There were two provincial budgets came down yesterday. One budget was not a balanced budget with an historic deficit, more spending, and a rise in taxes pretty well across the board. The other budget came in as balanced and a reduction in taxes. One budget came from Quebec and the other one came from Alberta. Guess which one is which.
The one you would think that was balanced and that reduced taxes would be Alberta but it isn't. It's Quebec. The one with more spending and historic deficit is Alberta. Things have been turned upside down. Here is the highlights of both budgets.
EDMONTON – The province unveiled its 2015-2016 budget Thursday afternoon. Here are some of the highlights:
The bottom line
Total
spending of $48.4 billion on revenue of $43.4 billion for a $5-billion
deficit – the largest in Alberta’s history. The deficit will be covered
mainly by the province’s contingency fund.
End of the flat tax
Alberta
will end its 10 per cent flat income-tax rate and phase in two new tax
brackets for those making more than $100,000 or $250,000 a year. The
change will affect about 330,000 workers.
Health levy
Individuals making more than $50,000 a year will have to pay a
health-care levy, effective July 1. The amount will be tied to income
and capped at $1,000 annually. The levy is to be collected through the
income-tax system and won’t be paid by employers.
Gasoline tax
The
gasoline tax jumps four cents a litre on Friday. The government notes
Alberta’s gas tax has not been raised since 1991 and remains the lowest
in the country.
Smokes and booze
It will cost 16 cents
more for a bottle of wine and 90 cents more for a case of 12 beers
starting Friday. The tax on a carton of cigarettes will go up by $5 to
$45.
Tax breaks for the working poor
Families
earning less than $41,220 a year will be eligible for a supplement for
each child, to a maximum of $2,750 each year. The government says about
75,000 families will be eligible.
Fees aplenty
Fees
are going up for everything from camping to court filings and marriage
certificates. Traffic fines are being boosted by an average of 35 per
cent.
Job cuts in government
The government plans to shed
2,016 full-time jobs across all departments. Most of those positions are
already vacant and will not be filled. About 370 layoffs are expected.
Here’s what you need to know: $197.1 billion: Quebec’s gross debt as of March 2014, estimated to reach $210.5 billion by March 2016 $80.7 billion: the amount it takes to balance the budget on own-source revenue
Related
$19.4 billion: in federal transfers $2.35 billion: the 2014-15 deficit, as projected last year READ MORE:Quebec tables balanced budget as it aims to slice its massive debt 11.5: per cent – the corporate general income tax will be reduced from 11.9 per cent starting in 2017 2019: the year the health tax will be fully eliminated 63:
seniors over this age will receive a new tax credit of up to $602 in
2017 and $902 in 2018. For those 65 and over, the amount in 2018 will be
$1,504 2: the percentage of expected economic growth 0: new taxes
As you can see it's a tail of two budgets. For Albertans cost of living is about to go up because the Premier is punishing us instead of themselves for the state of our economic woes. For Quebecers, cost of living is about to go down. Bazzaro world indeed! Gosh, I miss Ralph!
March happens to be Womens History month and yesterday was International Womens Day. Feminism started out as women fighting for suffrage. In other words they were fighting for the right to vote. Today's feminist movement has more or less degraded into an anti-male/gender equality and pro abortion movement, all the rights of a man without accountability. I thought if you were a feminist, you were a strong, take no guff, independent woman. It's basically about victim hood.
There must be a remedy for such a crying evil as this. But where shall
it be found, at least begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and
elevation of women?
Sarah F. Norton
Here is an excerpt from an article in which she referred to a case
where a woman died after her partner gave her poison to abort their
child:
Here we find that a husband has been procuring poison for his wife and prospective offspring! Not with any wish to kill the wife perhaps, but as the chances are 5 to 1 against every woman who attempts abortion, he
could not fail to realize the danger. Had this scheme been successful
in destroying only the life aimed at, what could’ve been the man’s crime
– and what should be his punishment if, asaccessory to one murder he commits two?
Victoria Woodhull
Wives deliberately permit themselves to become pregnant of
children and then, to prevent becoming mothers, as deliberately murder
them while yet in their wombs. Can there be a more demoralized
condition than this?… We are aware that many women attempt to excuse
themselves for procuring abortions, upon the ground that it is not
murder. But the fact of resort to so weak an argument only shows the
more palpably that they fully realize the enormity of the crime .
Maddie H. Brinckerhoff
When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society – so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child,it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell
Look at the first faint gleam of life, the life of the
embryo, the commencement of human existence. We see a tiny cell, so
small it may be easily overlooked;… it is a living cell; it contains a
power progressive growth, according to laws, according, towards a
definite type, that we can only regard with reverent admiration.Leave it in its natural home, tended by the rich life of the healthy
maternal organism, and it will grow steadily into the human type; in no
other by any possibility.
So as you can see these women fought for women's rights but without infringing on the rights of the unborn child.
Premier Jim Prentice says Albertans should “look in the mirror” when it
comes to the financial woes now squeezing the province — and defends his
decision to reject corporate tax hikes while his government eyes higher
levies and deep spending cuts.
Huh? A new boss and he doesn't even get it. The problems lie right with the PC government and their mismanagement of the public purse. They've grown government exponentially, give themselves perks, wasted countless taxpayer money on projects for political gain and he blames us.
Maybe in a way he's right. We've kept electing them in for the last forty-two years.
James Lunney, a federal Conservative MP, is using his Twitter account
to come to the defence of an Ontario Progressive Conservative who told
reporters last week that he doesn't believe in evolution. The British Columbia chiropractor, first elected as a member of
Parliament in 2000, has jumped into a fray that started last week in the
Ontario Legislature. Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls, who represents
the province's Chatham-Kent-Essex riding, was heckling the
provincial education minister on Wednesday when the matter of human
origins came up. Education Minister Liz Sandals was responding to PC criticism of her
government’s new sex-education curriculum when she quipped that a
PC government "could opt out of teaching about evolution, too." "Not a bad idea," said Nicholls, who later clarified his position to reporters in the lobby. "For myself, I don’t believe in evolution," he said, adding that his views were "a personal stance" rather than party policy.
Oh the horror, someone who doesn't believe evolution! Must be a backwards neanderthal hick!
Even some scientists have discovered that The Big Bang may not have been the origin of life as what was once thought.
If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.
In the new
formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely
small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may
have no beginning at all.
"Our
theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said
study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of
Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.
I am on the same page as Dr. Lunney, I believe in creation. There had to be an intelligent designer. Here is why I agree:
1. Fossils do not show evolution. Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the
unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But
the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent
transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on
scientific grounds.1 2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds. Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse
by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly
evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they
found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980:
normal, mutant, or dead.2 A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.3 Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead.4 None truly evolved.5 Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not
happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science. 3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution. Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many
generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying
errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming
majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more
of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information
than any others that might construct new and useful information.6
Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any
other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each
individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all
prior generations. Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who
try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too
little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually
extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that
information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations
to far fewer than evolutionary history requires. 4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution. Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it
would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way
lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung
would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either
construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and
parabronchi required by the new bird system.7 Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution. Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a
mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart
wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would
fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow. These four observations show why the unbiblical evolutionary idea that
creatures change without limits is unscientific. If creatures evolved
through nature—and not God—then Scripture is not trustworthy, since from
beginning to end it credits God as Creator.8 But science clearly confirms the Genesis creation account.
