The federal budget
- Thread starter JonB2004
- Start date
Re: RE: The federal budget
he probably dont agree with it cause it comes in a tory blue folder as oppose to a liberal red folder :lol:
well i have to see the budget to make a decision, i want to see the additional tax cuts Flaherty might have in there
Kreskin said:
he probably dont agree with it cause it comes in a tory blue folder as oppose to a liberal red folder :lol:
well i have to see the budget to make a decision, i want to see the additional tax cuts Flaherty might have in there
I don't agree with it because it will have at least 22 billion in cuts.
Higher income taxes with exemption for the rich.
Less funding for the arts
Less funding for Natives
Less funding for other progressive areas and a 1,200 dollar check that can be clawed back by provincial governments and other people.
I don't support the budget from what I have heard so far, but if it changes I will support it.
Higher income taxes with exemption for the rich.
Less funding for the arts
Less funding for Natives
Less funding for other progressive areas and a 1,200 dollar check that can be clawed back by provincial governments and other people.
I don't support the budget from what I have heard so far, but if it changes I will support it.
No I do not support this budget as a lot of people have speculated. The child care portion of this budget, the corner stone of the conservative platform will not help low to modest wage earners. The only people that will get the full child care subsidy are people who have one parent at home and who’s annual income is above 106,000.00 so that is how the conservatives help low and moderate income families. That is how he puts families first. His backroom secrecy and his flip flops on everything from the gas tax to child care and everything in between have made it clear that we need to get rid of this government. Here is the article in the Toronto Star about the child care.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...930&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...930&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467
The budget will appeal to conservatives in Canada.
It has more military spending, and less for emissions reductions that we had before which was not enough for the seriousness of global warming.
Those two items tell us a lot. Conservatives see the threat of terrorism and the Taliban as a greater threat to Canadaians than global warming. On that, they are not likely serving themselves well as far as value for money spent on protecting ourselves, but perception counts for a lot.
Is terrorism more likely to harm you than global warming?
- Well, how many times have you been attacked by a terrorist?
VS how likely is it that you will be affected by the weather?
Lol, obviously we are all going to be affected by weather and not hardly ANYONE, in Canada, will be hurt by a terrorist.
Severe weather events are more to the point though.
How likely is it that you have been or will be affected by
-ice storms,
-drought and forest fires,
-super-heavy rains,
-crop failures,higher priced food
-rising ocean levels,
-invasion damages by foreign insects like the Mtn Pine Beetle
-no more winter cold that triggers so many species movements
- severe heat waves killing the weak people before their time
- a generally unstable climate, whereas before we had dependable seasons
YES!!! All those things will affect EVERYONE.
and NO!!!! - terrorism has never happened in Canada. Air India maybe... did it affect YOU?
It is so very UNLIKELY that any individual Canadian will be hurt or even inconvienced by a terrorist. They are not here, those warnings about Canada being a target were never confirmed, they may have been straight from GW Bush's crazy mind.
Terrorism is about BUSH and conspiracy and fake wars.
Global Warming is about a beautiful world being ruined.
This budget misses that truth completely, as do conservatives.
Karlin
-------------------links -
FAKE TERROR - THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/
It has more military spending, and less for emissions reductions that we had before which was not enough for the seriousness of global warming.
Those two items tell us a lot. Conservatives see the threat of terrorism and the Taliban as a greater threat to Canadaians than global warming. On that, they are not likely serving themselves well as far as value for money spent on protecting ourselves, but perception counts for a lot.
Is terrorism more likely to harm you than global warming?
- Well, how many times have you been attacked by a terrorist?
VS how likely is it that you will be affected by the weather?
Lol, obviously we are all going to be affected by weather and not hardly ANYONE, in Canada, will be hurt by a terrorist.
Severe weather events are more to the point though.
How likely is it that you have been or will be affected by
-ice storms,
-drought and forest fires,
-super-heavy rains,
-crop failures,higher priced food
-rising ocean levels,
-invasion damages by foreign insects like the Mtn Pine Beetle
-no more winter cold that triggers so many species movements
- severe heat waves killing the weak people before their time
- a generally unstable climate, whereas before we had dependable seasons
YES!!! All those things will affect EVERYONE.
and NO!!!! - terrorism has never happened in Canada. Air India maybe... did it affect YOU?
It is so very UNLIKELY that any individual Canadian will be hurt or even inconvienced by a terrorist. They are not here, those warnings about Canada being a target were never confirmed, they may have been straight from GW Bush's crazy mind.
Terrorism is about BUSH and conspiracy and fake wars.
Global Warming is about a beautiful world being ruined.
This budget misses that truth completely, as do conservatives.
Karlin
-------------------links -
FAKE TERROR - THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/
I support this budget in aggregate, while there are parts that I oppose entirelty. In terms of child care, the environment and Native issues, I think that this budget is an abject failure. However, with the debt reduction strategy they have proposed, the recognition of the fiscal imbalance, and some of their economic endeavours, while they could use amendments, make this budget satisfactory, in my opinion. The Government should not be defeated over this ways and means motion.
Re: RE: The federal budget
This budget satisfies our own gullibility, and a selfish short term outlook.
After blowing our surpluses, let’s hope their won’t be any large natural disaster that will need to be paid for on top of all the cuts to environmental programs and possible social programs.
I thought "conservative" was being cautious with spending, but it seems the modern day "conservative" are flagrant spenders. I guess the Liberals were actually “the conservatives” when it came to fiscal responsibility despite the sponsorship scandal.
However, I believe this is a “get on board budget”. The real pain will be if Canada rewards them with a majority.
http://www.thestar.com
Where have we seen this before?
Tories cutting taxes and spending more
May 3, 2006. 01:00 AM
THOMAS WALKOM
OTTAWA—Forget your preconceptions. Stephen Harper and his government are not Mike Harris Conservatives. They are more like George W. Bush conservatives.
They are not spending less than those they used to deride as high-rolling Liberals. In fact, they plan to spend more.
But as with the U.S. president, their spending will be on different things.
They plan to spend on military hardware rather than measures to deal with climate change.
They plan to cut cheques to parents with children under 6 rather than fund regulated daycare centres.
And at the same time — again like Bush — they plan to tax considerably less.
They'll make some cutbacks to fund their ambitious spend-without-taxing plans. But in the overall scheme of a federal government that spends roughly $220 billion annually, these as yet unspecified cutbacks — estimated at about $1 billion a year — should be relatively minor.
Hardly Mike Harris. The former Ontario premier made a virtue of pain when he was first elected in 1995, cutting funds to welfare recipients and scaling back government services.
Harper, by contrast, is cagier. He has the support of only a minority of MPs in the Commons and knows he can't be too mean spirited if he wants to win big in the next election.
As a result, the watchword of the new Conservative government's first budget is selective largesse.
Indians and Inuit may not see the money promised to them just before last winter's election. But they'll get some, about $450 million worth over two years.
Anyway, they are not an important Conservative voting bloc.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/20060502sheppard.html
Consider that between November and now, just a scant five months, Ottawa's projected underlying surplus for this fiscal year and next jumped from $27.8 billion to $37.2 billion, according to budget documents.
But now, with all the tax cuts and new spending priorities in place, the feds will be showing a modest surplus of only $600 million this year, and just a bit more next.
What this means of course is that there is not going to be anything left over to finance all the things that haven't been explicitly budgeted. These would appear to include the Arctic port and icebreaker that were part of the Tories' election promises, all the new jails that will be needed for the get-tough-on-crime plans (though Flaherty said he would be looking into that), and even anything big on the fiscal imbalance front.
Emptying the cupboard also means there is nothing left for any new social programs like Pharmacare, which a working group of provincial ministers is supposed to be reporting back on by the summer. Nor will there be any money for those who are hoping the government may yet be convinced to keep a national day-care program going, like Quebec's, even as it doles out $100 a month to parents of young children.
This budget satisfies our own gullibility, and a selfish short term outlook.
After blowing our surpluses, let’s hope their won’t be any large natural disaster that will need to be paid for on top of all the cuts to environmental programs and possible social programs.
I thought "conservative" was being cautious with spending, but it seems the modern day "conservative" are flagrant spenders. I guess the Liberals were actually “the conservatives” when it came to fiscal responsibility despite the sponsorship scandal.
However, I believe this is a “get on board budget”. The real pain will be if Canada rewards them with a majority.
http://www.thestar.com
Where have we seen this before?
Tories cutting taxes and spending more
May 3, 2006. 01:00 AM
THOMAS WALKOM
OTTAWA—Forget your preconceptions. Stephen Harper and his government are not Mike Harris Conservatives. They are more like George W. Bush conservatives.
They are not spending less than those they used to deride as high-rolling Liberals. In fact, they plan to spend more.
But as with the U.S. president, their spending will be on different things.
They plan to spend on military hardware rather than measures to deal with climate change.
They plan to cut cheques to parents with children under 6 rather than fund regulated daycare centres.
And at the same time — again like Bush — they plan to tax considerably less.
They'll make some cutbacks to fund their ambitious spend-without-taxing plans. But in the overall scheme of a federal government that spends roughly $220 billion annually, these as yet unspecified cutbacks — estimated at about $1 billion a year — should be relatively minor.
Hardly Mike Harris. The former Ontario premier made a virtue of pain when he was first elected in 1995, cutting funds to welfare recipients and scaling back government services.
Harper, by contrast, is cagier. He has the support of only a minority of MPs in the Commons and knows he can't be too mean spirited if he wants to win big in the next election.
As a result, the watchword of the new Conservative government's first budget is selective largesse.
Indians and Inuit may not see the money promised to them just before last winter's election. But they'll get some, about $450 million worth over two years.
Anyway, they are not an important Conservative voting bloc.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/20060502sheppard.html
Consider that between November and now, just a scant five months, Ottawa's projected underlying surplus for this fiscal year and next jumped from $27.8 billion to $37.2 billion, according to budget documents.
But now, with all the tax cuts and new spending priorities in place, the feds will be showing a modest surplus of only $600 million this year, and just a bit more next.
What this means of course is that there is not going to be anything left over to finance all the things that haven't been explicitly budgeted. These would appear to include the Arctic port and icebreaker that were part of the Tories' election promises, all the new jails that will be needed for the get-tough-on-crime plans (though Flaherty said he would be looking into that), and even anything big on the fiscal imbalance front.
Emptying the cupboard also means there is nothing left for any new social programs like Pharmacare, which a working group of provincial ministers is supposed to be reporting back on by the summer. Nor will there be any money for those who are hoping the government may yet be convinced to keep a national day-care program going, like Quebec's, even as it doles out $100 a month to parents of young children.
It is an attack on the working and the middle class of Canada. I can't believe the Conservative Government has done this, this budget has no conformity to a minority government and is worse then the Liberal budgets. Tax cuts for the rich and corperations while the middle class, the poor and working class get a 1% income tax increase. WTF This is what I would have expected from the Reform party, Corperate Welfare.
Worst thing of all is that this government seems to have courted the separatist vote in the commons. This is two fold on both parties. The bloq being a mainly social democratic party has shown that it is just a party of opritunists and that the conservatives are willing to work with an anti federalist party. I hope both parties suffer in the next election for their pacts.
Worst thing of all is that this government seems to have courted the separatist vote in the commons. This is two fold on both parties. The bloq being a mainly social democratic party has shown that it is just a party of opritunists and that the conservatives are willing to work with an anti federalist party. I hope both parties suffer in the next election for their pacts.
I only caught the end of it on CPAC, from the highlights I saw it was a decent budget. I'll be reserving judgement until I go and actually take a look at it myself though.
LittleRunningGag, you didn't miss much. I had much hope this budget and was let down even further by this government. There was more by-partisan budgets by the Liberal magorities then by this conservative minority.
If there is a major terrorist attack in the US or Canada for that matter it will affect alot of people, not just in casualties but in terms of the economy.
Finder said:
its .5% not 1%, and your not factoring in the other benefits all workers will receive, not just the GST too.
Have you seen the recent poll numbers in Quebec??? If there was an election called the Bloq would be obliterated, not to mention the Liberals have also lost alot of support in Quebec. The Conservatives are the highest they have been since the Mulroney years, and I beleive the NDP are very close to the Liberals.
Its all games, if the Bloq were up they would vote against the budget....... and the real test for Harper will be the fiscal imbalance, it will either boost him to majority or sink the ship in Quebec
The budget is a typical minority government budget, appeal to the most people you can so you can get a majority next time and implement the budget you want. That is not to say this is a wrong approach, as virtually every party in a minority situation has, or would, do the same.
One thing to keep in mind about the GST cut. It is a one POINT reduction, which works out to a 14.3% reduction in the GST. After all, a 3.5 point reduction is equivalent to cutting the GST in half (7.0% - 3.5%). Couple that with the employment credit, the, for lack of bette word kid sports credit, and the income tax reduction, this budget does lower taxes. Everything must be taken into consideration, not just income tax rates or reductions.
By the way, for those provinces with HST (I think that is what it is), which I believe is tied to the GST, does this mean that the HST should be reduced as well? If not, you had better get after your provincial government, not the feds, right?
All in all, a safe budget, one that reduces taxes overall, one that increases military and police spending, one that takes Kyoto wasted money and puts it into a Made In Canada climate change solution, and I'd say that Harper has appealed to everyone. Hank, you are right, the CPC is leading all other parties in Quebec, which must indicate the CPC is doing something right. Leading in Quebec, at majority poll numbers nation wide...get used to the CPC for quite a while, methinks.
One thing to keep in mind about the GST cut. It is a one POINT reduction, which works out to a 14.3% reduction in the GST. After all, a 3.5 point reduction is equivalent to cutting the GST in half (7.0% - 3.5%). Couple that with the employment credit, the, for lack of bette word kid sports credit, and the income tax reduction, this budget does lower taxes. Everything must be taken into consideration, not just income tax rates or reductions.
By the way, for those provinces with HST (I think that is what it is), which I believe is tied to the GST, does this mean that the HST should be reduced as well? If not, you had better get after your provincial government, not the feds, right?
All in all, a safe budget, one that reduces taxes overall, one that increases military and police spending, one that takes Kyoto wasted money and puts it into a Made In Canada climate change solution, and I'd say that Harper has appealed to everyone. Hank, you are right, the CPC is leading all other parties in Quebec, which must indicate the CPC is doing something right. Leading in Quebec, at majority poll numbers nation wide...get used to the CPC for quite a while, methinks.
bluealberta, I have serious reservations about the termination of the Kyoto Accord at this time. While the termination of the accord may be inevitable, given the current Government of Canada, I would prefer that they come up with their own strategy before they drop the agreement. The Conservative Party of Canada has shown absolutely no vision in relation to the environment, other than the fact that it's apparently not a priority.
Well I got personally hammered in the budget, I pay quarterly HST payments and I'm sure the Province isn't going to reduce it one percent. My personal income tax was increased, and if I don't have a baby soon (hell will freeze over first) I'm poorer than last year. On a positive note I don't have to change all of my companies ledgers by one percent.
Re: increasing emissions by reducing programs ...
I think this budget should be defeated on the basis of global warming alone. We need to send stronger messages apparently, and defeating this budget would be a strong message.
Canada backpedals on Kyoto promises:
" Emission control budget cut by 40 percent." -
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature6.cfm?REF=282
This is the main budget item that really sucks.
The Harpocracy of the Conservative Party of Canada claiming environmental concerns is evident when we see them cutting funding for emissions reductions by 40%.
Global Warming is the biggest threat to our way of life, and thats besides the terrible threat to nature's balancing act and increasing species extinction. WE HAVE to reduce the emissions that are causing global warming and climate changes.
Since we don't even manage to reduce the rate that our emissions are increasing, we can expect to face the worst that climate change can throw at us, and that is a lot. We have not yet seen her full power.
Especially bad hit will be our kids and our grandchildren... how can we look them in the eyes and explain that we did nothing when we had the chance?
And how will Harper look his kids in the eyes and explain that HE actually tok away some of the progress we were making?
This is awful, the budget should have been defeated on this matter. Even if it took down the govt., it would be ok to defeat it... that would really send a strong message what our priorities are.
I think this budget should be defeated on the basis of global warming alone. We need to send stronger messages apparently, and defeating this budget would be a strong message.
Canada backpedals on Kyoto promises:
" Emission control budget cut by 40 percent." -
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature6.cfm?REF=282
This is the main budget item that really sucks.
The Harpocracy of the Conservative Party of Canada claiming environmental concerns is evident when we see them cutting funding for emissions reductions by 40%.
Global Warming is the biggest threat to our way of life, and thats besides the terrible threat to nature's balancing act and increasing species extinction. WE HAVE to reduce the emissions that are causing global warming and climate changes.
Since we don't even manage to reduce the rate that our emissions are increasing, we can expect to face the worst that climate change can throw at us, and that is a lot. We have not yet seen her full power.
Especially bad hit will be our kids and our grandchildren... how can we look them in the eyes and explain that we did nothing when we had the chance?
And how will Harper look his kids in the eyes and explain that HE actually tok away some of the progress we were making?
This is awful, the budget should have been defeated on this matter. Even if it took down the govt., it would be ok to defeat it... that would really send a strong message what our priorities are.