[Winnipegger]

Marc Emery's calculation of tax revenue was based on replacing profits of organized crime. So instead of drug dealers and grow-ops getting profit, the government gets tax. None of the guys I met grow their own.

If the choice is drug dealers with who knows what quality, or tobacco companies growing and manufacturing joints sold in legal stores, I think most people would buy from a legal business. And it wouldn't be government grown, it would be grown by tobacco companies. I saw one president of a tobacco company say if it was legalized, he could have joints on the market within a year. Interesting; that means he already knows where to get seeds. Considering it's currently illegal, that's an interesting confession.

And quality is an issue. The concern is some pot sold by drug dealers has herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer still on the product. Those chemicals are very harmful. Furthermore, TV documentaries said pot has been bred to increase THC at the expense of reducing CBD. Cannabidiol (CBD) is an antipsychotic. For those who take pot for medical purposes, CBD is believed to be the active ingredient, the good stuff. Reducing CBD reduces its positive effects.

[romanP]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Delwin Delwin:

The sold the GM shares for $2.1 Billion so really still a 200 million deficit.

Liberal math.

Governments sell off things all the time. Property, assets, equipment. Do we not include that too?

They also sucked on the EI teat to balance the books, too.

You know, just the way that the Tories used to give the Liberals grief for.

and surely, this time, finally, if we just reform the capitalist government one more time, Charlie Brown will get to kick his football.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Good timing for good news.

Yeah, I'm sure it was a total coincidence

Now they can roll out their new campaign slogan:

"Vote CPC: Because now you can't say that we've never balanced a budget!"

or "CPC: Because our one balanced budget and 8 consecutive deficits and is just as good as their 9 consecutive surpluses"

Or since it was a 'surprise surplus', how about

"Vote CPC: Because sheer dumb luck has to count for something!"

[Thanos]

Vote NDP: because the amount of money we'll gain off of taxing legalized marijuana will surely be much larger than the amount of money we'll lose after we shut down the entire fossil fuel industry. Like, it will, won't it?

[andyt]

"Dope will get you thru times of no money better than money will get you thru times of no dope."

[Winnipegger]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

"Vote CPC: Because sheer dumb luck has to count for something!"

It's not dumb luck. I don't want to defend CPC, but I do have to defend balanced budgets. But this isn't sustainable.

They drastically increased the Universal Child Care Benefit. Cost of the program before last year's change was $2.8 billion per year. Increasing the benefit from $100 per child per month to $160, increased cost of the program to $4.5 billion. But they didn't stop there, they created a benefit for children aged 6-17, which increased the program to $18.0 billion. However, they made the changes effective July of this year. The benefit was back-dated to January 1st, but you didn't get it until this July. That did two things: you got a big one-time cheque in July, just before the election. They hope that will buy votes. The second thing is the increase applies to budget year 2015-2016. The increase for months January-March should have applied to fiscal year 2014-2015, but since it wasn't paid out until this fiscal year, it doesn't count. So deferred payment makes fiscal year 2014-2015 look better than it is.

The other parties also claim Conservatives underspent for veterans affairs, seniors, and aboriginal programs.

[romanP]

[romanP]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Good timing for good news.

Yeah, I'm sure it was a total coincidence

Now they can roll out their new campaign slogan:

"Vote CPC: Because now you can't say that we've never balanced a budget!"

we can easily say that. the surplus is bogus. it omits debts owed by cities and provinces, and took money from EI to create it.

[DrCaleb]

Creative Accounting. And here's how:

Federal departments left $8.7 billion unspent last year

$1:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper on Monday defended federal departments for holding on to billions of dollars last year. The unspent money was instead returned to the federal treasury, and played a huge role in the Conservative government posting a $1.9-billion budget surplus in the last fiscal year.

Finance Canada reported the federal surplus Monday, after initial projections in April had suggested a $2-billion deficit. The report said a variety of factors were responsible for the surplus, including a slight bump in government revenue from corporate and personal income tax.

But federal departments and agencies also chipped in by handing back an estimated $8.7 billion for different programs that had been requested — and in some cases publicly announced — by the government and approved by Parliament.

Example:

$1:

Another campaign now underway is the ABC, or Anyone But Conservatives, which is a veterans group currently protesting on social media and outside Conservative rallies.

Boudreault historically voted Conservative but he said the party won't be getting his vote this time around.

He said his MP, Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington Conservative candidate Scott Reid, has been missing in action when it comes to helping him secure his veteran's benefits.

"I did vote for him," Boudreault said of Reid. "I'm waiting for a knee replacement and some other treatments, and benefits. And I've been after him since 2012 and I haven't got any answers yet."

$1:

But that record hasn't discouraged former combat medic and veteran Jeff Lehoux from running for the Liberals against Gallant. Lehoux served in Afghanistan in 2005 where his military career was cut short.

"I broke one of my legs in multiple places," said Lehoux in an interview from the riding. "My other leg was ripped open and had a lot of bleeding from it. I was too badly injured to carry on with my duties."

Since then, Lehoux has become personally familiar with the Department of Veterans Affairs and said he's running for office as a way to "take care of the soldiers, especially in this riding."

Lehoux and more than a dozen other Liberal candidates stood behind leader Justin Trudeau in August to unveil the party's platform on veterans, promises that included reopening veteran's affairs offices across Canada.

The Conservative government's relationship with some veterans went sour in a very public way in January 2014 when then Veterans Affairs minister Julian Fanitno got in a lively dust-up with senior veterans over the closure of nine veterans affairs offices across the country.

The office closures, the red tape and the denial of certain benefits top the list of complaints from veterans. The New Veterans Charter, which grants injured veterans lump-sum payments rather than a lifetime pension, continues to rattle young veterans injured in recent conflicts.

$1:

"You can put $25 billion into the budget. If you don't have access to that money it doesn't mean anything, and that's what the Conservatives did," said Stoffer.

Stoffer also pointed to the $1.13 billion unspent by Veterans Affairs Canada, which he believes puts the recently announced $1.9-billion surplus in perspective.

"It is rather ironic. They can't say the money wasn't needed," Stoffer said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ca ... -1.3230996

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Creative Accounting. And here's how:

Federal departments left $8.7 billion unspent last year

It's not creative accounting. This happens every year in business and in government.

Just because something is budgeted, that doesn't mean it HAS to be spent.

I remember being back in high school and our science department ordered a classroom full of new Mac's. Why? They had money left over in the budget and wanted to spend it to ensure they got the same amount next year.

I budget a certain amount each month for groceries. If I have a surplus at the end of the month, I don't run out to Loblaw's to blow the rest of the budget.

[romanP]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Creative Accounting. And here's how:

Federal departments left $8.7 billion unspent last year

It's not creative accounting. This happens every year in business and in government.

just because it's the norm doesn't mean it isn't bullshit.

$1:

Just because something is budgeted, that doesn't mean it HAS to be spent.

in fact, yes it does. budget money not spent cannot be claimed for that purpose in the next budget. this is true for all federal and provincial departments.

$1:

I remember being back in high school and our science department ordered a classroom full of new Mac's. Why? They had money left over in the budget and wanted to spend it to ensure they got the same amount next year.

they had to spend the money or they wouldn't get it the next year.

$1:

I budget a certain amount each month for groceries. If I have a surplus at the end of the month, I don't run out to Loblaw's to blow the rest of the budget.

your grocery budget is not mandated by any kind of legislation.

[OnTheIce]

romanP romanP:

in fact, yes it does. budget money not spent cannot be claimed for that purpose in the next budget. this is true for all federal and provincial departments.

Would love you to provide some information to back this up.

romanP romanP:

they had to spend the money or they wouldn't get it the next year.

And we wonder why Ontario is so deep in debt?

romanP romanP:

your grocery budget is not mandated by any kind of legislation.

As said above, would love to see the specifics on this alleged legislation.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Just because something is budgeted, that doesn't mean it HAS to be spent.

The purpose of Government is to provide services to the citizens. Courts, Military, roads, etc. When they budget a certain amount for the healthcare of injured veterans, the you're damn straight that the money has to be spent!

What they are doing is reprehensible. They ask these people to serve Canada, to die if needed, and when they come back mangled and unable to do anything else they shut the purse. It's political posturing at the expense of the suffering of people we asked to defend this country.

I can see if your high school doesn't need new computers, that the money doesn't need to be spent. But when the government squanders our future because it doesn't like science, or defers repairing critical infrastructure, or leaves people that it is directly responsible for injuring in a position of suffering when it could help, they need to release the budgeted money as it's their duty to provide these services to Canadians.

Withholding this money to try to win a few votes is unacceptable. The sad part is it will probably be effective. Most voters stop listening after they hear 'surplus' and never bother to find out more.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

romanP romanP:

in fact, yes it does. budget money not spent cannot be claimed for that purpose in the next budget. this is true for all federal and provincial departments.

Would love you to provide some information to back this up.

This is something anyone who has worked in Government knows.

Around here, it's called 'March Madness'. Fiscal year end is April 30th. If budgets aren't spent, they will be reduced the next year. So whatever is left in the budget is spent in March, because open tender suppliers need time to fill orders, and if the order doesn't arrive in the fiscal year it doesn't count.

I've seen basements filled with brand new, in the box PCs, 'aging' out. They sit in groups by the year they were purchased, and are sent for 'disposal' (HDDs shredded, Units sent to auction) based on the number of years they were in inventory.

Hundreds of PCs. They are destroyed, never having been used.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The purpose of Government is to provide services to the citizens. Courts, Military, roads, etc. When they budget a certain amount for the healthcare of injured veterans, the you're damn straight that the money has to be spent!

So why is this only an issue now?

This has been done by every government as long as I can remember because it's the financially sensible thing to do.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

What they are doing is reprehensible. They ask these people to serve Canada, to die if needed, and when they come back mangled and unable to do anything else they shut the purse. It's political posturing at the expense of the suffering of people we asked to defend this country.

What you and the rest are doing, is reprehensible. Trotting out veterans to use them as political pawns, using a practice that's been used by governments for ages to make Harper seem like some evil, veteran-hating person.