Liberals lied on the carbon tax, according to Statistics Canada data

[Skoob]

Retaliatory tariffs only hurt Canadian consumers. A better choice is to add surcharges to energy, fertilizer as things the Yanks have no choice but to buy. We are already changing our buying habits voluntarily through a grassroots boycott. But for a struggling family I would not place the onus on them to pay more if possible.

Tariffs are just another tax. We just got rid of the Carbon Tax, and Ford some of the gas tax. Why would you advocate for the Govt to add another one on on the cusp of a real recession?

My point is he won the election on his "elbows up" propaganda and then started making policy decisions outside of parliament which is very undemocratic. He put the retaliatory tariffs on as a campaign tactic. Then gets elected and drops them without any concessions from the US.

He dropped the carbon tax as another campaign tactic after a decade of Liberals forcing it on everyone despite the unaffordability crisis they created. If you dared criticize the carbon tax, you were demonized as a "climate change denier. Apparently winning elections is more important than the climate now.
He's waiting for the outcome of recounts in some ridings before tabling the budget and other policies. If he ends up with a majority, the carbon tax will be back (just named differently).

He played his supporters.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

No silly...what's 50% of $4?

OMG.
You can't even do math!
When the price of something that costs $2 goes up to $4, what is the % increase?
It is 100%!
Are you that far gone that you are arguing basic 5th grade math? lmfao.
I asked you what is the specific $$ impact of the carbon tax on your monthly expenses.
You still cannot articulate it and the best you could come up with is failed 5th grade math.
Too funny.

 

[Butler1000]

the argument for retaliatory tariffs cuts both ways, yes they would hurt us exports to Canada and yes it is a tax on hard pressed Canadians
the point wrt Carney is he completely misrepresented himself as the financial guru to stand up to Trump
his campaign platform does not match his actions
why millions of the voting electorate did not see that coming is perplexing

re surcharges on exports will hurt demand and Trump will just apply retaliatory surcharges on things the Canadians have no choice but to buy.
surcharges on oil / gas energy would also accelerate the Alberta separatist movement

the best option is to work towards eliminating all Tariffs

I'm sure he is. But is Trump? I don't think so, not yet. Maybe enough pressure will hit by the G7 he breaks. But I doubt it. B

 

[Skoob]

OMG.
You can't even do math!
When the price of something that costs $2 goes up to $4, what is the % increase?
It is 100%!
Are you that far gone that you are arguing basic 5th grade math? lmfao.
I asked you what is the specific $$ impact of the carbon tax on your monthly expenses.
You still cannot articulate it and the best you could come up with is failed 5th grade math.
Too funny.

No Mr. The Word Initiate Only Has One Meaning....try and comprehend English without falling on your face.

The current price is $4. 50% of $4 is $2. The price before the carbon tax was half (50%) of what it is now because of the carbon tax.

Do you want to keep stalling and distracting? Should I initiate my accusation that you have been initiated into the Liberal School of Brainwashing?

Can I buy you and ESL course voucher?

 

[Butler1000]

My point is he won the election on his "elbows up" propaganda and then started making policy decisions outside of parliament which is very undemocratic. He put the retaliatory tariffs on as a campaign tactic. Then gets elected and drops them without any concessions from the US.

He dropped the carbon tax as another campaign tactic after a decade of Liberals forcing it on everyone despite the unaffordability crisis they created. If you dared criticize the carbon tax, you were demonized as a "climate chane denier. Apparently winning elections is more important than the climate now.
He's waiting for the outcome of recounts in some ridings before tabling the budget and other policies. If he ends up with a majority, the carbon tax will be back (just named differently).

He played his supporters.

Dude, all PM's make policy decisions outside parliament. It only sits so long. And he won't get a majority, that is already decided.

Imo he is not going to panic. Not going to make grandiose statements, or inflame things. He is a process guy, and will make the USA sit down in that way. You can expect him to let the lower level negotiations, using the USMCA as a base, take their course. While also working on other markets in the same way. Trump is going to have a shitload of problems coming by July. And more by September. So as long as we keep a level head, show "progress" in negotiations, he will be quite distracted by more newsworthy things.

Btw to what party ISN'T WINNING a priority?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

The current price is $4. 50% of $4 is $2. The price before the carbon tax was half (50%) of what it is now because of the carbon tax.

You seem discombobulated.
This was your comment:

A 2x4 stud in 2018 was less than $2. The price is now double that. That is a 50% increase.

That is not a 50% increase, that is a 100% increase.
You failed at basic math, are grasping at straws and are still not able to articulate the impact of the carbon tax.
Your MAGA numbers will only take you so far.
But when you tally it up after an election, you'll find your leader has lost his own seat! lmfao.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's cancelation has in essence proved it's uselessness.

What a ridiculous comment.

 

[Skoob]

OMG.
You can't even do math!
When the price of something that costs $2 goes up to $4, what is the % increase?
It is 100%!
Are you that far gone that you are arguing basic 5th grade math? lmfao.
I asked you what is the specific $$ impact of the carbon tax on your monthly expenses.
You still cannot articulate it and the best you could come up with is failed 5th grade math.
Too funny.

Is $2 not 50% of $4? If you are paying $4 for something today but were paying $2 before, was the cost not 50% cheaper before? Are you stupid?

I gave you an example of the impact, I gave you proof via articles about when the Liberals copied policies, and all you're doing now is stalling and distracting and looking for excuses to hide your failure.

A sure sign you have lost this argument and you still owe me an apology.

 

[Skoob]

Dude, all PM's make policy decisions outside parliament. It only sits so long. And he won't get a majority, that is already decided.

Imo he is not going to panic. Not going to make grandiose statements, or inflame things. He is a process guy, and will make the USA sit down in that way. You can expect him to let the lower level negotiations, using the USMCA as a base, take their course. While also working on other markets in the same way. Trump is going to have a shitload of problems coming by July. And more by September. So as long as we keep a level head, show "progress" in negotiations, he will be quite distracted by more newsworthy things.

Btw to what party ISN'T WINNING a priority?

Winning at the expense of a decade of destruction and complete reversals of policies that caused that destruction is disingenuous and hypocritical.

You can't call someone a climate change denier for criticizing your carbon tax scheme and then drop the tax on the eve of an election like it never happened. You can't call someone a xenophobe for wanting immigration control, and then invoke immigration control policies on the eve of an election like there was never a problem.
Same goes for pipelines...the campaign propaganda is slowly changing now...we'll see how they spin it.

Carney is doing exactly what Trump wanted him to do. Stay silent & listen. Don't attract attention. Keep the Canadian government's activities a sleepy little secret while doing the US's bidding.

There's a reason why Trump liked Carney and preferred him.

Carney's supporters were played.

 

[boobtoucher]

Is $2 not 50% of $4? If you are paying $4 for something today but were paying $2 before, was the cost not 50% cheaper before? Are you stupid?

I gave you an example of the impact, I gave you proof via articles about when the Liberals copied policies, and all you're doing now is stalling and distracting and looking for excuses to hide your failure.

A sure sign you have lost this argument and you still owe me an apology.

It is a math education problem on your part.

% Increase is (new - old) / old

So: (4-2)/2 = 1 = 100%

If it drops from $4 to $2, its a (2-4)/4 = -50% increase or 50% decrease.

NOW: If lumber prices INCREASE 50%: you have

OLD * (1 + PERCENT INCREASE) = NEW

so: $2 * 1.50 = $3

Long way of saying: a 100% increase is a doubling. A 50% decrease is a halving.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Is $2 not 50% of $4? If you are paying $4 for something today but were paying $2 before, was the cost not 50% cheaper before?

This is what you said:

A 2x4 stud in 2018 was less than $2. The price is now double that. That is a 50% increase.

When price doubles, it is a 100% increase. Not 50%.
Also see boobtoucher's math example above.
This is failed grade 5 math on your part and now you are resorting to all kinds of failed mental gymnastics. lmfao.

 

[Skoob]

It is a math education problem on your part.

% Increase is (new - old) / old

So: (4-2)/2 = 1 = 100%

If it drops from $4 to $2, its a (2-4)/4 = -50% increase or 50% decrease.

NOW: If lumber prices INCREASE 50%: you have

OLD * (1 + PERCENT INCREASE) = NEW

so: $2 * 1.50 = $3

Long way of saying: a 100% increase is a doubling. A 50% decrease is a halving.

So if $4 now but $2 before, that means a change of 50%. Thanks for confirming.

Now can we quit distracting with semantics and agree that the carbon tax made everything more expensive...or do we want to continue to chase squirrels to avoid the subject?

 

[Skoob]

This is what you said:

When price doubles, it is a 100% increase. Not 50%.
Also see boobtoucher's math example above.
This is failed grade 5 math on your part and now you are resorting to all kinds of failed mental gymnastics. lmfao.

So what you're saying is that you agree the carbon tax made everything more expensive...but you're just trying to distract to hide your failure some more?

We've already confirmed you don't understand English Mr. Initiate, so I'm giving you the opportunity to clarify that you agree the carbon tax made everything more expensive.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

So what you're saying is that you agree the carbon tax made everything more expensive...but you're just trying to distract to hide your failure some more?

We are not discussing the carbon tax now.
We are discussing your failed grade school math.
So let us not accuse someone of distracting while engaging in distractions.
That the carbon tax puts upward pressure on inflation has never been disputed.
How much was the debate.
First you haven't been able to articulate and quantify the impact.
Second you failed at grade school math.
And now you are bobbing and weaving grasping at straws. lmfao.

 

[Skoob]

We are not discussing the carbon tax now.
We are discussing your failed grade school math.
So let us not accuse someone of distracting while engaging in distractions.
That the carbon tax puts upward pressure on inflation has never been disputed.
How much was the debate.
First you haven't been able to articulate and quantify the impact.
Second you failed at grade school math.
And now you are bobbing and weaving grasping at straws. lmfao.

We are indeed discussing the carbon tax because you asked me for an example of how it affected the cost of most things to go up.
I gave you one.
You just ignored it.

Every time you ask for examples and are provided them, you then pivot to something else. Talk about mental gymnastics Mr. Initiate!

The Liberals imposed a tax that compounded an unaffordability crisis and that resulted in most things increasing in cost...they increased it every year despite being told it was affecting people negatively...and only removed it for fear of losing the election.

Your only response to that was you didn't care about the carbon tax because you believed it did not affect anyone/anything significantly.

Now you are modifying that story by using ambiguous terms like "upward pressure".

Hahaha you are an easy mark! They played you. You don't even know you've been played.

 

[boobtoucher]

So if $4 now but $2 before, that means a change of 50%. Thanks for confirming.

Now can we quit distracting with semantics and agree that the carbon tax made everything more expensive...or do we want to continue to chase squirrels to avoid the subject?

Literally the opposite of what I said. If $4 now and $2 before, change of 100%. If $4 before and $2 now, change of 50%.

Details matter.

 

[Frankfooter]

The cons only have the carbon tax.
Now that its gone and Pee Pee is a loser, they offer nothing.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1925687249443659966

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

We are indeed discussing the carbon tax because you asked me for an example of how it affected the cost of most things to go up.
I gave you one.
You just ignored it.

Every time you ask for examples and are provided them, you then pivot to something else. Talk about mental gymnastics Mr. Initiate!

The Liberals imposed a tax that compounded an unaffordability crisis and that resulted in most things increasing in cost...they increased it every year despite being told it was affecting people negatively...and only removed it for fear of losing the election.

Your only response to that was you didn't care about the carbon tax because you believed it did not affect anyone/anything significantly.

Now you are modifying that story by using ambiguous terms like "upward pressure".

Hahaha you are an easy mark! They played you. You don't even know you've been played.

You failed at grade school math, while trying to explain the carbon tax and are now trying to distract from it.
I levied 2 charges against you.
1. You have not been able to articulate the impact of the carbon tax in any way. Your example of the 2x4 stud, does not stand up to scrutiny.
2. You failed at grade school math.
What do you have to say for yourself?

 

[Skoob]

Literally the opposite of what I said. If $4 now and $2 before, change of 100%. If $4 before and $2 now, change of 50%.

Details matter.

The word "half" means 50%. If something costs $4 now, and used to cost $2...wouldn't it be considered as being half as expensive before as it is now?

 

[Skoob]

You failed at grade school math, while trying to explain the carbon tax and are now trying to distract from it.
I levied 2 charges against you.
1. You have not been able to articulate the impact of the carbon tax in any way. Your example of the 2x4 stud, does not stand up to scrutiny.
2. You failed at grade school math.
What do you have to say for yourself?

I charge you with stupidity considering you didn't even know there were two meanings for the word "initiate".
You can't even read anything properly which is why you continually fail at your arguments.

You keep distracting with nonsense because you know you were played as a fool by the Liberals.

Now don't you feel foolish? Poor guy.