Thursday, March 1, 2012


If the country and province are enjoying such a robust economy, why are the Prime Minister and Premier looking for cuts to programs that serve the most needy in our community? Perhaps they a wisely looking down the road and around the corner. And perhaps the city should follow suit.


  1. If they are being wise, then why aren't they looking at the costs of the new crime bill or the costs of the fighter jets.

    If they were concerned about the economy, they should likely want to know the full financial impact of their ideological decisions.

    Brad Wall should be questioning the federal government on these costs!

  2. The costs of the new crime bill are dwarfed by the real economic costs to citizens (property insurance, replacement costs, loss of income, therapy and medical costs) as well as the emotional distress of having these criminals out in the community.

    Some of these criminals engage in activities to which there can be no restitution which will 'make the victim whole'. Keep criminals behind bars.

  3. I'd assume that because you used the term 'real economic cost', you have seen a study that identifies this 'real' cost for easy comparison to the non-existent projected cost of the new crime bill?

    What is the 'real' cost of a suburban, middle class kid getting thrown in jail for years because they have a small amount of weed? and then on the other hand, what is the 'real' cost of impacts on citizens that that kid with a bit of weed imposes on society?

    Based on your statement, I assume you must have figured that out? Or maybe did you just not look at the crime bill at all? Instead just thought "yes, punishing people, that's good...that will keep people from doing bad things, just like it didn't do in the U.S....."


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.