Trudeaumetre - Bravo!

618 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Who could have predicted these problems for the Liberals? Absolutely everyone

John Ivison: Trudeau’s first Question Period as prime minister was a miserable affair for the government, so exposed is it on two policy positions that never made any sense

 

 

quizzical

yup miserable. don't agree with all the article.  i watched the National on Global to see what was on it. underwhelming by Justin, the finance dude and Rona, no NDP shown, going to watch CTV  and CBC to see their coverage too.

must be a huge PR strategy session going on tonight with them. the Liberal talking heads aren't here.

quizzical

nd where's all the Liberal women? there's not a one visible in the pic above? did the NP do this on purpose?

Sean in Ottawa

BTW they were thinking about naming an airport after Trudeau junior but the concern is confusion with Chicago's airport.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

The Liberals only decided on running a deficit after Mulcair declared himself dedicated to a balanced budget for four years running.

I'm not sure of the context of the discussion as I mostly skip the "debates" between you and Sean, but this part is surprisingly not true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/25/justin-trudeau_n_8382304.html?nc...

On Aug. 25, Mulcair announced that an NDP government would run balanced budgets. Two days later, Trudeau announced a three-year plan of what he deemed to be modest deficits of up to $10 billion to spend on mostly infrastructure projects. Trudeau had toyed with the idea for well over a year but had made his mind up only in July.

...

Trudeau’s decision to run deficits would prove to be the single biggest demarcation point between the Liberals and the NDP.

“My biggest concern in the summer time was that they were going to do that before we did,” Butts told HuffPost.

quizzical

offs

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Liberals only decided on running a deficit after Mulcair declared himself dedicated to a balanced budget for four years running.

I'm not sure of the context of the discussion as I mostly skip the "debates" between you and Sean, but this part is surprisingly not true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/25/justin-trudeau_n_8382304.html?nc...

On Aug. 25, Mulcair announced that an NDP government would run balanced budgets. Two days later, Trudeau announced a three-year plan of what he deemed to be modest deficits of up to $10 billion to spend on mostly infrastructure projects. Trudeau had toyed with the idea for well over a year but had made his mind up only in July.

...

Trudeau’s decision to run deficits would prove to be the single biggest demarcation point between the Liberals and the NDP.

“My biggest concern in the summer time was that they were going to do that before we did,” Butts told HuffPost.

Everything I've read has suggested that 10 billion either way means little.

The NDP waited until August 25th to promise balanced budgets so if the Liberals were concerned they had plenty of time to make the announcement before the NDP.

As I understand it the Liberals were considering a deficit at that time, not committed to it or they would have announced it right away. As soon as Mulcair made his move they went for it.

The Liberals didn't want to announce that they would run deficits first because that would have given the NDP an excuse not to promise balanced budgets either.

Had Mulcair said the NDP would have to run a deficit the Liberals would not have done so. They would have gone with a balanced budget to differenciate themselves. Even with deliberately running a deficit, and the Conservatives and NDP promising balanced budgets, the Liberals branded themselves the party that can return Canada to balanced budgets and the NDP's plan as unaffordable.

What Gerald Butts says to a reporter for an article in Huffingtion Post is all part of calculated Liberal image building even more so than Trudeau. It's Butts job to be strategic.

I evaluate everything politicians say and do from the perspective of political strategy including expressing genuine values.

Even not being calculated is a calculated decision.

Trudeau may genuinely believe in increasing civility in the house and reducing partisanship and working together to create better legislation but he also believes that saying it and doing it will help his electoral chances in 2019 and make the other parties look bad if it appears they are the ones standing in the way of a more productive relationship.

P.S. Ever since Trudeau won the leadership I feel like I have been watching the other parties walk into his traps.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

OK you Opposition parties. You better listen to Trudeau and do what ever he says if ya know whats gud for ya! Kapisch?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

OK you Opposition parties. You better listen to Trudeau and do what ever he says if ya know whats gud for ya! Kapisch?

ETA: Ya betta listen if you knows whats gud for ya or Justin and the boys are gonna vist ya! Kapisch?

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

As I understand it the Liberals were considering a deficit at that time, not committed to it or they would have announced it right away. As soon as Mulcair made his move they went for it.

The Liberals didn't want to announce that they would run deficits first because that would have given the NDP an excuse not to promise balanced budgets either.

Your second paragraph here (which is correct) explains why the first sentence is incorrect.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

As I understand it the Liberals were considering a deficit at that time, not committed to it or they would have announced it right away. As soon as Mulcair made his move they went for it.

The Liberals didn't want to announce that they would run deficits first because that would have given the NDP an excuse not to promise balanced budgets either.

Your second paragraph here (which is correct) explains why the first sentence is incorrect.

 

A pretty average contradiction from Pondering.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW they were thinking about naming an airport after Trudeau junior but the concern is confusion with Chicago's airport.

Amusing. Did you make that up?

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW they were thinking about naming an airport after Trudeau junior but the concern is confusion with Chicago's airport.

Amusing. Did you make that up?

Yes-- had a friend flying through O'Hare airport and thought of Trudeau airport... So: "Oh Hair." No good for Cullen either -- then it would be "No Hair."

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:
BTW they were thinking about naming an airport after Trudeau junior but the concern is confusion with Chicago's airport.

Amusing. Did you make that up?

i was amused too. never thought about who made it up.

i kinda liked the locks he had when he was here at his dad's mountain and did a quick visualization of OoooooHareeeeee across the mountain tops with his hair blowing in the wnd.

NorthReport

‘Who do we disappoint next?’ wasn’t how this was supposed to go, but it’s where the Liberals are

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/michael-den-tandt-who-do-we-dis...

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

‘Who do we disappoint next?’ wasn’t how this was supposed to go, but it’s where the Liberals are

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/michael-den-tandt-who-do-we-dis...

MDT is going to be the one that is disappointed because he is a Harper supporter.

Specifically, they could ratchet back some of the nearly $10 billion a year they’ve promised to spend on “infrastructure investment.” They wouldn’t need to cancel the doubling of the Conservatives’ $65 billion, ten-year infrastructure plan to $125 billion — only delay some of it. “Social infrastructure” and “green infrastructure” were painfully vague propositions to begin with. Cut the annual outlay in half, spend what’s left on patching up decaying overpasses in, say, Montreal, and bank the rest.

Doing this might not get them back to the promised deficit of $10 billion — but they’d be considerably closer to the mark than they are now.

There are a couple of good arguments against doing what I’ve just proposed. One is that Canada’s debt-to-GDP ratio today is just above 30 per cent, a far cry from the nosebleed level in the 1990s. Another is that the Trudeau Liberals campaigned and won on a platform of borrowing to fund infrastructure spending. Surely curtailing this, for any reason, would be deemed a deal-breaking betrayal? The opposition would smell blood, close in and seize “sunny ways” by the throat.

But here’s the thing: The opposition will smell blood regardless. The Liberal Party benefited for years, especially in Ontario, from its reputation for fiscal probity. This is one of Trudeau’s two emerging weak flanks, the other being security. Shoring it up will get no easier as time passes and economic shocks mount, as they do. It will only get harder.

I didn't notice voters having a problem with all of Harper's deficits coupled with his lavish spending on G20, Conservative advertising etc. while slashing services to Canadians.

One miscalculation I made about the election is the depth of partisanship in the National Post and Globe and Mail. I assumed that while they wanted Conservative if they saw them losing they would go Liberal as second best but good enough. That isn't the case at all.

Canada is not headed for economic disaster and Trudeau is fine on security.

 

NorthReport

But, but that's the Liberal way!  Frown

Much talk, only some action on First Nations problems

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/08/liberals-launch-first-phase-of-inqu...

NorthReport

Deficit discrepancy makes yet another 'oops' moment for the Trudeau government

Andrew Coyne: Why must we depend upon the government of the day, of whatever party, to tell us the state of the country’s finances, when we know they are probably lying?

 

Why are we still entrusting the government to report on Canada’s finances?

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-...

quizzical

the oops are coming fast and furious and all they, the Liberal propagandists, can do is attack people pointing out the lies and hypocrisies.

good article by Mr Coyne. what are our true finances?

quite the vogue photo shoot.

mark_alfred

Good article.   Coyne mentions that "we are now into, what, the fourth 'oops' moment of the new government — though the week is not out — wherein it confesses that the promises on which it was elected seven weeks ago are no longer operative."

1.) 25,000 refugees by the end of the year now down to 10,000 (as the NDP promised); 2.) fighter jets still flying in Syria; 3.) tax increase on rich to pay for tax cut for the near rich is at least $1 billion short of the mark and probably $2 billion (it's not "revenue neutral"); and the fourth one, which I find most interesting, is....

Quote:
the deficit that was supposed to come in at a modest $10 billion for two years is now headed for, well, your guess is as good as mine — $15 billion? $20 billion? Already the Liberals are hinting that some of the other promises on which they were elected — restoring home mail delivery, for example — might have to be delayed or reversed.

It's interesting how the Liberals criticized the NDP's promises as being too expensive and kept saying that Andrew Thomson saying the NDP would "prioritize" the services it would deliver meant "austerity".  Now we see that some of the Liberal's promises, like home mail delivery, may be cancelled.  Also interesting that we may start to see a snowballing of the promised deficits into something larger and larger.  The NDP's more sensible, definitive, and slower approach to change funded by increased corporate taxes rather than snowballing deficits may look mighty attractive to people come 2019.

NorthReport

Hasn't Trudeau ever heard of teleconferencing? What a colossal waste!

Climate talks: Slimmed-down draft proposal still leaves major issues unresolved

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-climate-talks-new-draft-plan-2...

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Good article.   Coyne mentions that "we are now into, what, the fourth 'oops' moment of the new government — though the week is not out — wherein it confesses that the promises on which it was elected seven weeks ago are no longer operative."

Whistling in the dark. This is on the same level as all of his "gaffes" that were supposed to lead to his doom.

It is 100% reasonable that the change in economic conditions changes the amount of the deficit. "Duh". 

Now that both the right, and apparently the left as well, have decided balancing the budget is the most critical "promise" to keep.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Good article.   Coyne mentions that "we are now into, what, the fourth 'oops' moment of the new government — though the week is not out — wherein it confesses that the promises on which it was elected seven weeks ago are no longer operative."

Whistling in the dark. This is on the same level as all of his "gaffes" that were supposed to lead to his doom.

It is 100% reasonable that the change in economic conditions changes the amount of the deficit. "Duh". 

Now that both the right, and apparently the left as well, have decided balancing the budget is the most critical "promise" to keep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC5irOzjqFo

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..scroll down kennedy stewart's facebook page to see this video. there is no youtube version.

Watch: Liberal Minister says Kinder Morgan and other projects currently under review "will not be asked to go back to square one."

Full steam ahead for Trudeau.

mark_alfred

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Good article.   Coyne mentions that "we are now into, what, the fourth 'oops' moment of the new government — though the week is not out — wherein it confesses that the promises on which it was elected seven weeks ago are no longer operative."

Whistling in the dark. This is on the same level as all of his "gaffes" that were supposed to lead to his doom.

It is 100% reasonable that the change in economic conditions changes the amount of the deficit. "Duh". 

Now that both the right, and apparently the left as well, have decided balancing the budget is the most critical "promise" to keep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC5irOzjqFo

Quite athletic.  I had hoped it would be a clip of Trudeau saying that unlike the others, who always make promises but then scale them back due to the previous government leaving a bigger hole than initially forecast, that he was real and open to deficits and thus NOTHING would be scaled back.  Now, well, it's kind of a different tune where, as Coyne mentioned, we're seeing early signs that some promises, like restoring Canada Post home mail delivery, may be scaled back. In other words, they're doing exactly what they criticized the NDP's Andrew Thomson of saying regarding setting priorities. 

Coyne's article:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-...

That said, Pondering is correct that this government is better than the last, and will remain popular unless things really go wrong.  Bringing in the first plane-load of refugees the other day was very positive.

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

..scroll down kennedy stewart's facebook page to see this video. there is no youtube version.

Watch: Liberal Minister says Kinder Morgan and other projects currently under review "will not be asked to go back to square one."

Full steam ahead for Trudeau.

Not going back to square one does not mean no new requirements and doesn't mean it will be approved. The environmental review is only one requirement. As I understand it Kinder Morgan does not have social licence which is also a requirement.

Sean in Ottawa

And the Titanic was the biggest and best until it could not float anymore.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the enviromental review is important and forms a major corruption to the process. how can the government claim to consult in good faith when this takes place?

eta:

Kinder Morgan and Enbridge

Back in December 2013 when the Kinder Morgan subsidiary Trans Mountain Pipelines filed its application with the National Energy Board (NEB), some could be excused for believing that approval of the expansion project was inevitable. Much has been made of the fact that there is an existing right of way in place for the original 60 year-old pipeline which covers much of the proposed new route (ignoring of course that close to 1,000 kilometres of new pipeline is proposed to be built and the associated sevenfold increase in tar sands tanker traffic). Further, the NEB has already approved a tolling application setting the fees for use of the proposed new pipeline BEFORE it had even been approved. Moreover and importantly, the Federal Government had paved the way for a quick regulatory approval by gutting and replacing the Canadian Environmental Assessment regime with CEAA 2012 in their omnibus bills C-38 and C-45.

 

scott16

I'm linda skeptical of this website.

Can someone tell me if Trudeau promised anything about pharmacare, dental care, or eye care?

mark_alfred

I think they had a pharmacare promise.  You can check their platform.  It's on their site.  Hmm, I just checked my downloaded copy of the Lib platform, and couldn't find pharmacare.  I thought they had something about it, but maybe not.  Anyway, most of the promises that trudeaumetre.ca mentions are cited from the Lib platform, so pretty reliable.  But, again, you can just go to the Liberal website and find the actual Lib platform there.

quizzical

epaulo13 wrote:
.the enviromental review is important and forms a major corruption to the process. how can the government claim to consult in good faith when this takes place?

eta:

Kinder Morgan and Enbridge

Back in December 2013 when the Kinder Morgan subsidiary Trans Mountain Pipelines filed its application with the National Energy Board (NEB), some could be excused for believing that approval of the expansion project was inevitable. Much has been made of the fact that there is an existing right of way in place for the original 60 year-old pipeline which covers much of the proposed new route (ignoring of course that close to 1,000 kilometres of new pipeline is proposed to be built and the associated sevenfold increase in tar sands tanker traffic). Further, the NEB has already approved a tolling application setting the fees for use of the proposed new pipeline BEFORE it had even been approved. Moreover and importantly, the Federal Government had paved the way for a quick regulatory approval by gutting and replacing the Canadian Environmental Assessment regime with CEAA 2012 in their omnibus bills C-38 and C-45.

sad. not surpised at all. knew the Liberals wouldn't change a thing in Harper's NEB and their control of the Transmountain. they've gone to too much trouble to make it happen and it's why they've control of the Fraser and Thompson Rivers and their watersheds.

btw KM isn't using a large portion of the existing 1 ,000km right of way. there are significant new right of ways being created where the twinning isn't feasible to do.

NorthReport

Where Was Canada at Major UN Anti-corruption Meeting? Frown

Trudeau's team turned out huge for Paris climate talks, but skipped Russia gathering.

 

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/12/09/Canada-Anti-Corruption-Meeting/

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

Where Was Canada at Major UN Anti-corruption Meeting? Frown

Trudeau's team turned out huge for Paris climate talks, but skipped Russia gathering.

 

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/12/09/Canada-Anti-Corruption-Meeting/

The St. Petersburg conference coincided with the swearing-in of the new Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but that should not have been a barrier to Canada sending a delegate. The Caretaker Convention, which spells out how government must continue operating during an election, says "the government acts with restraint… confining itself to necessary public business (either routine or urgent)."

That happened under the Harper caretaker government. It is more than a little ridiculous to blame Trudeau for not sending delegates to a conference happening before he was even sworn in. I'm disappointed in the Tyee.

NorthReport

Pathetic!

Grand promises of Paris climate deal undermined by squalid retrenchmentsGeorge MonbiotGeorge Monbiot

Until governments undertake to keep fossil fuels in the ground, they will continue to undermine agreement they have just made

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2015/dec/12/paris-c...

NorthReport

The party's over Alberta.

Why cheap oil is the key to beating climate changeMitchell Anderson

Keeping the price of a barrel of crude at $75 or less will devastate the profitability of fossil fuel extraction – as the shelving of three tar sands projects demonstrates

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/11/cheap-oil-climate-c...

NorthReport

This did NOT happen under the Harper regime.

James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'

The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-...

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

This did NOT happen under the Harper regime.

James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'

The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-...

And he is absolutely right. It will take enormous public pressure before any political party will get serious about climate change (and income inequality).

quizzical
NorthReport

Trudeau Liberal's never said anything about
Increasing the GST during the election campaign.

Funny dat!

Webgear

quizzical wrote:

oh webgear am i going to win our bet?

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canada-may-keep-surveillance-refuel...

 

I said they would stop the bombing missions, the refueling anf surveillance wasn't part of the bet. ;)

I knew they would keep the surveillance planes there.

 

quizzical

ah if i remember you said the planes would be home within 4 months.

Webgear

quizzical wrote:

ah if i remember you said the planes would be home within 4 months.

The liberals only said they would stop the bombing missons, not the support missions. That is what I meant.

We will see, maybe they will bring everything back.

 

Sean in Ottawa

What would give me a little more confidence would be an increase to the fiscal capacity of government. Given the finances I would welcome an admission by the Liebrals that for the long-term finances of the country we have to increase taxes to afford the things we want -- a general tax increase across the board -- with the exception of low income would be acceptable.

To that end an increase of 1 point to the GST, a reversal of the middle income tax cut, a further increase to the top income level, and a increase in business taxes would restore the ability of government to serve us. If it came with keeping promises, creating real childcare spaces, environmental protection, dramatically increasing support to Aboriginal Canadians, support for health and education -- then I am all for it. This is better than pretending to be able to deliver Liberal promises with Conservative tax cuts which is what we have now.

Throw in a tax decrease for lopwer income people by bringing the basic exemption up to $20,000 and I would be quite happy with the direction.

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:
Trudeau Liberal's never said anything about Increasing the GST during the election campaign. Funny dat!

I haven't heard anything about the GST.

Sean in Ottawa

Let's have some context for the Liberal WAY UPPER Middle income tax cut.

Wages have changed very little since 2011 and these are the latest figures being used in a 2015 McLeans article. In fact many middle income jobs have been lost and replaced with lower income jobs. While people who have kept their jobs have very low marginal increases those who have lost their jobs or changed their jobs have seen losses. These figures therefore remain remarkably current.

 

Unattached individuals:

Income groups are divided into quintiles (lowest 20%, lower middle, middle upper middle, and top 20%)

As you can see the Liberal "Middle Tax" cut goes mostly to the top 20% and a very small amount to the top of the next highest 20% and nothing for those who are really in the middle.

Bottom 20% to 18,717 Liberal Tax cut =0

Lower Middle 18,717-23,356 Liberal Tax cut =0

Middle 20% 23,357-36,859 Liberal Tax cut =0

Upper Middle 36,860-55,498 Liberal Tax cut =0 up to 45283; $70.75 at 50,000; $153.22 at the very top of the UPPER MIDDLE Bracket

Top 20% 55,499 and up Liberal Tax cut= $445.75 at 75,000; $679.2 from 90,563-200,000; $279,20 at 210,000; 79.20 at 215,000

****

As you can see the middle class tax cut starts at the very high middle range and goes all the way up to those earning over $215,000 a year -- for an individual. After $215,000 per year, the top bracket claws it back so at $220,000 you have a tiny tax increase of $120.80 which grows to $520.80 by the time you reach 230,000.

If you are not pissed off yet let's look at the range of the top 1% of individual incomes. That figure is $191,000 a year. Yet the middle income bracket gives up till $215,000 in earnings. So while missing almost all of the middle income range the Liberal middle income tax break goes all the way up to include many of the top 1%.

Fucking disgusting -- don't you think?

Sean in Ottawa

Now let's look at how families are affected. Since tax is individual we will have to make some rough assumptions that may not hold true -- some of the families will have larger income disparities but for the sake of argument we will assume income split evenly. We can do this based on the analysis of income splitting that for most people there was little benefit since more families these days have more equal incomes. However, you can assume some benefit a little lower than I outline.

Assuming income split 50-50:

Bottom 20% to 38,754 Liberal Tax cut =0

Lower Middle 38,754-61,929 Liberal Tax cut =0

Middle 20% 61,929-88,074 Liberal Tax cut =0 (Some families might get a small tax decrease if they have unequal incomes)

Upper Middle 88,074-125,009 Liberal Tax cut =0 to up to $516.65 (and a little more for more unequal income families)

Top 20% 55,499 and up Liberal Tax cut= The top income level gets the maximum as well up to $1358.40 And people can be getting this great Liberal tax cut for the wealthy when earnign family incomes as high as $430,000 per year.

And let's not forget these families are well into the top 1%.

Now a few a little lower than this depending on how equal the income is may get a tax increase. So we must admit that it is possible that while many in the top1% get a tax decrease a few poor families who are only in the top 2% may actually be getting a tax increase.

Puke inducing isn't it?

Sean in Ottawa

Now here is the news to cap it all off -- just to make your day: The FUCKING Liberal Middle income tax cut for the Rich that goes only to the top 20% does not even get paid for by the tax increase on some of the top 1% (some of the 1% actually get a tax decrease).

This means that this tax cut for the FUCKING rich gets to in the end be paid for by, you guessed it -- all those who did not get a cut -- people earning middle and lower incomes. They will get to pay for the Liberal tax cut to the rich through lower services as the Liberal will not be able to afford both their tax cut to the FUCKING rich and all the promises.

Note: please do not barf in the sink -- this may block the plumbing. It might be better to barf either on the closest Liberal or in a toilet -- whichever is more convenient.

So the FUCKING Liberals just like the FUCKING Conservatives redefined middle to mean rich in order to do a tax cut for the rich paid for by the poor and real middle income earners and just a little offset by an increase on the insanely super rich which may now employ their accountants to hide the money.

In the end the people most screwed by the Liberal Middle class tax cut? Well that would be the actual middle income people. The median income people do not get anything, they shoulder a lot of tax and they get to help Trudeau's upper class friends laugh at us while we think theya re actually paying more.

Wonderful -- right? Don't forget -- not the sink folks

quizzical

Sean instead of responding to the Liberal shills and here debunking the bs, can't we just say fuck off to them?

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean instead of responding to the Liberal shills and here debunking the bs, can't we just say fuck off to them?

Apparently we can't -- but I think there is major value in understanding the so called middle class tax cut. I attempted to address that -- to actually look at who benefits. Many people think that only those with a total income in the range of the cut benefit and this is why I worked out that benefit. As you can see it goes much further up. Also as you can see the more detail I uncovered the more angry
I got as I was able to show that this middle income tax cut misses the middle income but includes rich people all the way up to the top 1%.

Most non-Liberals do not know that either. I did not know that until I did the calculations.

quizzical

i'm not surprised in the slightest. after the whole childcare bs, it was obvious to me Justin and Sophie are phot ops for the Liberals who are only interested in helping themselves and their "peers".

Pages

Topic locked