Politics in 2016

[Infanteer]

You Easterners worry about wierd things....

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Agreed. Quebec's got a real hard go and everyone should feel sorry for critically thinking about what their tax dollars are going towards.

Yes, all provinces receive transfer payments, something the silly federal government imposed on themselves. However, not all receive equalization. Quebec receives more equalization than anyone, yet has services that no other province has such as $7 dollar a day daycare. Generally, when a taxpayer sees a welfare recipient driving a brand new 50,000 truck that the taxpayer can't afford, they get a little irritated. This has nothing to do with racism.

No. PEI receives the most equalization payment.  That's the whole point, since payment is per capita. Otherwise, bitch at Ontario which is getting the second largest payment (4b$), yet barely gets anything "per capita". Also, I have yet to see a single welfare recipient in Quebec driving $50K trucks (in fact, Quebec has the largest proportion of sub-compact car in Canada and the lowest sales of pick-up trucks per 100,000 resident).

That assumes that each provincial government is run as efficiently as the next. That is just not the case.

I don't recall ever seeing any studies made on the comparative efficiency of the various civil services in Canada, but I would be very surprised if - service for service, there was any significant discrepancies between them.  Not to be confused here with more or different services existing from one province to the next.

That conclusion does not match up with reality. The money, both equalization and provincial tax revenues go into one pot, Quebec's revenues. The services are paid for out of that pot.  You mention the "one pot" below, so you must be deliberately be foolish.

No I am not. If you could demonstrate that, for services rendered in all provinces, such as health or education, Quebec is skimping compared to the other provinces generally so they can provide other services instead, your point would have some value. But so long as Quebec provides the same services as most other provinces at or near the Canadian average level of service, then the supplementary services it provides come from its own taxation of its own residents. Sure, all sources go in the general fund, but it cannot be said that Quebec is "using" that payment for the purpose of providing this supplementary service. In other words, Quebec counts on its own taxation to provide for these extra services.

I ***** about it all the time. But of course, you must recognize that the gross amount going to Quebec is the largest, and they have the most services, so naturally they are the prime example most people are going to gravitate towards. Calling this "racist" is just trying to stifle legit criticism.

Showing, as I mentioned that they are ignoramuses. The gross amount is irrelevant: all proportions kept, PEI and NS are getting more than twice as much as Quebec. Why are they not he ones singled out? Why doesn't any one criticize their way of governing or their incapacity to generate business? Gross figures have nothing to do with it.

Federal taxes would be (should be) lower across the board if equalization didn't exist, as the Federal government's expenses would be lower and so they could afford to have lower revenues. So yes, taxpayers in other provinces are most definitely helping to pay. If my income tax money and GST money goes into the general revenue pot, and the general revenue pot pays Quebec equalization, well... I can't really make it any clearer than that...

Yeah. On an individual basis. And so does my income tax and GST. So everybody in Canada pays equally into the pot (i.e. same rates). If there was no equalization, my taxes would also go down here in Quebec. Or so we hope. Do you honestly think that if the Federal government did not spend $20b on equalization every year we (you and I) would see even one cent of it in lower taxes? More likely, they would find a way to spend it Federally on something else (like a Federaly planned $7/day child care system  )

I don't think anyone is arguing there is.

Ah yes it does, its published every quarter by the Department of Finance in their financial reports. Income tax is by *far* the greatest contributor to Federal government revenues. Personal and corporate income taxes make up about 62% if Federal government revenues, so we can easily see that personal and corporate income taxes' share of equalization payments is 62%.

You are talking about "where" in terms of source of revenue. I was talking (as the figures I provided demonstrated) on province of origin - geographical provenance - of the federal revenue. That, they do not compile, but as I indicated, others do.

 

[ballz]

No. PEI receives the most equalization payment.  That's the whole point, since payment is per capita. Otherwise, ***** at Ontario which is getting the second largest payment (4b$), yet barely gets anything "per capita". Also, I have yet to see a single welfare recipient in Quebec driving $50K trucks (in fact, Quebec has the largest proportion of sub-compact car in Canada and the lowest sales of pick-up trucks per 100,000 resident).

PEI receives the most per capita, it does not receive the most money. Your assertion that gross numbers are irrelevant is BS. If a province with a population of 2 gets the most per capita, it has less effect on every Canadian than Quebec. A larger, urbanized province also benefits from economies of scale.

I don't recall ever seeing any studies made on the comparative efficiency of the various civil services in Canada, but I would be very surprised if - service for service, there was any significant discrepancies between them.  Not to be confused here with more or different services existing from one province to the next.

Do you really need to study realize that some governments are going to be run more efficiently than the next? Really? That's not a given that no two governments are the same? It really requires a study to acknowledge this? Your basically saying "unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my assumption is wrong, I'm going to keep it because it benefits my argument, despite how unlikely it is."

No I am not. If you could demonstrate that, for services rendered in all provinces, such as health or education, Quebec is skimping compared to the other provinces generally so they can provide other services instead, your point would have some value. But so long as Quebec provides the same services as most other provinces at or near the Canadian average level of service, then the supplementary services it provides come from its own taxation of its own residents. Sure, all sources go in the general fund, but it cannot be said that Quebec is "using" that payment for the purpose of providing this supplementary service. In other words, Quebec counts on its own taxation to provide for these extra services.

Again, willfully being blind. That's like asking which loonie I paid for my coffee with when it all came out my pay cheque. I paid for it with my hard work. Accepting equalization payments means you are paying for x% of what you have with your "hard work" and y% with someone else's.

Showing, as I mentioned that they are ignoramuses. The gross amount is irrelevant: all proportions kept, PEI and NS are getting more than twice as much as Quebec. Why are they not he ones singled out? Why doesn't any one criticize their way of governing or their incapacity to generate business? Gross figures have nothing to do with it.

Right, no one has ever criticized the Atlantic provinces for being a dive : Gross figures are what are important on the deductions portion of my pay stub.

Yeah. On an individual basis. And so does my income tax and GST. So everybody in Canada pays equally into the pot (i.e. same rates). If there was no equalization, my taxes would also go down here in Quebec. Or so we hope. Do you honestly think that if the Federal government did not spend $20b on equalization every year we (you and I) would see even one cent of it in lower taxes? More likely, they would find a way to spend it Federally on something else (like a Federaly planned $7/day child care system  )

Everybody pays equally into the pot, and some benefit a lot from it, and some don't benefit at all. WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE ABOUT THAT???

That comment at the end is just silly. I am supposed to say "oh well, the federal government would just piss it anyway, so I'm okay with other provinces pissing it away on things my own province can't afford." At least if the federal government was pissing it away federally, Canadians would see an even return on their taxes. All of this just serves to prove why the federal government shouldn't be giving any money to provinces, and should lower its own tax rate instead and let provinces raise their own revenues and work within their own means.

You are talking about "where" in terms of source of revenue. I was talking (as the figures I provided demonstrated) on province of origin - geographical provenance - of the federal revenue. That, they do not compile, but as I indicated, others do.

Good info in that link for sure, I have actually wondered how much they receive compares to how much they pay in, in relation to other "have-not" provinces. I do not think that gross numbers are irrelevant, however. I hate the way Atlantic provinces run themselves (including Nfld) and I still hate the way Quebec runs itself. And I would still shit a brick if the Atlantic provinces introduced $7/day daycare, not that they don't already piss away enough money on stuff that "have" provinces can't afford.

 

[Kilo_302]

PEI receives the most per capita, it does not receive the most money. Your assertion that gross numbers are irrelevant is BS. If a province with a population of 2 gets the most per capita, it has less effect on every Canadian than Quebec. A larger, urbanized province also benefits from economies of scale.

This doesn't make any sense. Per capita is the most egalitarian way to make these payments. What other method would you suggest? Should equalization payments be made according to land area? Of COURSE provinces with higher populations are getting more. The basis of governance is people, not some other metric. 

Do you really need to study realize that some governments are going to be run more efficiently than the next? Really? That's not a given that no two governments are the same? It really requires a study to acknowledge this? Your basically saying "unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my assumption is wrong, I'm going to keep it because it benefits my argument, despite how unlikely it is."

You have it backwards. If we take two provinces administering the same programs within the same guidelines, the onus is on you to provide data that shows one is doing things more efficiently than the other. Did you just stick your finger in the air and decide that Quebec must be doing things less efficiently "just because?" What's your feeling on Alberta? Or Ontario? Utterly ridiculous.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Maybe we should go back to politics in 2016.  :nod:

So ... How about them Raptors?  [

 

[Kirkhill]

You Easterners worry about wierd things....

Infanteer - when are you available for a beer?  This thread is parching my throat.

 

[Kilo_302]

Maybe we should go back to politics in 2016.  :nod:

We certainly can. More evidence that the Liberals (while certainly pursuing a very liberal social (window dressing) agenda are actually not very divergent from the Conservatives when it comes to the classic labour/capital debate.

http://rabble.ca/news/2016/03/no-progress-made-on-public-sector-bargaining-liberals-ape-conservatives-stance

Canada's largest public service union is warning of another era of emaciated civil service systems following a second round of unsuccessful contract negotiations under the Liberal government.
Five bargaining units from the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), representing nearly 100,000 civil servants, met with teams from the Treasury Board in Ottawa last week to discuss new contracts.
The workers have been without collective agreements since the summer of 2014, and little progress was made at the bargaining table under Stephen Harper's government.
"There was no progress made," PSAC president Robyn Benson said of last week's negotiations.
"Our membership is very frustrated…because they anticipated a Liberal government would bring something different to the table and that they would make negotiations a priority so we could achieve collective agreements and we could all move forward."


The Treasury Board's insistence to remove the workers' sick leave plan from the collective -- a proposal made under the Conservatives -- continues to be a key issue.
"They're doing exactly what the Conservatives did," Benson said.
"[While] they have proposed a different plan with some modifications, it is certainly still the same mindset with respect to sick leave."
On the issues that PSAC believes are important, there has been little ability to have open conversations, she said.
"We need to look at the services we provide and how to provide them."
Prolonged wait times and processing periods for Employment Insurance (EI) are a direct result of service cutbacks in the past 10 years, she said.
Figures tabled in Parliament last week showed thousands of jobless Canadians waited more than a month to find out if they qualified for unemployment benefits.
According to the data, between April 2015 and January this year, it took more than 28 days to process about 300,000 EI applications.
Nationally, the average wait time was 39 days.
The figures also showed calls regarding employment insurance to the federal call centre were answered with an automated message nearly 7.4 million times during this period.
Benson, who has worked in the civil service for more than 30 years, said improvements to the EI application process would only occur if more individuals were hired by the government.
"There wouldn't be wait times and there wouldn't be a backlog if there hadn't been such severe job cuts.
"They need to look at the downsizing the Conservatives did and make improvements there," she said.
Labour Minister MaryAnn Mihychuk said in a statement that the government is working on a plan to address problems with the EI system.
Despite this, Benson said the mandate being pursued by Treasury Board president Scott Brison and his team was disappointingly similar to that of the Harper Conservatives.
"We thought, based on the campaign and the open letter from Trudeau to our membership, that there would be a difference," Benson said.
"But when you come to the table, and it's the same, then one needs to wonder what exactly it is that they're planning."
PSAC and the Treasury Board are due to return to the bargaining table next month, and in June.

 

[Altair]

I think the thing people are missing regarding quebec  is the great leaps forward they are mankind on the budgeting/economic front.

They are cutting spending, limiting growth in government departments, standing up to unions, and trying to pay down their debt.

Compared to the quebec of the past 15 years or so, they aren't doing too bad. Keep this up and they might be a have province before I die.

 

[PuckChaser]

It's almost like they have Harper and the federal Tories running the ship...

 

[George Wallace]

I think the thing people are missing regarding quebec  is the great leaps forward they are mankind on the budgeting/economic front.

They are cutting spending, limiting growth in government departments, standing up to unions, and trying to pay down their debt.

Compared to the quebec of the past 15 years or so, they aren't doing too bad. Keep this up and they might be a have province before I die.

Really?  If they couldn't balance their budge after taking 52 billion out of the 94 billion in equalization payments between 2006 and 2012, then perhaps they should have the province disolved and split between Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, so that those provinces can become profitable.  I would not give Quebec any credibility or bragging rights on fiscal responsibility.  Close scrutiny of the subsidized Hydro, subsidized Child Care, and all the other subsidization offered Quebecers, will only illuminate the sad state of their fiscal planning.

[Edit to add]

Quebec budget: $2B surplus planned but $10B coming from federal equalization

Giuseppe Valiante, The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:07AM EDT
Last Updated Thursday, March 17, 2016 4:22PM EDT

Quebec has finally controlled its spending, Finance Minister Carlos Leitao said Thursday after tabling a second consecutive balanced budget with the help of $10 billion in equalization payments.

The Liberal government is actually projecting a surplus of roughly $2 billion in 2016-17, with the money going toward chipping away at the provincial debt of $207.7 billion.

Premier Philippe Couillard went on an aggressive cost-cutting campaign after being elected in April 2014. Measures included downsizing the civil service, slashing funds earmarked for education and keeping the lid on government spending.

Leitao says Quebecers are beginning to reap the benefits of that economic rigour.

"This is a budget of conviction," he told reporters. "We were told our plan was ambitious -- in a tone that was dubious of our ability to do it. Well, we did it
.
"Our fiscal house is now in order. Every Quebecer contributed to the effort that needed to be made."

The flip side to that optimism is a massive debt that will cost a staggering $10 billion to service in 2016-17.

While Quebec's debt in terms of raw numbers is considerably lower than Ontario's, the ratio of Quebec's gross debt to GDP on March 31, 2015, was 55.1 per cent, compared with 46 per cent for its western neighbour.

Leitao is projecting revenue of $102.6 billion in 2016-17, including $20.2 billion in various federal transfer and equalization payments. Quebecers pay some of that money in federal income and consumer taxes.

The finance minister played down the political impact of the province receiving $10 billion from the equalization program.

"This is not Alberta and Saskatchewan transferring funds to Quebec," he said, adding that Quebec is next to last among recipient provinces on a per-capita basis.

"This is federal revenue that comes from all Canadians in all provinces."

Leitao said he is looking forward to the day when Quebec no longer receives equalization payments.

Quebec is also banking on Ottawa's commitment to invest in infrastructure to help spark economic growth and has asked the federal government "to rapidly identify the projects" which will receive funding.

"Shovels must be in the ground by the next construction season, in order to revitalize the economy," the budget document reads.

The province is calling on Ottawa to increase payments for health care to help fund services for its aging population. Quebec wants the federal government to pay for 25 per cent of provincial health-care costs, up from the 22.2 per cent set for 2016-17.

Ottawa's health transfer to Quebec will be roughly $5.9 billion in 2016-17, which begins April 1.

Leitao says the Quebec economy will grow by 1.5 per cent in 2016 and 1.6 per cent in 2017. Growth should be helped by the low Canadian dollar and stronger U.S. economy, which the government believes should continue to boost exports.

The Education Department will receive the highest budget increase, at three per cent, up from the 0.9 per cent increase during the last fiscal year. That caused schools across the province to significantly scale back resources.

Infrastructure, programs to help increase graduation rates as well as services for students with disabilities will all benefit from the extra $1.2 billion over three years the government has set aside.

There are also modest measures to decrease Quebecers' tax burden.

Leitao said the government will push forward by one year its plan to gradually remove a health tax that was scheduled to end in 2019
.
Quebecers who make more than $18,570 pay between $100 and $1,000 a year in health taxes, which Leitao said will be eliminated by 2018 for all taxpayers.

Parti Quebecois finance critic Nicolas Marceau reminded reporters that the budget shows "a deterioration in public finances."

He said while the budget is balanced, the government's austerity measures over the past two years "slowed growth" to less than two per cent.

"In terms of economic growth, this budget is devastating," Marceau said.

 

[ballz]

PEI receives the most per capita, it does not receive
This doesn't make any sense. Per capita is the most egalitarian way to make these payments. What other method would you suggest? Should equalization payments be made according to land area? Of COURSE provinces with higher populations are getting more. The basis of governance is people, not some other metric.

Per capita does not reflect the total impact an individual's tax bill. It makes a lot of sense when talking about people's perspective and how each province's financial affairs affects the individual that has to help pay for it.

You have it backwards. If we take two provinces administering the same programs within the same guidelines, the onus is on you to provide data that shows one is doing things more efficiently than the other. Did you just stick your finger in the air and decide that Quebec must be doing things less efficiently "just because?" What's your feeling on Alberta? Or Ontario? Utterly ridiculous.

First of all, I didn't suggest anywhere that Quebec or any other province was running a more or less efficient government. I stuck my finger in the air and said its very unlikely that every government is created equally and that if they had the same population, they would all be able to provide x,y,z, service for the same amount of money.

OBGD asserted, as if it was fact, "IF the services provided by the provinces were the same in all provinces, then the resulting provincial taxation rates would also be the same in all provinces as a result." The onus is on OBGD to prove *this statement.*

I simply pointed out that in order for that to be true, then every government would have to be running itself as efficiently as the one beside it. That is an ASSUMPTION that *has* to be true in order for the proposed statement to be true. You are now arguing that "you need to prove my assumption is false, or else I am right."

It is an assumption that is in all probability a poor assumption, but you can live in whatever magical fairy land you want. It's not worth the time to look for a "study" (as if I was provided with one that supported OBGD's statement), I doubt anybody would waste research dollars on something so painfully obvious.

 

[Kilo_302]

With all of the uproar around the planned Liberal deficit, thought I would post this here as well. The banks at least don't seem overly concerned about stimulus, and they're generally a pretty good barometer of how the business class views policy. Hence my previous posts about there not being a panic in the corporate community around the Liberals taking power.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/analysts-on-tomorrows-budget-deficit-paranoia-is-mind-bogglingly-stupid/article29308661/

Awaiting the budget

Canada’s new government is expected this week to unveil a stimulus budget with a deficit in the area of $30-billion.

That would count as bad news for some who crave balance. But for others, it may not be enough given the sluggish economy and unemployment that refuses to drop below 7 per cent.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau has already adjusted the outlook amid the oil shock, projecting a deficit of $18.4-billion in the 2016-17 fiscal year, not including the Liberal government’s promised spending initiative. When you add it all together, it’s looking like about $30-billion.

Besides infrastructure spending, Canadians can expect to see a new child benefit, changes to the jobless benefits program and a tweak to tax rules governing stock options.

Economists aren’t waving red flags over what they expect to see, and some observers would like even greater stimulus spending than Mr. Morneau will probably unveil.

They’re not suggesting throwing caution to the wind, but they do note that Canada is able to handle what’s expected.


Here’s what some observers say:

“Deficit paranoia is mind-bogglingly stupid. … Even a $50-billion deficit wouldn’t endanger the long-term outlook for the public finances, however. The bigger risk is that if fiscal policy doesn’t take up the slack, the economy could slip into a prolonged downturn. It would be a tragedy if, after watching Europe nearly destroy itself, Canada made the same mistake.” Paul Ashworth, Capital Economics

“Expect the outcome of the next budget on March 22 to show cumulative deficits over the next two years well above $50-billion (roughly 1.3 per cent of GDP) if the stimulus promised during the election campaign is implemented. That should hardly scare off foreign investors. Even with such deficits, the debt-to-GDP ratio should remain low relative to other OECD economies. In our view the government has the flexibility to provide fiscal stimulus to a Canadian economy that badly needs it.” Marc Pinsonneault, National Bank Financial

“Timely, targeted and temporary fiscal initiatives will provide a much-needed filip for the economy over the near term while potentially also improving long-term growth prospects. … In periods of weak growth, fiscal deficits have a role to play in lessening the damage to the economy. However, prudent fiscal management requires that initiatives provide clear benefit to growth in the short and long term. As well, the funds spent will need to eventually be repaid with the upcoming budget expected to provide a game plan as to how the federal government plans to return to fiscal balance.” Craig Wright and Laura Cooper, Royal Bank of Canada

“Our Canadian [economic growth] forecast incorporates our recommendation for federal fiscal stimulus of $20-billion, equivalent to 1 per cent of GDP, implemented during the second half of 2016 and the first half of 2017. This stimulus would be over and above the deficit resulting from weaker economic conditions. … The stimulus should be designed to: deliver a rapid economic impact; raise Canada’s economic capacity and thus our longer-term growth prospects; and, facilitate adjustments in the provinces most affected by weak commodity prices.” Aron Gampel, Bank of Nova Scotia


“Canada still warrants a triple-A credit rating, and Ottawa can afford a moderate fiscal boost – especially for hard-hit regions. However, the deterioration in medium-term finances from weak commodity prices, less-favourable demographics, and softening provincial credit ratings suggests that Ottawa should proceed with prudence. To reiterate: Canada is facing a structural shift from the commodity shock, and that’s not something that can be quickly countered or fully mitigated by a big fiscal boost.” Douglas Porter and Robert Kavcic, BMO Nesbitt Burns

“The 2016-17 deficit will be nearly $30-billion if the Liberals stick with their election platform, but they could add additional stimulus to either that year, the outgoing fiscal year, or 2017-18, to enhance the planned lift to growth. Canada’s federal deficit will still be well below the U.S. federal government as a share of GDP, and a stimulative fiscal plan is a preferable option to having interest rates even lower for longer given existing household debt levels.” Avery Shenfeld, CIBC World Markets

“In evaluating the increase in the deficit, size is not all that matters. The composition will matter for growth. As such, an increase tilted towards investment in infrastructure would be viewed as more pro-growth than an increase due to increased tax credit. The reason is that, while the propensity of middle-income households to consumer is considered to be high, the record level of household debt will likely mean that most of the tax credit will be saved rather than spent.” Charles St-Arnaud, Nomura

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

 

[SeaKingTacco]

In how many threads do you plan on posting the same article?

Since when are you such a cheerleader for bankers and business?

 

[Journeyman]

...... thought I would post this here as well.

You may think that making the same post in multiple threads somehow makes it more credible (while ignoring the response in the original post that banks like debt because that's how they make money).

The rest of us call it "spamming the site."

 

[George Wallace]

The rest of us call it "spamming the site."

[  :nod:

 

[Kilo_302]

You may think that making the same post in multiple threads somehow makes it more credible (while ignoring the response in the original post that banks like debt because that's how they make money).

The rest of us call it "spamming the site."

In how many threads do you plan on posting the same article?

Since when are you such a cheerleader for bankers and business?

Strangely enough, I'm not surprised that I'm finding it necessary to explain that a budget has political implications as well as economic implications to either of you.

I fail to see how posting about how big business views the deficit automatically means I am cheerleader for big business. I explained as much in my post, though I will explain again.

The "panic" about deficits and the Liberals' economic plans in general is largely a political creation and not reflective of how Big Business in Canada views them. It's literally "business as usual" for Canadian corporations as they're not overly concerned with social conservatism like the Conservative base is. Do I agree with the close ties between the Liberals and the corporate world? I do not. It's a revolving door between them and Bay Street.

 

[Journeyman]

Strangely enough, I'm not surprised that I'm finding it necessary to explain that a budget has political implications as well as economic implications to either of you.

a) no explanation is required, for either of us;
b) you've explained nothing. You're merely posting the same newspaper article in multiple locations;

 

[Kilo_302]

a) no explanation is required, for either of us;
b) you've explained nothing. You're merely posting the same newspaper article in multiple locations;

If an explanation isn't required then neither was this exchange.

But, because I believe you wouldn't have said anything if you truly understood how this article is relevant to both threads I'll play. 

On the economic side of things, there definitely exists a legitimate discussion as to how much stimulus (or, how much deficit as a result of a stimulus package) is necessary to maintain economic growth and pull Canada out of a recession. There's also a discussion as to what kind of stimulus is most effective. What's the right mix of infrastructure spending (anyone who drives in Ontario knows we're in dire need of some) and social infrastructure spending?

On the political side of things, the Conservatives will no doubt howl to the moon about fiscal responsibility (it will be interesting to see what the NDP reaction will be, given their bizarre "no deficit no matter the cost" platform in 2015"), but as the article underlines, it's hard to take this position given that business seems to understand the need to avoid a recession through deficit spending as well.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If an explanation isn't required then neither was this exchange.

But, because I believe you wouldn't have said anything if you truly understood how this article is relevant to both threads I'll play. 

On the economic side of things, there definitely exists a legitimate discussion as to how much stimulus (or, how much deficit as a result of a stimulus package) is necessary to maintain economic growth and pull Canada out of a recession. There's also a discussion as to what kind of stimulus is most effective. What's the right mix of infrastructure spending (anyone who drives in Ontario knows we're in dire need of some) and social infrastructure spending?

On the political side of things, the Conservatives will no doubt howl to the moon about fiscal responsibility (it will be interesting to see what the NDP reaction will be, given their bizarre "no deficit no matter the cost" platform in 2015"), but as the article underlines, it's hard to take this position given that business seems to understand the need to avoid a recession through deficit spending as well.

I'm getting pretty tired of having to tell you to watch your tone and quit talking down to people. You have no lock on how things are read and interpreted. There are many here that are vastly more intellectually savvy than you give credit for. You've already topped out the warning ladder and are a single step from losing your privileges here. Better tone down the rhetoric.

---Staff---

 

[Kilo_302]

I'm getting pretty tired of having to tell you to watch your tone and quit talking down to people. You have no lock on how things are read and interpreted. There are many here that are vastly more intellectually savvy than you give credit for. You've already topped out the warning ladder and are a single step from losing your privileges here. Better tone down the rhetoric.

---Staff---

"I have to leave. I can't hold conversations with potatoes."  You to me, after deciding you disagreed with the points I made. This qualifies as "talking down" yes?

If you're comfortable with only enforcing the rules when it comes to people with whom you disagree, by all means take my privileges away. And then rename the site "conservativeviewpointsonlyarmy.ca"