Federal Government in a Surplus

[ironstone]

On 9/2/2022 at 8:53 PM, TreeBeard said:

On your gender point - You’re comparing apples and bowling balls.  It’s a nonsensical post.  Who cares what gender someone identifies as?   You’re free not to accept it, just like you’re free to tell two guys that, in your opinion, they’re not really married.   But….  They’re still actually married.  ?
 

2nd point - Anyone can change the language.  Words are descriptive and not prescriptive.  They change all the time spurred by the common usage by many different people.  

The Trudeau government cares about this gender pronoun nonsense.

Canada's Bill C-16: Transgenderism and the Loss of Common Sense | Canada Free Press

You state that we are free not to accept it but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Father jailed in Canada for using incorrect pronouns (independentsentinel.com)

If we are in surplus now most of it will be spent on bullsh*t  leftist initiatives.

Trudeau splurges $100 million on radical gender ideologues - The Counter Signal

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Traditional marriage is the union between a man and a woman's estate, dowery and status. 

They could have dumped all the hassle of this from the public burden long ago.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, ironstone said:

1. The Trudeau government cares about this gender pronoun nonsense.

 

2. If we are in surplus now most of it will be spent on bullsh*t  leftist initiatives.

 

1. And the Harper government whose cabinet members supported it.

2. $20 million is inconsequential.

[Queenmandy85]

It is interesting that the Liberal government has a $10 billion surplus when the Harper government couldn't post a single one, except for the smoke and mirrors budget just before he lost the election.

[ironstone]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. And the Harper government whose cabinet members supported it.

2. $20 million is inconsequential.

Regardless of who supports this, it is a waste of money.

And the link I posted said 100 million to some kind of LGBTQ blah blah etc etc initiative.

$20 million is a lot of money in reality. It's attitudes like yours that have conditioned Canadians to accept government waste as perfectly acceptable.

[ironstone]

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is interesting that the Liberal government has a $10 billion surplus when the Harper government couldn't post a single one, except for the smoke and mirrors budget just before he lost the election.

Part of me is pleased that we have a surplus but most of it will be squandered in one way or another. I'm looking at the big picture though.

Trudeau government increased national debt by more than $84 billion before COVID-19 | Canada Free Press

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Part of me is pleased that we have a surplus but most of it will be squandered in one way or another. I'm looking at the big picture though.

Trudeau government increased national debt by more than $84 billion before COVID-19 | Canada Free Press

I don't like being an apologist for the grits but when Prime Minister Harper took office, he inherited a huge surplus from the Liberals and squaundered it. 

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I don't like being an apologist for the grits but when Prime Minister Harper took office, he inherited a huge surplus from the Liberals and squaundered it. 

Wasn't that because of the world wide financial crisis?

[TreeBeard]

On 9/4/2022 at 5:10 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Interesting view. I think that the state sanctioning marriage on any level is the kind of social engineering.  It's a religious and moral institution.  Let it be.

I don’t disagree.  However, marriage laws aren’t going anywhere, so should be available equally to keep the “social engineering” to a minimum. 

[Queenmandy85]

50 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Wasn't that because of the world wide financial crisis?

Well, if you are going to use facts to win an argument, there is no hope...?

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I don't like being an apologist for the grits but when Prime Minister Harper took office, he inherited a huge surplus from the Liberals and squaundered it. 

$84 billion of debt> $10 billion surplus.  The big picture.

Of course most governments and political parties are rather fond of piling up debt, some are worse than others.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Wasn't that because of the world wide financial crisis?

Similar to what is happening now with inflation and stock market losses?

[Yzermandius19]

there is no surplus

it's only one quarter

there is still a massive deficit

one quarter of spending less than they take in doesn't undo that

Edited September 6, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Army Guy]

On 9/5/2022 at 12:30 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

It is interesting that the Liberal government has a $10 billion surplus when the Harper government couldn't post a single one, except for the smoke and mirrors budget just before he lost the election.

That is a bit dishonest don't you think, the year is is far from being over, give them time and that surplus your boasting about will be long gone. And lets not pretend Justin created or his policies created this surplus, it comes from a boon in fuel prices...If we can not blame him for inflation or fuel prices he can not be given credit for the boon that was created by the same sources. 

Harper did have a surplus he gave it to Justin, and it was squandered. 

Justin has spent well over 650 bil since elected, and now we have to jump for joy becasue of a 10 bil surplus. when his cabinet had stated this year was going to be another huge deficit. 

[Gerba1345]

All they do is spend, spend, spend.

[Queenmandy85]

Why would I be boasting? I didn't vote Liberal. I figured we had agreed the surplus was due to world economic conditions, just as Harper's repeated deficits were caused by global conditions. The sort of surplus just before he lost was the result of creative accounting. 

Much of the money spent over that last 2 years was the response to the ongoing deadly pandemic. Soon, hopefully, the government will finally begin spending money of trying to mitigate the climate catastrophe the world is facing. We can look forward to start making serious sacrifices to save future generations. Fasten your seat belts, it is going to be a bumpy and scorching ride.

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Soon, hopefully, the government will finally begin spending money of trying to mitigate the climate catastrophe the world is facing.

Queenmandy, the "Conservative" who promotes all the policies of far left extremist lunatic cults

never mind that spending more money will simply incite more inflation, already burning out of control

you are not a conservative, you are a Communist who simply doesn't realize it

 

[Queenmandy85]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

Queenmandy, the "Conservative" who promotes all the policies of far left extremist lunatic cults

never mind that spending more money will simply incite more inflation, already burning out of control

you are not a conservative, you are a Communist who simply doesn't realize it

 

I would like to think I'm a pragmatist. The permafrost is thawing out releasing thousands of years of sequestered methane.  It isn't politics. It is physics. 

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I would like to think I'm a pragmatist. The permafrost is thawing out releasing thousands of years of sequestered methane.  It isn't politics. It is physics. 

far leftist lunatic Enviro Bolshevik calling himself a "Conservative"

this is why I despise the Conservative party even more than the Liberals

[Queenmandy85]

Physics.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Physics.

Pseudoscience mostly 

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Pseudoscience mostly 

Please explain. Carbon dioxide and methane inhibit re-radiation of energy. This is predictable, measureable and repeatable. You can demonstrate it in any undergraduate lab. That is physics. Do you have some new evidence that gives a different result? If so, I will nominate you for a Nobel prize in physics because you will have proven that the entire scientific world is wrong and you are right.

The contest between politics and science was first tested by King Canute. He went to the shoreline and ordered the tide not to come in. That is politics.

The tide came in anyway. That is science. 

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Please explain. Carbon dioxide and methane inhibit re-radiation of energy. This is predictable, measureable and repeatable. You can demonstrate it in any undergraduate lab. That is physics. Do you have some new evidence that gives a different result? If so, I will nominate you for a Nobel prize in physics because you will have proven that the entire scientific world is wrong and you are right.

The contest between politics and science was first tested by King Canute. He went to the shoreline and ordered the tide not to come in. That is politics.

The tide came in anyway. That is science. 

It’s not that climate isn’t changing; it’s that we don’t know how much human activity impacts it.  It’s the butterfly effect in action.  There’s simply no clear account of where we are in relation to interglacial cycles, getting warmer or cooler.  What we do to mitigate human impacts that would be large enough to have a quantifiable impact (if that’s even measurable) comes at such a great cost that it’s not worth paying.  It’s like someone saying that drinking a lot of red wine will protect you from cancer because of the anti-oxidants in red wine.  You would need to drink so much red wine that you would die of alcohol poisoning before enjoying the impacts of the anti-oxidents.

It’s apple pie to say that fighting climate change is good.  Who doesn’t want to prevent catastrophe, even if it’s hard to predict if and when such a catastrophe will occur as a result of human impacts? The issue is that the cure is worse than the disease if the cost of living is set to rise due to choked off fossil fuel energy supply and increased shipping costs due to lower energy supply and added carbon taxes.  Adding poverty means less attention to the abstract notion of fighting possible future climate catastrophe because people who are desperate for life’s necessities don’t care about climate change and won’t get the education and develop the technology to fight it, nor will these people have smaller families.

Reducing human made climate change, if you believe this is a problem and one we can actually solve, must be cheap to implement and happen without causing economic and political upheaval.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Queenmandy85]

You are ignoring the impact transitioning from fossil fuel based energy to nuclear (both uranium and thorium) based energy. Just the process of manufacturing the reactors will create prosperity every where. The expansion and electrification of the transportation system will be of enormous economic benifit. It will be of particular benifit to western Canada since we have the uranium reserves to supply the world for the next two centuries to bridge the gap to thorium and then, possibly, fusion. 

The next millenium will be harsh due to the greenhouse gases already added by humans over the last three centuries, but at least we may be able to avoid an extinction event that would rival the Permian.

[Yzermandius19]

13 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You are ignoring the impact transitioning from fossil fuel based energy to nuclear (both uranium and thorium) based energy. Just the process of manufacturing the reactors will create prosperity every where. The expansion and electrification of the transportation system will be of enormous economic benifit. It will be of particular benifit to western Canada since we have the uranium reserves to supply the world for the next two centuries to bridge the gap to thorium and then, possibly, fusion. 

The next millenium will be harsh due to the greenhouse gases already added by humans over the last three centuries, but at least we may be able to avoid an extinction event that would rival the Permian.

how are you going to mine the uranium and transport it

without fossil fuels?

if it's going to create prosperity

then why is no one building them

when they apparently have such a great financial incentive to do so?

why are the only solutions you champion involve central planning with the goal to replace free enterprise?

 

your environmentalism is simply a cloak to mask your communism

seems to be the answer to all three questions

Edited September 7, 2022 by Yzermandius19