Crap from the Left and added July 242020, from the right.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 871
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

One thing that I have found about Lefties: When they yell at you and then you yell back they say 'Don't yell at me'.

Jaydee- Thanks for the update, my shoulder is a bit sore today and I was was planning on skipping the gym until I saw your post. Now I can't wait to get there. Actually, I'm hoping for the revers

Posted Images

No matter how you look at it.  I pay $374 in carbon tax on my vehicle alone in a year.  I will only get back a MAX of$307.  How does that put money in my pocket?


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that those who voted for the present premier who said he would lower the price of gasoline should realise that they have been taken for a ride.  Not only has he done absolutely nothing other than to waste money on stickers for gas pumps, but he is also taxing you more by allowing you to drive faster and therefore having to buy even more gasoline.

Enjoy the ride.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is making you drive faster....


Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives “remain committed” to lowering the province’s gasoline tax, as drivers enjoy the lowest price at the pumps in years.

During the election campaign, Doug Ford promised to reduce gas prices by 10-cents per litre by scrapping cap-and-trade and slashing nearly six cents off the province’s gas tax.

Eliminating cap-and-trade, Ontario’s system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, contributed to the government taking credit for a 4.3 cent per litre drop at gas stations. Since then, a slump in global oil prices has led to even lower prices. Some GTA stations were selling gas for 92.9 cents per litre on Tuesday.

But drivers who may be wondering about the other part of the PC promise, a 5.7 cent per litre cut to the gas tax, could be waiting a while for that answer.

“We’ll have more to say on the remaining portion of our 10 cent per litre commitment in the future,” said a spokesperson for Finance Minister Vic Fedeli, without providing a timeline for an announcement.


The Liberal government, under former premier Kathleen Wynne, announced yearly increases in gas tax funding, raising the municipal share to 4 cents per litre. By 2021-2022, the estimated funding was set to more than double to $642 million.



Btw....listen to seekers video / Liz may...the last 30 secs are something else.  (I think this was at a press dinner where she had a little too much wine)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a long commute to work....

there should be an "S" on vehicle.  2 vehicles over a year.  $374 is quick average math.  Still more than I will ever see back.


Link to post
Share on other sites

While some say nobody is making you drive faster, the average speed on Ontario's 400 series highways is already over 120kph.  If it is raised, the reality is that drivers will only go faster.  A recent drive to Montreal only cemented that view for me.  My historical view of Quebec drivers on this trip has changed.  They were actually more civilised and drove slower than those in Ontario!

As for the lowering of the price of gasoline, Ford has done absolutely nothing and the price of fuel has risen $0.30/ltr since he came to power.  It is all just a tax grab.  The higher they allow the oil companies to charge, the more they take in taxes.  So drive faster.  And if that makes you angry, then rest easy because the liquor and beer stores are open longer hours so that you can buy more and pay more in taxes on your purchases.


While the carbon tax may not be the ideal solution, the current Ontario plan is worse.  Using taxpayers dollars to subsidize polluters makes no sense.  At least with the cap and trade system polluters had to pay and the public benefitted from being able to apply for grants to upgrade their homes.  I know several people who got more efficient furnaces, windows and insulation through the program.

In the end, it all comes down to who benefits.  Corporations or the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Data shows that higher speed limits does not lead to faster driving.  Looking at the UK, many secondary roads have speed limits of 70 MPH.  Roads that would be 60Km/H here.

Those roads have an average speed far lower than the posted limit.  Just because you can go that fast does not mean you should.

We also see data from BC where increased speed limits actually lowered the number of accidents on a stretch of road or remained even but did not increase.

the problem we have on Ontario roads (not specific to Ontario but bad here) is speed differential and lane control.  We have drivers that are on the highway (limit 100Km/h) doing 80 or less while traffic is attempting to flow at 100.  This causes a dangerous situation as traffic has to slow rapidly to avoid an accident;

Lane control is a big thin as well.  Traffic only flows well if people obey basic rules.  the larest rule is SLOW TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT.  If you are travelling slower than the flow of traffic then you should be in the right lane.  If you are the only vehicle on the road you should be in the right lane. you should ALWAYS be in the right lane EXCEPT when overtaking another vehicle or vehicles.  On the 401 when many (MANY) vehicles enter the highway they immediately head left. Mainly because, hey, its the "Fast" lane.  This is so far from the truth.  In fact my own experiments over the past 30+ years of commuting on the 401 shows that the right or middle lane are faster that the left lane on my commute.  Those guys that keep changing lanes to find the "faster" lane are only slowing traffic behind them causing other drivers to have to brake to maintain space.  

Speaking of Space, tailgating is another killer for the commute.  tailgating causes vehicles to need to brake more frequently and harder causing the wave of stop and go to get even worse.  if everyone kept the appropriate distance then the traffic would flow better.

All of this and we have not even approached the current speed limit on the 401.  My average speed on the 401 is between 30 and 50 Km/h on my commute.  The limit is 100.  I rarely see it.

raising the speed limit will have very little effect where most of us drive.  Where it will have an effect is in the stretches from Oshawa to Kingston and beyond and Milton to Windsor.  Everything in between is just a wide cattle path of slowness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to B.C., they have actually lowered the speed on some roads because of the increase in crashes.

That is why I believe that if they raise the speed limit in Ontario, the lack of driver training, discipline, and attentiveness will lead to a rise in crashes as well.

Driver training and licensing conditions need to be toughened first, imho.

As for the commute through Toronto on the 401, first off, the condition of those roads (in spite of constant construction) isn't conducive to 120kph limits.  Secondly, I agree that driver training and discipline makes for most of the problems.

And as I said above, outside the city, the average flow is above 120 already, so by increasing the limit the safety margins will only be further eroded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

```Its funny.  As with everything political it depends on where you look at the data.  I just watched a report the other day saying hat overall in BC on the roads with increased speed limits the overall accident rate went down.

Now it could be that the slice and dice of the data (which is what I currently do for a living) is done in such a way as to make it look good for one side of the equation.

So the overall accident rate went down = YAY

Fatality rates went up = BOO

Now how was that arrived at?  Fatalities per X accidents or overall fatality rate?  that could be a win or a loss depending on the way the data is sliced and diced.  I can make horrible stats look very good if I so desired (I don't).

Also one needs to look at all contributing factors.  Was there an increase in DUI during the sample time?  Was weather a factor more so or less so? was the road condition consistent during the sample period?  

Speed in and of itself is not a factor in an accident.  Cars can go very fast and not crash.  The ability of the driver to assess his situation and surroundings and adjust to the conditions appropriately are what is really at question.  A formula 1 driver can drive his car at 300Km/h and not die or have an accident however that same driver can have a severe accident in a corner at under 100Km/h (oddly where most collisions in F1 occur) Speed is not a factor.

The OPP and other police would have you  believe that speed is the cause f accidents.  I counter that speed does not "Cause" an accident but does, however, change the outcome when an accident does happen.  For example at 30Km/h and rear ender is a non event.  Pull off to the side and exchange info and go to a reporting centre to file a report.  No big deal.   Now rear ending a stopped car at 100Km/h is a life threatening event and will undoubtedly cause a road closure and severe injuries or death.  It will also bring several other vehicles into the accident as collateral damage.  Speed did not cause the accident in either case but the outcomes are vastly different.

Now the kicker.  Our (Canada) driver training is WOEFULLY INADEQUATE no matter what or where you drive.  We train drivers how to operate the machine we do not train them how to operate it in the realm of a crowded highway and what the actual rules are with regards to operating there.  even when these items are taught they are not adhered to or taken seriously. This is why we have people swerving in traffic and being self centered and in a rush.  These are the real dangers and these people need to be removed from the road.  They are a minority but there are enough to make is dangerous for everyone.

IMHO the po po need to concentrate their efforts on aggressive drivers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, boestar said:

We also see data from BC where increased speed limits actually lowered the number of accidents o

But when there is an accident on that section of the Coquhalla it is spectacular.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, deicer said:

Worth repeating here also..


“ Dear Ontario, 

 Your anger of late via social media needs to be redirected...

We can't keep spending on the taxpayers' credit card without expecting the bill to come due. 

This year, we'll spend $12.5 billion paying interest on debt in a Ontario alone, money that should be going to education and health care.

The next time you're angry with the Ford government for reducing spending to a particular program, please redirect your anger where it belongs... 14 years of mismanagement and wild overspending by McGuinty and Wynne.”


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will only take a few more months for the people of the other provinces that voted conservative to wake up and see the effects of their decision like the people of Ontario are, and it will make for a very interesting federal election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to interject a little reality into the discussion.

Here are two articles and a short video that clearly show how conservative politics have been only for the benefit of the 1% since the early 80's and Reagan's 'trickle down' policies.  Hope it doesn't hurt too much...


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes you just have to back up and realise that maybe you really didn't need the change.....

Once a particular narrative takes hold in the public mind, no matter how divorced it is from reality, it can be extremely hard to dislodge.

By Ryan McGreal
Published May 30, 2019

Contemporary politics in Canada can be crazy-making. A simplistic lie, repeated often and shamelessly enough, starts to take on the air of truth. And once a particular narrative takes hold in the public mind, no matter how divorced it is from reality, it can be extremely hard to dislodge.

Case in point: per capita public revenue and spending in this province were the lowest in Canada during the previous Liberal government, while the per capita debt grew fairly modestly during a severe recession and actually declined for the last three years of that government.

This directly contradicts the prevailing narrative that public spending was "out of control" under the Liberals and that the debt has reached crisis levels. Ontario Premier Doug Ford recently went so far as to claim absurdly that the province is "bankrupt".

Disproving these strategic lies was not difficult. It's not like I had to tap into some esoteric knowledge available only to the elect. The country's finances are all public information, easy to download from the Statistics Canada and Department of Finance websites.

Unfortunately, stating an obvious truth in the face of a hurricane-force lie has little effect. It's almost impossible to be heard through the fervour of people whose hatred of the Liberals - and particularly former Premier Kathleen Wynne - was deep, visceral and vicious.

So I have to admit that it has been gratifying to hear a chorus of other voices starting to notice the objective facts in front of their noses, even if it took a year of repeated assaults on decency by the governing Progressive Conservative Party to shake people out of their complacency.

Ontario Chamber of Commerce Analysis

First of all, we have the Ontario Chamber of Commerce - hardly a bastion of radical left-wing zeal - with a new analysis of Ontario's deficit and debt that cannot help but notice the sky is not actually falling after all.

Here is their chart comparing Ontario's per capita program spending in 2017 to the rest of Canada:

Chart: Per Capita Program Spending by Province, 2017 (Image Credit: Ontario Chamber of Commerce)
Chart: Per Capita Program Spending by Province, 2017 (Image Credit: Ontario Chamber of Commerce)

The accompanying text notes:

Despite having a large debt, Ontario has exhibited strong fiscal prudence compared to other provinces. In 2017, Ontario only spent an average of $9,829 per capita on programs — the lowest in Canada (Figure 2). Further, spending on programs has grown at half the rate of the rest of Canada.

The analysis credits Ontario for doing a good job of controlling spending and reducing the deficit, and further notes that borrowing to invest in infrastructure and growth-supporting social programs is regarded as a good thing by credit rating agencies:

Ontario has done comparatively well to reduce expenditures and mitigate deficit spending costs. As discussed, spending cuts must be done with the full understanding of the economic consequences associated with the failure to either maintain and build critical infrastructure, or invest in social programs and growth-supporting services. It is also worth noting deficit spending that goes towards the development of government assets (such as infrastructure) is viewed by creditors more graciously as the cost of the debt is offset by an increase in total assets, thus mitigating the effect of these investments on net debt.

The Chamber also notes that with historically low interest rates - and no indication that they are going to rise significantly any time soon - it smacks of "opportunism" to pay down the debt when it makes more sense to take advantage of low rates for public investments that pay a bigger return than the reduced debt charge:

The normative effects of low interest rates present opportunities for public investments in projects with a rate of return on investment that exceeds the going interest rate. This leaves little impetus — outside of opportunism and insurance of a lower debt burden in the event of economic downturn — for governments to begin a regiment of debt repayment.

Now, this is still the Chamber of Commerce, an organization ideologically opposed to tax increases, so they are abstruse about the revenue side of the equation, falling back on generalities about taxes as market-distorting instruments best avoided where possible.

But the objective fact is that the Ontario government spends less because it collects less and hence has less to spend:

Chart: Total Provincial Revenue per Capita, FY 2016-17
Chart: Provincial Revenue Per Capita, FY 2016-17

Globe Editorial

The Chamber may have been reluctant to draw a bright line from its own analysis to the obvious conclusion, but the editorial board of the Globe and Mail has no such qualms. In a blunt editorial published this week, the Globe notes:

Mr. Ford will frequently insist that his predecessors were responsible for “out-of-control” government spending – but among Canada’s provincial governments, Ontario is the lowest per capita spender. You read that right: Ontario is dead last in total spending – 10th out of 10.

The editorial goes on:

Conservatives also like to claim that taxes in Ontario are out of control, and a lot of voters surely feel that way. However, the unpleasant truth is that not only is Ontario Canada’s lowest-spending province – it also has a relatively low tax burden, and Confederation’s lowest per capita revenues.

Amazingly, the editorial from this venerable conservative daily concludes with rank conservative heresy:

Does the province need to balance its budget? No. It just needs to get the deficit down to a manageable level, low enough that the debt-to-GDP ratio gradually falls. That’s what was happening in the last few years of Liberal government, until the party opened the taps in an election year, and then the Tories brought in accounting changes that made things look even worse.

Note on Accounting Changes

Incidentally, those "accounting changes" include taking Auditor-General Bonnie Lysyk's side in one of the odder policy debates in Ontario history.

In 2017, Auditor-General Lysyk abruptly changed how she evaluated the government's budget and decided that a public pension fund in surplus should count as a liability rather than an asset. The government argued that because the fund was in surplus, that represented money the government didn't need to feed into the pension fund, leaving it available for other uses.

The Ontario Government called together an expert panel led by Tricia O'Malley, the chair of the Canadian Actuarial Standards Oversight Council, to review the change and make a recommendation. The panel concluded that the government was following accounting best practices and that the AG was wrong.

That didn't stop Lysyk from continuing to insist against the conclusion of her own professional standards association that an asset should count as a liability. When the Ford government came in, they quickly accepted Lysyk's argument because it allowed them to pretend the deficit was far bigger than it actually was.

The incoming Ford government announced late last year that the deficit was actually $15 billion, rather than the $6.7 billion the previous Liberal government had stated. Of course, it soon came out that the government's chief accountant, Provincial Controller Cindy Veinot, actually took the extreme step of resigning rather than sign off on the bogus number.

But as this cynical age of neopopulism has taught us, a simplistic lie, repeated often and shamelessly enough, starts to take on the air of truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess every author has their agenda. A sampling of Mr. Magreals interests:



Spending is spending .... per capital doesn’t mean squat if you are still creating deficits. And despite what citizens/lefties think...this is the reality:


TORONTO – Bond rating agency Moody’s has downgraded the province of Ontario’s credit rating.


The agency announced the downgrade from Aa3 to Aa2 on Thursday, citing the province’s $14.5-billion deficit in 2018-2019 and projections that it will continue to post deficits in the coming years.

Moody’s said the combination of increased debt and slow revenue growth will result in a faster than previously anticipated increase of the province’s debt burden.



So more money wasted on interest payments, less on programs......unless we go back to that we’ll worn solution..... “make the rich pay”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.