Jump to content

Ontario budget thumbs nose at Drummond report


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/27/ontario-budget-andrew-coyne/

McGuinty to Drummond...FERGETABOUTIT!

Why bother commissioning the report only to shelve it?

I say hold another election and implement the Drummond required dictates.

I like how he the two largest ticket items on the Ontario bill is Healthcare and Education and both are pretty much left alone.

But we gotta stick it to those hardworking horseman!

Posted

I like how he the two largest ticket items on the Ontario bill is Healthcare and Education and both are pretty much left alone.

But we gotta stick it to those hardworking horseman!

Because horseman are far more important to Ontario than education and healthcare.... :rolleyes:

Posted (edited)

Why are they continuing to give Liberal Arts University students a 30% discount on their already subsidized degrees.

It's my civil right to study communications for four years on the taxpayers back damnit!!!

Edited by Boges
Posted

They contribute more to the economy than they take from the government.

Then obviously, they can support themselves. Education and healthcare also contribute to the economy; in far more important ways then horse racing.

Posted

Then obviously, they can support themselves. Education and healthcare also contribute to the economy; in far more important ways then horse racing.

You know you really can't debate this issue properly with me or you would have in the thread where I brought it up.

The money they receive to bolster their purses isn't a tax-payer subsidy. If the racetracks could install their own slot machines and take 100% of the take they would.

Governments can't handle competition though. They only like people to donate their money in the name of gaming if it goes into their pocket.

Posted (edited)

Take the money away from the rich CEOS, tax & regulate Marijuana, prostitution, use the notwithstanding clause to counter the omnibus crime bill because it cost too much money, stop with the green projects like windmills, and you have a start at cracking the deficit

Edited by stopstaaron

Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.

Posted

Take the money away from the rich CEOS, tax & regulate Marijuana, prostitution, use the notwithstanding clause to counter the omnibus crime bill because it cost too much money and you have a start at cracking the deficit

Yes because regulating a handful of of CEO's salaries will eliminate a $15 billion deficit. :rolleyes:

You really don't know the difference between the responsibilities of the federal and provincial government do you?

Posted

Yes because regulating a handful of of CEO's salaries will eliminate a $15 billion deficit. :rolleyes:

it will when they are given ridiculous raises while the people they employ have to take big pay cuts and freezes

You really don't know the difference between the responsibilities of the federal and provincial government do you?

Screw the government, what's Harper going to do? He couldn't do anything. Mcguinty would just tell the police not to arrest people with marijuana, he would tell the judges not to convict anyone in court for non violent marijuana charges.. Harper couldn't stop any of that

Don't ban me bro. Oh behave, I'll behave. I'll be a good little boy.

Posted (edited)

it will when they are given ridiculous raises while the people they employ have to take big pay cuts and freezes

No it won't. Let's say you cut CEO salaries in half. How much do you venture that saves? I don't disagree with the sentiment, but don't act like it will fix our problems.

Screw the government, what's Harper going to do? He couldn't do anything. Mcguinty would just tell the police not to arrest people with marijuana, he would tell the judges not to convict anyone in court for non violent marijuana charges.. Harper couldn't stop any of that

Marijuana is effectively de-criminalized for that fact. Simple possession is rarely dealt with. Just Grow-Ops.

Under a legalized system Grow-Ops would be illegal as well, you can't grow and sell tax-free MJ when the government wants to tax it.

Of course your ideas for eliminating the budget haven't been tabled in yesterday's budget. Instead of annoying messageboarders with your ridiculous opinions here you should share them with our equally ridiculous premier.

Edited by Boges
Posted

Why are they continuing to give Liberal Arts University students a 30% discount on their already subsidized degrees.

It's my civil right to study communications for four years on the taxpayers back damnit!!!

I agree, we should be more heavily subsidizing degrees that are an investment to our economy than those which are hobbies.

We should also put restrictions on high demand new graduates who receive additional subsidization in that they will be required to pay back the subsidy if they do not remain in Canada for X years after graduation.

Why are we spending all of this money to train people who don't enhance Ontario's future?

Why are we spending all of this money to train people who leave the province and never come back?

Ontario tax dollars should be more focused on benefitting Ontario.

Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.

Posted

You know you really can't debate this issue properly with me or you would have in the thread where I brought it up.

I told you that you were wrong there. I still maintain that. Private industry like that shouldn't be subsidized, especially when it can't be afford it. There's nothing to debate.

Posted

I told you that you were wrong there. I still maintain that. Private industry like that shouldn't be subsidized, especially when it can't be afford it. There's nothing to debate.

There's a huge debate about it. Both opposition parties oppose OLG plan because it's both stupid and greedy.

Posted

There's a huge debate about it. Both opposition parties oppose OLG plan because it's both stupid and greedy.

Things have to be sacrificed, and the government still needs revenue. This is a stupid thing to subsidize.

Posted (edited)

Things have to be sacrificed, and the government still needs revenue. This is a stupid thing to subsidize.

It'll end up costing the government more money. The racing industry generates $1.1 billion in government revenue.

And plenty of private sector jobs will be lost. So the government will be on the hook for EI and Re-training for those that lose their jobs.

I don't think you've done any research on this issue.

Edited by Boges
Posted

It'll end up costing the government more money. The racing industry generates $1.1 billion in government revenue.

The racing industry should still be able to exist without subsidies, if it's so profitable.

Posted (edited)

The racing industry should still be able to exist without subsidies, if it's so profitable.

It's not a subsidy. It's a share of the slot revenue. The industry will be able to survive at big tracks but smaller tracks won't. And the profitability of the industry will be hurt if the purses have to be reduced. Thus lowering investing by potential horse owners many of which are from south of the border. They invest money into private sector jobs in this country.

A subsidy is what College students get for Liberal arts programs and what people that produce green energy at far higher than the going rate.

No tax-payer funds go into this program.

Edited by Boges
Posted

Well again I ask. Would you oppose the racetracks installing their own slots and taking 100% of the revenue?

Yes. That's almost exactly the same thing. The government isn't going to gain any revenue from that.

Posted (edited)

Shockingly, I'm in agreement with the Fraser Institute: cut CORPORATE WELFARE not children's welfare.

Freezing OW, already insufficient for feeding, clothing and housing vulnerable children, is obscene when BILLIONS are spent on corporate welfare with no accountability for results.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/canada/politics/article/1152810--ontario-budget-2012-welfare-rate-freeze-really-a-cut-activists-say?bn=1

The welfare freeze means Norman and some 880,000 other adults and children iving on Ontario works and the Ontario Disability Support Program will be squeezed even more by inflationary ncreases in food, rent and other necessities.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=2147483989

TORONTO, ON—Ontario governments are addicted to dispensing corporate welfare Between 1991 and 2009, Ontario governments of al political stripes spent more than $27.7 billion on direc subsidies to corporations, says a new report released today by the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public policy think-tank.

“Subsidies to businesses, whether bailouts, loans that may not be repaid, or straight grants are all forms of corporate welfare and do nothing to benefit Ontario families,” said Mark Milke, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of fellow and author of Ontario’s Corporate Welfare Bill: $27.7 billion.

“In the most recent year for which data is available the cost of Ontario corporate welfare was the equivalent of $424 from each person who paid incom tax in Ontario, or $848 per working couple.”

Public service employees have unions to negotiate and look out for their interests.

Who 'negotiates' and looks out for the interests of children whose families are living on OW?

We all should.

We all should tell Dalton McGuinty to LEAVE THEM ALONE!!

Edited by jacee
Posted

Yes. That's almost exactly the same thing. The government isn't going to gain any revenue from that.

But these tracks are privately owned. So why should the OLG expect that they can use someone else's property to make money and not give them a cut?

Under this program 5% of the host municipality got money too, was that wrong?

Posted (edited)

But these tracks are privately owned. So why should the OLG expect that they can use someone else's property to make money and not give them a cut?

But 20%? That indefensible. The horse tracks are only operating because the government allows them to, and since the government controls gambling law, they have to suck it up.

Under this program 5% of the host municipality got money too, was that wrong?

That money is being used for the public good, so no.

Edited by Smallc

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,018
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    Dealsshutter
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...