Jump to content

Sorry Albertans, stuff your fossil fuel

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Where oh where has all the carbon TAX gone to then ??


Trudeau to miss 2020 emissions target by 99.2%


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is poised to miss his 2020 target to reduce Canada’s industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to human-induced climate change by 99.2%, based on his government’s latest publicly available data.

So of course we should take his 2030 and 2050 emission reduction targets seriously, right?


This is but one example of the fantasy world in which political discussions today about climate change are conducted in Canada and globally.

After the Trudeau government was elected in 2015, then environment and climate change minister Catherine McKenna said the emission reduction targets it inherited from the previous Stephen Harper government would be the minimum — “the floor” as she described it — of what Trudeau and Co. would achieve.

In 2016, Trudeau and McKenna amended that to simply achieving Harper’s targets — reducing emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.


Trudeau has since promised to exceed his 2030 target and achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050.

Now back to the real world.

Canada’s emissions in 2005 were 730 million tonnes, making Trudeau’s 2020 target 606 million tonnes, requiring a 124-million-tonne cut in 2005 emissions by 2020.

Canada’s emissions today — according to the latest government figures we have from 2018— are 729 million tonnes annually.

So, where the Trudeau government promised to reduce Canada’s emissions by 124 million tonnes compared to 2005 levels by 2020, he’s achieved one million tonnes, with less than two months to go — 99.2% short of his target.

When we get up-to-date emissions data from the Trudeau government, which typically lag two years behind reality, the Liberals will probably miss their target by less than 99.2%, because of the COVID-19 recession.


Recessions cause emissions to drop temporarily because people have less money to buy goods and services created with fossil fuel energy, which means almost everything.

But once the economy begins to recover, emissions start to rise again, which is exactly what happened in the 2008 global recession that began with the U.S. subprime mortgage scandal.

Trudeau’s 2030 and 2050 targets are also works of fantasy, which is not to single him out.

If Harper had won the 2015 federal election, he would have missed his targets too, probably by more than Trudeau.


This given that Harper was opposed to bringing in a national carbon tax/price.

Trudeau ran on doing so in the 2015 election and brought it in after he won.

Today, Trudeau’s national carbon tax/price is $30 per tonne of emissions, rising to $40 per tonne next year and $50 per tonne in 2022.

The problem with our politicians is that any promises they make on reducing emissions — promises federal Liberal and Conservative governments have been making and breaking for more than 30 years — is that to take them seriously requires “the willing suspension of disbelief.”

That phrase was coined by English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge in the early 19th century, to describe the necessary willingness of the audience to intentionally abandon logic and critical thinking, in order to fully appreciate a fictional work of art.

That’s pretty much where we stand with governments not just in Canada, but globally, regarding their promises to reduce emissions.

Taking their commitments seriously requires the willing suspension of disbelief, given that in the real world, global emissions have gone up by 25% since 2005.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quebec has a dream based on 


The government is hoping technological advances and added investment will help close the gap in the coming years.


Quebec to ban sale of gas-powered cars by 2035 as part of climate plan

By Staff  The Canadian Press
Posted November 16, 2020 10:55 am
Quebec announcing a plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars and SUVs by the year 2035.

Premier François Legault and Environment Minister Benoit Charette announced the measure today as part of the government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gases by 37.5 per cent over 1990 levels by 2030.

The $6.7 billion announced Monday covers the next five years and includes money to power transportation, building heating and industrial activities with electricity.

Legault said Quebec has missed earlier greenhouse gas reduction target due to previous governments’ failure to come up with concrete and costed plans.

He said the funding announced today is enough to get Quebec 42 per cent of the way to its goal.

The government is hoping technological advances and added investment will help close the gap in the coming years.

© 2020 The Canadian Press
Link to comment
Share on other sites

COMMENTARY: British Columbia was warned about its looming hydro disaster

By Mike Smyth  Global News
Posted November 26, 2020 8:00 am
 Updated November 26, 2020 5:40 am
WATCH: (Oct. 13, 2020) BC NDP Leader John Horgan during the 2020 leaders' debate is asked by moderator Shachi Kurl if the Site C Dam energy project is his government's 'dumpster fire.' – Oct 13, 2020

British Columbia taxpayers are hanging onto their wallets, anticipating a critical report on an over-budget megaproject that could turn into the province’s biggest-ever boondoggle.

The Site C dam, currently under construction on the mighty Peace River, has already seen its price tag soar through the stratosphere.

The hydroelectric megaproject has been touted as a renewable energy miracle that could generate clean, green power for a century.

But the costs are spiralling quickly out of control.

Originally budgeted at $6.6 billion in 2010, the 1,100-megawatt dam has seen its projected price tag steadily bloat to $10.7 billion in the last official estimate.

But now there are fears the costs could explode even higher, due to nightmarish engineering challenges at the remote worksite in the B.C. Interior.

The biggest problem is the loose, shifting land base in the Peace River valley, threatening the stability of the massive dam, powerhouse and spillway.

“The dam is not being built in a narrow rocky canyon like most dams you see in Western Canada and in the western U.S.,” investigative reporter Sarah Cox, of the environmental news website thenarwhal.ca, told me.

“It’s being built in a valley notorious for landslides,” Cox said, noting the riverbank and surrounding land base is composed largely of sand, silt, clay and, most notoriously, brittle shale.

“It’s essentially compressed mud, and that has led to B.C. Hydro’s worst nightmare.”


Construction crews have been pouring tonnes of concrete at the site in an effort the stabilize the riverbank, but there are concerns that it won’t be enough.


Now British Columbians are bracing for two looming reports on the project: One by B.C. Hydro, the province’s public electrical utility, and another fresh engineering review ordered by NDP Premier John Horgan.

“We’re going to take a look at that,” Horgan said during the recent B.C. election, in which his New Democrats were re-elected with a large majority government.

“If it determines that we’re on the wrong course, we’re going to take the appropriate action to protect B.C. Hydro ratepayers and to protect British Columbians.”

Could that appropriate action include cancelling the project? Horgan would not rule that out.

“This is absolutely serious for B.C. Hydro ratepayers and for the project,” he said. “I don’t want to diminish that in any way.”

Walking away at this point would be shocking development after the province has already spent close to $6 billion on the project so far.

It would also be a stunning flip-flop by Horgan, who ordered continuing construction of the project in 2017.

Actually, it would be more like a flip-flop-flip, when you consider the history of the dam.

The project was started by the previous Liberal government under then-premier Christy Clark. Horgan, then the opposition leader, opposed it.

But once Horgan became premier in 2017, he changed his mind, arguing that the project was “past the point of no return” and it was too late to stop building it.

At the time of Horgan’s conversion, the province had spent about $1.9 billion.

It would be a revolting development indeed to see Horgan switch positions again, and walk away from scarred landscape and a massive hole in the ground after pouring another $4 billion down the drain.

As British Columbians wait for the verdict, no one can say the province wasn’t warned.

Many have compared the problem-plagued Site C dam to the over-budget Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project in Newfoundland.

Originally budgeted at $6.2 billion, Muskrat Falls is now pegged to cost $13.1 billion.

A public inquiry eviscerated the business case for the project and concluded the Newfoundland government failed to protect the public.


In 2017 — before Horgan decided to keep building the Site C dam — key Newfoundland officials urged him not to make the same costly mistake.

“My comment to British Columbia is a big red sign saying ‘Stop!’,” David Vardy, former CEO of Newfoundland’s public utilities board, told the environmental website DeSmog Canada.

“This is crazy. Don’t go ahead with this,” Vardy pleaded.

Horgan didn’t listen to him. Now a critical day of reckoning is looming for British Columbia, with the fate of the Site C dam hanging in the balance.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

British Columbia taxpayers are hanging onto their wallets, anticipating a critical report on an over-budget megaproject that could turn into the province’s biggest-ever boondoggle.

Looks like BC is going to get a taste of a similar green horror story that WYNNE put Ontario through. When will Canadians learn that Socialism of all forms = Disaster .??

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Study has dire warning

  • Calgary Herald
  • 4 Dec 2020
  • LICIA CORBELLA Licia Corbella is a Postmedia columnist in Calgary. lcorbella@postmedia.com Twitter: @Liciacorbella
img?regionKey=wltPAdBh6oXk9k5mnR7%2buQ%3d%3dDARREN MAKOWICHUK/ FILES For Lease signs dot 5th Avenue and elsewhere in downtown Calgary these days.

Alberta is on the verge of becoming a have-not province, and that has negative implications not just here but for all of Canada, a new report reveals.

In short, Canada's goose has officially stopped laying golden eggs and the whole country is going to feel the effect.

A new report entitled, The Great Convergence: Measuring the Fiscal Capacity Gap Between `Have' and `Have-not' Provinces, shows that if trend lines continue, Alberta could soon start receiving equalization payments after being the largest contributor to the program for decades.

You don't have to be an economist to know that doesn't bode well for all Canadians.

The Fraser Institute report, written by Ben Eisen and Milagros Palacios, is, as Eisen said during a telephone interview, “a bad news story.

“It's perfectly reasonable to read this report and feel unsettled — to worry,” said Eisen.

The report measures the fiscal capacity of provinces — which, in short, means the ability of each province to raise its own revenues to pay for public services — and that capacity is at the core of the federal equalization program, which is designed to allow all provinces to provide high-quality public services regardless of their financial means.

“The collapse in Alberta's fiscal capacity has been remarkable and is likely to produce historic results,” states the report, pointing out that since 2007-08, the gap has shrunk from 92.8 per cent to four per cent.

“We estimate that the resource revenue collapse this fiscal year 2020-21 will essentially complete the process of Alberta's fiscal capacity convergence with the rest of Canada. We estimate per-person fiscal capacity in Alberta for 2020-21 will be $9,189. This is almost identical to the per-person fiscal capacity in the rest of Canada ($8,832).”

That means for the first time in 53 years, Alberta will be bumped out of top spot.

“We estimate that Alberta will lose its spot as having the highest per-capita fiscal capacity in Canada for the first time since the modern notion of fiscal capacity was developed in 1967,” states the report, which predicts that British Columbia will take Alberta's place, followed by Saskatchewan, with Alberta falling into third place.

“Alberta's deficit has been over $6 billion every year since 2015, while multiple analyses show that the province's current policy bundle of low taxes and high spending is fiscally unsustainable given reasonable assumptions about future demographic and economic conditions.”

Alberta's per-capita program spending is higher than other provinces and that's going to have to change, says University of Calgary economics professor, Ron Kneebone.

He points out that Alberta's oil and gas industry decline led to many high-paying jobs disappearing, which has damaged many other sectors of the economy since those workers are no longer spending as much money.

“It's like a snowballing effect. As the oil and gas industry slows, and continues to shrink even further, that snowball is going to grow larger and larger, wiping out much of our fiscal capacity,” says Kneebone.

“The government is going to have to make some really hard decisions … it's tough to talk about these things during a pandemic, but we continue to have a health-care sector that is eating up 50 per cent of tax revenue,” Kneebone says, and if we don't get that under control, less and less money will be available for other vital programs like education. Those are really tough decisions.”

As Alberta Finance Minister Travis Toews said last year,

“We can no longer spend like we're the rich kids on the block because, quite frankly, we're not anymore.”

This report proves that. Indeed, Premier Jason Kenney's unpopular changes to physician compensation during the COVID-19 pandemic appear less dissonant now, though no more popular.

Other oil-producing provinces — Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador — will also likely face additional fiscal pressures due to the decline in oil and gas prices.

“If you told me it was gonna happen I wouldn't have believed you,” said Eisen.

“Where Alberta has gone from having fiscal capacity that was about twice as high per person as the rest of the country to having only a four per cent advantage over the rest of the country, it's just a huge fundamental change,” he added.

In 2007-08, Alberta had the “highest fiscal capacity in Canada ($16,743) — a per-person fiscal capacity that was nearly three times that of the lowest province, P.E.I. ($5,744), states the report.

“The possibility of Alberta becoming an equalization recipient province in the medium term — which would have been unthinkable five or 10 years ago — now looms as an entirely plausible future scenario.”

What will this mean? Currently, five provinces benefit from equalization — Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I.

“In all of these provinces, equalization represents a significant share of revenue. In 2018-19, this share ranged from a low of 10.2 per cent of all revenue in Quebec to 19.3 per cent in New Brunswick.

“The great convergence could therefore have significant implications for the size of equalization grants to these provinces,” as they would have to share more of the equalization pie.

This happened in the late 2000s and early 2010s when Ontario became eligible for equalization payments for 10 consecutive years.

“Per-person payments to the province were low, but because of the size of the province, Ontario briefly became the second-largest recipient of equalization grants in Canada in nominal dollars, behind only Quebec,” says the report.

The report adds that what once seemed “far-fetched” is now possible — all 10 provinces becoming have-not provinces under the equalization formula.

Meanwhile, the federal government released its fiscal update this week announcing a $381.6-billion deficit, with plans of spending $100 billion in extra tax dollars without any specific goals.

Pity our young people who will be saddled with these debts.

The great fiscal reckoning facing this country has gotten much worse because Canada's goose has stopped laying golden eggs, not just because of low oil prices but because of federal government policies and decisions that have sickened the goose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, for Prager University

“97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.”

How many times have you heard that statement? Probably hundreds. It may seem like a compelling and scientific argument against fossil fuels, but it’s one of the most illogical, unscientific arguments you can make. To see how, let’s use this form of argument for another controversial product, vaccines.

An anti-vaccine person approaches you and says, “97 percent of doctors say that the side effects of vaccines are real?”

What would you say in response?

You’d probably say, “Yeah but the benefits far outweigh the side effects.”

By saying that “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real” without mentioning any of the benefits of vaccines, the anti-vaccine activist is trying to get you to look at the potential dangers of vaccines out of context. 

When fossil fuel opponents say “97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real,” they are doing the same. Yes, using fossil fuels for energy has a side effect—increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Okay. But what about the upside? In the case of fossil fuel that upside is enormous: the cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy that makes modern life possible, and at a scale no other energy source can match.

So, how significant is the side effect? This raises another problem with the statement “97% percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.” It tells us nothing about the meaning or magnitude of “climate change”—whether it’s a mild, manageable warming or a runaway, catastrophic warming. This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation—using the same term in different, contradictory ways.

If someone were to say “97% of doctors agree that vaccine side effects are real,” what exact “vaccine side effects” do the doctors agree on? That a certain number of babies will get a rash? Or that large percentages will get full-blown autism? Precision is key, right?

But fossil fuel opponents don’t want you to know the precise magnitude of climate change. Because if you did you wouldn’t be scared of climate change, you would be scared of losing the benefits of fossil fuels.

For example, listen to how Secretary of State John Kerry manipulates the “97 percent of scientists” line. “97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible,” he said in a speech in Indonesia in 2014. Later, in the same speech, he claimed that Scientists agree that, “The world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse.” 97 percent of climate scientists never said any such thing.

So what did the 97 percent actually say? It turns out, nothing remotely resembling catastrophic climate change. One of the main studies justifying 97 percent was done by John Cook, a climate communications fellow for the Global Change Institute in Australia. Here’s his own summary of his survey: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

“Main cause” means “over 50 percent. But the vast majority of papers don’t say that human beings are the main cause of recent warming. In fact, one analysis showed that less than 2 percent of papers actually said that.

How did Cook get to 97 percent, then? First, he added papers that explicitly said there was man-made warming but didn’t say how much. Then, he added papers that didn’t even say there was man-made warming, but he thought it was implied.

A scientific researcher has a sacred obligation to accurately report his findings. Cook and researchers like him have failed us—as have the politicians and media figures who have blindly repeated the 97 percent claim to support their anti-fossil fuel goals.

How can we protect ourselves against this kind of manipulation? Whenever someone tells you that scientists agree on something, ask two questions: “What exactly do they agree on? And, “How did they prove it?”


Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jaydee said:

“97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real.”

Maybe it needs to be framed differently.

Planetary climatology suggests that periods of static climate conditions are transitory. Climate change is the norm. My property was once under saltwater and at some point in the future it most certainly will be again. 

The response to climate change needs to be reframed too. Canada emits 1.7% of the worlds carbon on a yearly basis. Our land mass scrubs every bit of that plus 20% more. So, if we shiver in the dark and wreck our economy by dumping 80Mts/year we could get that down to say 1.2%.

The only question is are you willing to pay the price?.... from what I've seen of liberal efforts on virtually every other front, the answer is NO.

How bloody simple is that eh? But like many simple things, (bare bow archery for example), it's just not easy. The real problem here is the people who tell you it is and their cousins who will refuse to answer the most simple of climate activist questions. And that is "80 Mts is a big effort, what are you willing to give up? 

Unless a climate guru is willing to answer that question, they are nothing but noise... as it turns out, a common liberal affliction. Go hard or go home, because right now we are on track to exceed our Paris Accord targets by between 15-20%. 



Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Net-zero would be net-negative for Canadians

Since 87% of Canada’s energy comes from hydrocarbons, the harm to our economy would be gigantic

The long-heralded Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act sets out a radical target: remove or offset all manmade greenhouse gases by 2050. In spite of its vainglorious billing, Bill C-12 constitutes a betrayal of serious purpose to environmentalists, as well as a menacing assault on jobs and growth to economists, businesses owners and anyone else who cares about their standard of living. For those who do not buy in an apocalyptic climate emergence, the bill represents an unjustified government intrusion into free markets. It is classic prime ministerial virtue-signalling on a woke subject. It assumes no responsibility for achieving its goals or for determining whether they can be achieved or, for that matter, whether the attempt would be harmful to the economy, to national unity and even to its stated objective.

The act’s first nonenforceable milestone is 2030, several elections away, when Justin Trudeau probably won’t be around to answer for it in Parliament. So he can again evade personal accountability, as he also will with the crushing financial burden his profligate spending will impose on our children and grandchildren.





Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Federal carbon tax to increase to $170 per tonne by 2030 as Liberals unveil new climate plan

Not nearly enough.

If you are of the mind to use carbon taxes as a tool then do it right.... $250-$300 per ton is required and it's needed sooner rather than later to serve as a deterrent. Even at $210, it will only raise gas prices by some $ .40 per litre and that's not nearly enough.

Goals will not be met, it's an income redistribution scheme only. You will still drive to work and that needs to stop.

None of this means I think it's a good idea, my fascination is with people who think they can loose 200 pounds by putting sweet and low in their coffee.

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it is surprising with this government, but the increased carbon tax is being peddled more aggressively and telling people what they want to hear...it is like a support program.........more money back in your pocket than you are paying in (for most people), cash back (as a opposed to a tax credit) and said payment will be made 4 times a year.

So, it will be the mean old cons who will have to explain to an increasingly socialist society (cerb, child benefit) that Trudeau is a bad man for giving money away. Sadly, it is immediate needs that people think about not that pesky trillion $$$$ debt. I still don’t think the average Canadian knows the difference between debt and deficit, nor do they know if the federal debt includes provincial debt (and how bad those finances are).....just look at Ontario and Newfoundland. The numbers have become mind numbing.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool eh?

Combined debt right now is equal to about 65% of our total economy and amounts to about $40,000 per Canadian (actually 39 something if memory serves).

Anyone can try it at home for a month, it will never be easier than during a Covid lockdown. Set 65% of your monthly income aside and pay all of your bills with only the remaining 35%. Then offer your adult children a guaranteed minimum wage top up and pay for all their prescription drugs.

If you think that's a bad plan and deem it to be completely unsustainable, then welcome to the conservative party. If you think the 1% will take care of it and you're reading this on a computer in Canada, then congratulations, you are in the global .5% club and should be careful what you wish for. 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Trudeau's gift to Canada is going to cost us all

Amidst all the Christmas preparations, the excitement over vaccines and other general noise, Canadians likely didn’t notice the lump of coal Justin Trudeau left in their stockings.

Yet there it is, all wrapped up in the Dec. 19 edition of the Canada Gazette telling us all that we will be paying more to heat our homes and drive our cars in the future.

This isn’t the increase in the carbon tax, something the Trudeau government announced a week earlier.

This is the Liberal government’s clean fuel standards regulations — a second carbon tax if you will that will not come with any rebates, just higher costs.

You don’t have to believe me, it’s all spelled out in the government’s own analysis, posted online for all to read.

We will all pay more but especially seniors, single mothers and those with lower incomes.

According to the feds, the cost to the country as a whole would be between $14.1 billion and $26.7 billion and a GDP reduction of $6.4 billion, roughly 0.2% of Canada’s total. The cost to you though would be hundreds of extra dollars per year in heating and driving costs – it would be just like adding another carbon tax on.

This isn’t the increase in the carbon tax, something the Trudeau government announced a week earlier.

This is the Liberal government’s clean fuel standards regulations — a second carbon tax if you will that will not come with any rebates, just higher costs.

You don’t have to believe me, it’s all spelled out in the government’s own analysis, posted online for all to read.

We will all pay more but especially seniors, single mothers and those with lower incomes.

According to the feds, the cost to the country as a whole would be between $14.1 billion and $26.7 billion and a GDP reduction of $6.4 billion, roughly 0.2% of Canada’s total. The cost to you though would be hundreds of extra dollars per year in heating and driving costs – it would be just like adding another carbon tax on.

Therefore, the GHG emission reductions would be achieved at an estimated societal cost per tonne between $64 to $128, with a central estimate of $94,” the federal analysis shows.

Given that the Trudeau government will raise the carbon tax from $30/tonne to $170/tonne by 2030, this addition cost of up to $128/tonne will mean dramatically increased costs, especially for some.

“It is expected that increases in transportation fuel and home heating expenses would disproportionately impact lower and middle-income households, those living in single detached households,” the analysis states.

Single mothers in particular are mentioned in the analysis because they “are more likely to live in lower-income households, and may be more vulnerable to energy poverty.”

Seniors on fixed incomes are also expected to feel the impact as well.

As for the impact on the economy, there will be some job gains in clean tech the report states, but in oil and gas producing regions and sectors, job opportunities will be “negatively impacted.”

“Canada’s oil refining sector as an example, employs a high proportion of middle-aged men compared to the average working-age population, this group may face an increased risk of job scarcity due to the proposed Regulations,” the analysis states.

All of this of course is on top of the carbon tax increase that Trudeau announced two weeks ago.

Is it any wonder that voters in places like Albert and Saskatchewan feel like this government has it in for them?

Canada is an energy powerhouse but we have a federal government that is doing everything it can to kill that industry off.

True, the Trudeau Liberals did buy a pipeline but only because they had made it near impossible for the private sector company that had been authorized to build it to get any construction done. They have also nixed a number other projects that could have helped Canada’s industry.

Canada contributes less than 2% of all greenhouse gas emissions and absorbs far more CO2 into our lakes and forests than we ever contribute.

Despite all of this, Prime Minister Trudeau is determined to cripple important industries, put seniors and single mothers into energy poverty and make life more expensive for the average suburban family.

This is Justin Trudeau’s Christmas gift to the nation, personally, I’d like to return it.


Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sooner this dog of a tax hits $300 per ton the sooner people will get what they say they think they might maybe want, or they will decide they don't want to play and be done with it.

I say force the decision either way and stop playing at it. There are consequences here and they seem pretty obvious to me, time to grow up and meet them head on.

I would never have said this before because I considered it bad policy (and still do), but maybe the time has come to legally require balanced budgets. You want it you pay for it and here's the cost. It would force people to vote based on policy, that's not happening now.



Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.


  • Create New...