Gender Budget 2018: The Goverment's Options

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
In WU's case, it's because he's a prude who would make Mrs. Grundy seem like a no-panties, drunken libertine.

You pretend to know what goes on in our bedroom?

'In 2002, the total annual cost (death, illness, law enforcement, loss of productivity, etc.) of alcohol abuse in Canada was estimated at $14.6 billion—almost as much as tobacco ($17 billion) and considerably more than all illegal drugs combined ($8.2 billion).'
The Economic Cost of Alcohol

Any fiscal conservative would want to strictly regulate these things.

As for promiscuity, HIV ain't good for the economy either.

Gambling ruins lives, single motherhood costs the taxpayer too. It all comes down to economics in the end.
 

10larry

Electoral Member
Apr 6, 2010
722
0
16
Niagara Falls

From your link which you should have read:
And they reduce the wealth we would otherwise pass on to our children and grandchildren.
To a government intent on sending a particular political signal, deficits may be a feature. But for people concerned about the future of Canada's economy and Canadian living standards, they are a bug.

A bug on justyns' spend til you drop steroids, it's so elemental and simple, it's a poor dog that doesn't bury a bone.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
From your link which you should have read:
And they reduce the wealth we would otherwise pass on to our children and grandchildren.
To a government intent on sending a particular political signal, deficits may be a feature. But for people concerned about the future of Canada's economy and Canadian living standards, they are a bug.

A bug on justyns' spend til you drop steroids, it's so elemental and simple, it's a poor dog that doesn't bury a bone.
Don't expect Analfloss to read any of the links he posts.
 

10larry

Electoral Member
Apr 6, 2010
722
0
16
Niagara Falls
Promises....promises.
Justyn promised moderate deficits of $10bil or less until the budget balances itself, don't peak but it appears that promise was mainly smoke. His word isn't worth the eco offset for the hot air he spews making pledges, his word like he fall into the dud category.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,279
3,988
113
Edmonton
The bottom line is this wasn't a budget at all - it was just a bunch of "liberal speak" which means absolutely nothing. How much more shameful can this government get?


JMHO
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
Liberals try to ease worries over $7B vote

OTTAWA - The federal government is announcing a slight change to its plan to streamline the spending-approval process into a single $7-billion vote after complaints earlier this week from the parliamentary budget watchdog. Speaking to a House of Commons committee, Treasury Board President Scott Brison says the Liberals' plan to make the process more transparent will now ensure that the detailed spending allocations laid out in the budget plan are also listed in the bill that MPs will actually vote on.
Brison is making the announcement following warnings from parliamentary budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette that the plan to simplify the budgeting process through a single vote could mean $7 billion in new spending commitments from the February budget could technically be spent elsewhere.
The PBO warned this week that there was nothing in the wording of the new law to compel Ottawa to spend according to its budget plan — and political opponents, meanwhile, have attacked the plan as a way for the government to open up a $7-billion slush fund.
Responding to the budget office concerns, Brison says the argument that budget promises would not be legally binding under the new law is false because straying from the detailed items would be considered an unauthorized use of public funds.
Nonetheless, Brison says to add more clarity to the process he will now ensure the full, line-by-line spending table is repeated in the bill that MPs will vote on, rather than just a reference to it.

Just vote it in damn it we'll decide where to spend it Lol what a joke
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
The bottom line is this wasn't a budget at all - it was just a bunch of "liberal speak" which means absolutely nothing. How much more shameful can this government get?


JMHO

Morneau is definitely having a lot of trouble answering some fairly basic questions regarding whether or not a "gender based analysis" has been completed on the carbon tax. He did not seem very comfortable answering Michelle Rempel's simple questions, seemingly tripping over himself and repeating platitudes and liberal taglines over and over...desperately trying to explain the reason for his lack of gender analysis which him and his virtue signalling boss proudly championed in the last budget. His lack of any coherent answer to a simple question is taking shameful to a new level.

The carbon tax is sexist, Michelle Rempel pulls Jedi mind tricks on Bill Morneau

[youtube]NfWcf69c9nU[/youtube]

Embarrassing, but not surprising.
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
Women do use more energy. Fact.

No one uses more energy than a Liberal MP trying to justify a gender-based, socioeconomic policy position with hollow, tone-deaf platitudes...which happen to be completely unrelated to the policy!!

Good thing he had to leave during the committee questioning, he wasn't offering anything of substance anyhow and was just wasting everyone's time. Morneau is kind of like the Hoid of the Liberal party.