Your link:
Posted: Feb 22, 2014 7:00 AM ET
My link:
Published Sunday, Oct. 19 2014, 5:10 PM EDT
Gee, it's almost as if my far more current post just might be a better reflection of Trudeau's plans for the budget. Seriously though, it's pretty clear to understand - if he reverses tax cuts for the rich, that means the rich will pay more taxes, which means he will hike taxes. It's not rocket science. Reversing a negative, creates a positive. It's simple correlation.
He's fighting a $2B program that, thanks to the $2k cap, will disproportionately benefit lower income earners
That is just a flat-out lie. I honestly have no idea how you can say that without being another partisan fanboy. There is article, after article, after article, that states the opposite, articles which cite the PBO, and some of Canada's largest tax and policy experts. I think the most damning point comes from the first article I linked, where Flaherty himself states when asked about income-splitting:
"I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society."
That's the previous finance minister, who had his poor health, and ultimately death not come to fruition, would almost certainly still be the finance minister.
preserve the tax cuts of the last 20 years that disproportionately benefited the wealthy and that has resulted in trillions of lost government revenue since the 90's.
There is nothing, not even in the article you state, that proves this. Where the hell are you getting your numbers or data from? Cause from where I'm standing you are making it up, pure and simple.
What a joke he is. His policies are no more beneficial to ordinary people than LPC policy of the 90's and 00's was.
What in the ever loving hell are you talking about?! Time and time again he has been saying that he will increase spending, and isn't afraid of a deficit. That is in complete contradiction with the actions of the slash-and-cut liberals you're referencing.
Honestly, I'm having a hard time trying to adhere to rule 2 right now, cause you are making completely false and unsubstantiated claims, and I have the unfortunate knowledge that people like you vote, and have the ability to convince other voters using what can is almost certainly surmised "facts." What you are doing is toxic, and in complete contradiction to what could be considered rational thinking.
Either way I'm done talking to you. I have no interest in entertaining your partisan rhetoric any further.