstaining from voting, you're contradicting yourself. You said: You are implying that the banks are doing the wrong things by protecting themselves. Right here is a perfect example of you either not having any clue what you're talking about or you contradicting yourself. I would assume you are against a Canadian bank collapse right? So then why are you criticizing them for making sure they're not losing money on mortgages like they have been since the spring??? I'll cite it if you absolutely need me to. I won't be surprised either because that's generally your defence mechanism when your argument has been stumped. I've already agreed with you that I'd prefer Harper tightened the wallet. Your contradiction here is that you're completely against Harper spending but you're generally supportive of Dion who is promising spending way above and beyond Harper's. What this looks like is a huge double standard. Please see above. I quoted you from this very thread. I am not personalizing out of dislike for you or anything silly like that. I'm personalizing your arguments because I'd like to present them to you how they appear to everyone else. Your double standards and loopy logic are totally confounding. If you'll stop dodging the arguments I present to you I'll stop hounding you. There are three things I'd like you to acknowledge or at least respond to: 1) How can you argue against Harper's spending when the other candidates are promising spending BEYOND his? Regardless of his not following his own budgets, how does electing a Prime Minister promising even HIGHER spending present a better alternative?? 2) The Green Shift was confirmed by a citation YOU provided from the CTF to be a tax grab equalization formula. It said the Green Shift was NOT revenue neutral for the average family and business. It confirmed that the average family and business would be out a good deal of money and that this would NOT be good for the economy. You've argued extensively against GST cuts and I agree with you that Income Tax cuts are better. With your criticism of this, however, how do you support a Liberal government who is offering INCREASED taxes to everyone but the very poor and NO alternative tax relief to anyone else?????? 3) What has Harper done to endanger the Canadian economy at large? You're a huge Harpernomic critic, so what is it that he's doing to hurt us?
-
Haha that made me laugh. Tango it actually feels nice to agree with you on this when I normally disagree with you on everything else. Whowhere just put a bed sheet on your head and cut eye-slits already. Get it over with. While you're at it move to Texas. We don't need people like you here. I'd prefer to work with the immigrants you hate over yourself.
-
I'm not really angry about this. I couldn't care less really. You can't deny that the Green Party is probably done after this though. At least the NDP has an independent platform and takes shots at everyone. It truly is a real political party. The Green Party under May, however, has so completely aligned herself with another party that it can hardly even be looked upon as such anymore. By basically agreeing with everything the Liberals have said, May has reversed ANY accomplishments she made by getting in the Leadership debate and put the party enormously backwards on top of this. I doubt it will even continue to exist.
-
The Toronto Star is and always had been my very least newspaper in all of Canada. It's so unobjective about virtually EVERYTHING I hold it in utter contempt. At least there are anti-Harper stories in the Globe and the Sun etc. The Toronto Star is pro liberals on EVERYTHING and always has been. It's a pandering newspaper and it's a complete joke.
-
I wrote a post explaining the 25 billion dollar deal. You don't have a clue how it works and I don't expect you to, but don't go around pulling your hair out at something you don't even begin to understand. It's not a bailout in any way, shape or form. I cannot even stress how much it is not a bailout.