[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

While I may agree that cutting a tax without stating what expenses you will cut is terrible policy when you quote the statement that the "Green line is paid for by the Carbon Tax" its just wrong.

Did I say or quote that statement?

The green line was paid for by government revenues. Without the Carbon tax the green line would have been funded through debt or other taxation.

Assuming the government would not have delayed their contributions due to a lack of revenue. Having a revenue stream available avoids getting into debt to pay for it, that’s a good thing isn’t it? I get a kick out of your argument that saying the carbon tax is paying for it is wrong while also stating that without a carbon tax “other taxation” would pay for it. If the city were to implement an arena tax on certain services to help pay for a new building would you not consider that money to be going towards a new building because it simply becomes revenue?

Using the green line as a benefit to the Carbon Tax is pure spin, and doubles down on the awful moronic policy that Carbon Taxes should only be spent on green things.

From the article I linked earlier:

Wildrose member Prasad Panda said the party supports the project, but would use other money for it rather than carbon tax funding if the NDP is defeated in the next election.

Even the opposition is “spinning” it that way.