Do we Ask the Government for Too Much?

[Slavik44]

You know the relationship between people and the government is a very interesting and unique one that seems to simultaniously incorporate feelings of both love and hate, trust and suspicion. According to a leger survey, politicians are the least trusted profession in Canada, garnering the trust of only 14% of Canadians. We just don't trust them and for good reason, they rarely proove to be comptent spenders of public money. The records will show that politicians habitually squander public money. They are paid by the public to do a job, to spend the publics money, and in the case of the Canada Revenue Agency to take the Publics money, and in turn they grossly misuse this money both as a group and as individuals. Yet when a problem arises for some strange reason we expect the government to fix it, the government to do it.

We don't trust the government, and seeing as how they have failed to responsbiley spend our money from the very first parliment, this lack of trust is certainly reasonable. But in the same sense we then ask the least trusted person in society to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year on our behalf, are we not setting ourselves up for failure? Financially the biggest role played by the Canadian government is the transfer of wealth, from one individual to the next. But is that really a role we should be asking the government to play, at the very least should we be asking the government to play such a role to the extent it currently is? Perhaps we should look into having mor elimited trasnfers of weath by the government.

Take Business welfare as an example, see business like money, can't blame them we all do, and when they don't get enough money from Canadian taxpayers, probabley because we are paying taxes. The government steps and gives these business some of the taxes we paid to the government. Unfortunately like most middle men the government skims a bit off the top, because the government also likes money. In this case they are lead by the noble 40,000 of the Canada revenue agency. In total the government skims off about 27 cents on every dollar we give them. The government is happy, they get to go to the carribean, send themselves flowers on their birthdays, and buy $8,000 leather Jackets. Tax Payers aren't so happy, Between the carribean, flowers, and Jackets thats their Yearly salary. Some business are happy, because a few lucky businesses get a bit of money from the government. And in turn they are supposed to create oppurtunities for employment of Canadians.

Seeing as how some businesses are left out, they don't create new oppurtunities. But the government has that covered, the employees of the companies who didn't get lucky, get employment Insurance when they loose their job. Employment Insurance is designed to supplement people untill they can find a job with one of the subsidized companies.

Sometimes these subsidized companies are not always on the ball, and may be laying off thousands of people themselves. Thankfully, when this happens the government starts giving a couple cents on every dollar back to the average Canadian. This may come in the form of welfare or sometimes even tax credits.

As you can see the Government is very good at spending our money. This year the Government spent around 45 cents of every tax dollar on either themselves or interest payments on the debt they have raked up on our behalf. We will call this, the shiter effect. This because once money is given to the government, most of it goes down the shiter.

At Christmas time it is tough to pass a store that doesn't have a help wanted sign, this is another strange phenomenon. You see when alot of people are buying stuff, we need to have people to make the stuff, to sell the stuff, to transport the stuff, perhaps even to guard the stuff. Apparently Businesses can get money from places other than the government, from people. And people can get money from places other then the government. Apparently when people spend money, business hire people and give them money to do work, and then people buy stuff with that money. And people are capable of buying and sellling goods with out such a grossly expensive and irresponsible middle man. We might need this middle man to ensure the rule of law and to help ensure a level of honesty on the part of both individuals, involved in such transactions. So that I don't into a store brandishing a gun to acquire a new blender and that the blender I am acquiring really is a blender as marketed.

Sure the government is doing alot of things right now, but how many of these things are we capable of doing on are own? Without the 8,000 dollar leather jackets and if we choose to buy a leather jacket it is our money. Because I can't think of too many politicians I want to buy flowers, jackets, or vacations for. Yes the government might be doing alot right now. But in the same sense are the tasks that the government is doing distracting them from their primary duty of ensuring the liberty and freedom of individuals in this country and ultimately the protection of the country itself?

Because the government is not really doing a good job, we ask them to do all these extra governmental activities like redistribute wealth. Why should I or anyone for that matter empower a group of people that inspires trust in only 14% of us to redistribute billions upoun billions of our dollars?

I don't particularly trust big business, so I don't directly give away to big business thousands of dollars a year to spend as they wish. On the otherhand we don't trust big government but we give them thousands of dollars every year as individuals. And in return Big government gives themselves 27% of that, the interest on the debt they created 17% of that, and big business and other individuals 21% of that.

I don't see why we can't scale back what we ask the government to do, scale back what we give the government and then let individuals decide on their own where that money goes. Because governments have been doing a lousy job spending this money and if we as individuals do a lousy job spending this money, atleast we will be the ones doing so.

This is not a call to end the government or to end all government programs. But I question how effective and neccassary certain government initiatives are when what they are doing is just taking wealth from one place and irresponsibley plopping it in the next, all the while skiming off some of that money to do so.

[Saturn]

I don't particularly trust big business, so I don't directly give away to big business thousands of dollars a year to spend as they wish. On the otherhand we don't trust big government but we give them thousands of dollars every year as individuals. And in return Big government gives themselves 27% of that, the interest on the debt they created 17% of that, and big business and other individuals 21% of that.

I don't see why we can't scale back what we ask the government to do, scale back what we give the government and then let individuals decide on their own where that money goes. Because governments have been doing a lousy job spending this money and if we as individuals do a lousy job spending this money, atleast we will be the ones doing so.

This is not a call to end the government or to end all government programs. But I question how effective and neccassary certain government initiatives are when what they are doing is just taking wealth from one place and irresponsibley plopping it in the next, all the while skiming off some of that money to do so.

27% is awful lot of leather jackets. Where is this figure coming from?

The primary reason for mistrust in politicians is that is that we reward dishonesty in politics at election time. Honesty in politics is a death sentence. We avoid brain work and simply vote for the most convincing lier, who promises to give us tax cuts, increase services, and pay off the debt in no time. We are then shocked when it turns out that you can't earn less, spend more and pay-off your debt at the same time. Yet we fall for promises of magic tricks over and over again. In a democracy, you get what you vote for!

[Ricki Bobbi]

27% is awful lot of leather jackets. Where is this figure coming from?

So you ask others to support their facts while not supporting yours?

Very interesting.....

[jbg]

I don't see why we can't scale back what we ask the government to do, scale back what we give the government and then let individuals decide on their own where that money goes. Because governments have been doing a lousy job spending this money and if we as individuals do a lousy job spending this money, atleast we will be the ones doing so.

This is not a call to end the government or to end all government programs. But I question how effective and neccassary certain government initiatives are when what they are doing is just taking wealth from one place and irresponsibley plopping it in the next, all the while skiming off some of that money to do so.

I agree with your sentiments. The problem is that anyone for whom government "does" is not going to want the benefits they receive cut back. They want someone else's benefits cut back.

Example from the US. I fully believe that Medicaid should benefit only poor people. The prime beneficiaries are an unintended group, elderly people who clear out their assets, wait five years, and then go into nursing homes on the government.

I will admit to being 100% hypocritical in opposing reform of this obvious abuse. I turn over 40% of my income to the government in income taxes, another 10% in property taxes. The only benefits I receive are my childrens' schooling, and the hope that if my parents, now 87 and 73, need nursing home care, the government will pick that up. Though clearly they are not the neediest, I hypocritically support this wasteful program.

Why? Because I perceive that otherwise I get little benefit from losing 50% of my annual income to taxes. But everyone else, to a "T", shares that perception.

[Saturn]

27% is awful lot of leather jackets. Where is this figure coming from?

So you ask others to support their facts while not supporting yours?

Very interesting.....

I support my assertions, you refuse to read my support. Either read it and respond or shut up.

[Slavik44]

27% is awful lot of leather jackets. Where is this figure coming from?

The Government

[jdobbin]

I think the most you can ask for is efficiency in government and clarity and focus in what they are doing for the country. As you said, I don't believe you can depend on corporations to replace government.

I don't think most people are in a position to completely take care of themselves without the help from someone at sometime. In societies where there are no pensions or healthcare, the lifespan is shorter and more brutish. I don't know if we want to go back to that type of life.

[Slavik44]

I think the most you can ask for is efficiency in government and clarity and focus in what they are doing for the country. As you said, I don't believe you can depend on corporations to replace government.

I don't think most people are in a position to completely take care of themselves without the help from someone at sometime. In societies where there are no pensions or healthcare, the lifespan is shorter and more brutish. I don't know if we want to go back to that type of life.

Unfortunately we do not have a predicted bright future with either pensions or healthcare. I would say the healthcare system could stand some improvement by incorporating private elements...which would be benifical to both rich and poor. The CPP could also stand to be nothing but a false hope. Can we be assured, as the population ages, that it will still recieve adequate funding? And How much of a burden will it be to Young Canadians to pay into a plan as the number of old dependants in Canada rise? Will that mean even higher taxes in the future, and at what point do those higher taxes start to have an even deeper effect on Canadian businesses. It is not just a question of what we can reasonably ask the government to do, but how long we can ask them to do this aswell. Would it not then be better advised to get the government to focus on programs of absolute neccessity and duties of absolute neccessity? Trying to trim down transfers to a justifiable need based situation?

Because as it is I have yet to hear of a government program that isn't lacking funding or predicted to be in trouble in some time, yet all around us people want the government to spend more, do more, take on more responsibilities. When does it end? Where does it end? Does this ambitous nature of getting the government to tack on more and more and more hurt the programs that truly stand to benifiet Canadians?

[jbg]

27% is awful lot of leather jackets. Where is this figure coming from?

So you ask others to support their facts while not supporting yours?

Very interesting.....

I support my assertions, you refuse to read my support. Either read it and respond or shut up.

For a relatively new member you're getting nasty rather fast. Or, as I suspect, are you a "gnome de guerre" of a suspended member?

[jdobbin]

Unfortunately we do not have a predicted bright future with either pensions or healthcare. I would say the healthcare system could stand some improvement by incorporating private elements...which would be benifical to both rich and poor. The CPP could also stand to be nothing but a false hope. Can we be assured, as the population ages, that it will still recieve adequate funding? And How much of a burden will it be to Young Canadians to pay into a plan as the number of old dependants in Canada rise? Will that mean even higher taxes in the future, and at what point do those higher taxes start to have an even deeper effect on Canadian businesses. It is not just a question of what we can reasonably ask the government to do, but how long we can ask them to do this aswell. Would it not then be better advised to get the government to focus on programs of absolute neccessity and duties of absolute neccessity? Trying to trim down transfers to a justifiable need based situation?

Because as it is I have yet to hear of a government program that isn't lacking funding or predicted to be in trouble in some time, yet all around us people want the government to spend more, do more, take on more responsibilities. When does it end? Where does it end? Does this ambitous nature of getting the government to tack on more and more and more hurt the programs that truly stand to benifiet Canadians?

CPP is fully funded for the next 75 years thanks to the work of Finance department. It is one of the few pension plans in the world that will not have a shortfall. It is one of the things you can thank Paul Martin for.

Healthcare remains a problem in terms of what services it provides and how it is funded.

However, it should be noted that the lack of healthcare is an issue in the U.S. for business. It means many companies have to provide their employees with a health plan which raises the costs of their products. The companies that don't provide healthcare plans for their employees have a hard time retaining workers which increases the costs of products.

[Slavik44]

CPP is fully funded for the next 75 years thanks to the work of Finance department. It is one of the few pension plans in the world that will not have a shortfall. It is one of the things you can thank Paul Martin for.

Healthcare remains a problem in terms of what services it provides and how it is funded.

However, it should be noted that the lack of healthcare is an issue in the U.S. for business. It means many companies have to provide their employees with a health plan which raises the costs of their products. The companies that don't provide healthcare plans for their employees have a hard time retaining workers which increases the costs of products.

I don't see suddenly why I am being accused of wanting a U.S style Healthcare system, I think in other threads I have been pretty clear about the derection I want Canada to take in that matter. Allowing private companies to deliver health care does not neccessarily mean America and it is not neccessarily a bad thing. The best healthcare systems in the world allow an element of private deliver.

Simply all I am asking is, are we asking the government to do to much? Seeing as how all government initiatives need funding from somewhere, and most of them are lacking in funding. Would it not be wise to scale back what we ask the government to do? Cut away the unneccessary? Instead of expanding what we ask the government to do for us? Particularly given the wastefullness associated with government bureacracy?

Remembering as well that it is higher operating costs that increase the price of products and that such operating costs come in a number of forms.

[jdobbin]

I don't see suddenly why I am being accused of wanting a U.S style Healthcare system, I think in other threads I have been pretty clear about the derection I want Canada to take in that matter. Allowing private companies to deliver health care does not neccessarily mean America and it is not neccessarily a bad thing. The best healthcare systems in the world allow an element of private deliver.

Simply all I am asking is, are we asking the government to do to much? Seeing as how all government initiatives need funding from somewhere, and most of them are lacking in funding. Would it not be wise to scale back what we ask the government to do? Cut away the unneccessary? Instead of expanding what we ask the government to do for us? Particularly given the wastefullness associated with government bureacracy?

Remembering as well that it is higher operating costs that increase the price of products and that such operating costs come in a number of forms.

I wasn't accusing you of wanting private healthcare at all. I wasn't aware of your position until now.

[Saturn]

27% is awful lot of leather jackets. Where is this figure coming from?

The Government

Oh, come on now, the government didn't put 27% for leather jackets on any of their statements. I just wanted to know what is included in the 27%. You sure read that somewhere.

[Saturn]

For a relatively new member you're getting nasty rather fast. Or, as I suspect, are you a "gnome de guerre" of a suspended member?

It doesn't take long for Ricki to get on one's nerves. His rude requests for basic facts lead me to (foolishly) provide him with the most authoritative sources providing the said information.

Did he ignore it - yes.

How many times did he subsequently request it again calling me full of hot air and a dick - at least 10.

I also suspect that you, Ricki and another member are the same person hiding behind at least 3 different accounts.

[ClearWest]

I think the most you can ask for is efficiency in government and clarity and focus in what they are doing for the country.

The problem is that if someone in public office is being wasteful and irresponsible with funds and legislation, all we can do is vote for someone else next time. Let's say that same program was operated by someone in the private sector - if they were wasteful and irresponsible with funds and policy, they would be fired on the spot, and someone more suitable would take the job. I think in many instances we would be far better off without the slow, clumsy government trying to guide our affairs - offering services much more slowly and inefficiently than we really need.

[jdobbin]

The problem is that if someone in public office is being wasteful and irresponsible with funds and legislation, all we can do is vote for someone else next time. Let's say that same program was operated by someone in the private sector - if they were wasteful and irresponsible with funds and policy, they would be fired on the spot, and someone more suitable would take the job. I think in many instances we would be far better off without the slow, clumsy government trying to guide our affairs - offering services much more slowly and inefficiently than we really need.

We often don't hear about the extravagance in publicly traded corporations because of executive friendly boards and the belief that it is the cost of doing business. We certainly heard about the problem in Enron and Hollinger far too late. Not very fast and efficient there.

[Slavik44]

We often don't hear about the extravagance in publicly traded corporations because of executive friendly boards and the belief that it is the cost of doing business. We certainly heard about the problem in Enron and Hollinger far too late. Not very fast and efficient there.

Would it then be fair to ask a question about the enron situation?

Enron was a company very close to the Government, very involved in political donations, certainly recieved a number of important contracts from the government. Might it be fair to suggest that Enron is actually an example of what happens when Big business and Big Governments start to sleep in the same bed. It is in both of their best interests to help each other out, and they did. While connections are important, would it not also be fair to suggest that the neccessity of close political and corporate ties are artifically increased by a system that relies too heavily on the government to distribute wealth?

[Saturn]

The problem is that if someone in public office is being wasteful and irresponsible with funds and legislation, all we can do is vote for someone else next time. Let's say that same program was operated by someone in the private sector - if they were wasteful and irresponsible with funds and policy, they would be fired on the spot, and someone more suitable would take the job. I think in many instances we would be far better off without the slow, clumsy government trying to guide our affairs - offering services much more slowly and inefficiently than we really need.

On the contrary, there is a lot more waste going on in the private sector than in the public sector and it often takes years of lawsuits to remove a board/executives who are ripping off the shareholders. Sometimes, the waste and scamming goes undetected and uncorrected long enough to bankrupt the company and leave the shareholders empty handed.

[Saturn]

Enron was a company very close to the Government, very involved in political donations, certainly recieved a number of important contracts from the government. Might it be fair to suggest that Enron is actually an example of what happens when Big business and Big Governments start to sleep in the same bed. It is in both of their best interests to help each other out, and they did. While connections are important, would it not also be fair to suggest that the neccessity of close political and corporate ties are artifically increased by a system that relies too heavily on the government to distribute wealth?

The only realistic alternative at the moment is to convert Big Government into Big Business and the "connections" between the BG and BB are still weaker than the connections between BB and BB.

[jdobbin]

Would it then be fair to ask a question about the enron situation?

Enron was a company very close to the Government, very involved in political donations, certainly recieved a number of important contracts from the government. Might it be fair to suggest that Enron is actually an example of what happens when Big business and Big Governments start to sleep in the same bed. It is in both of their best interests to help each other out, and they did. While connections are important, would it not also be fair to suggest that the neccessity of close political and corporate ties are artifically increased by a system that relies too heavily on the government to distribute wealth?

There's no denying that government was asleep at the wheel.

Hollinger was a case of the corporate world being asleep at the wheel though.

[Slavik44]

The only realistic alternative at the moment is to convert Big Government into Big Business and the "connections" between the BG and BB are still weaker than the connections between BB and BB.

There's no denying that government was asleep at the wheel.

Hollinger was a case of the corporate world being asleep at the wheel though.

So if we asked the government to do less and focus more on neccessary specific tasks while also making the government more transparent does it not stand to reason that perhaps the government would do a better job and be more easily controlled by the people? And would it not also be correct to assert that the government in Canada derives both it's power and money from the citizens of Canada and when the government of Canada is sleeping with Big business and special interest groups, might it be easier to change this relationship, by people excersizing their power over the government?

[Saturn]

So if we asked the government to do less and focus more on neccessary specific tasks while also making the government more transparent does it not stand to reason that perhaps the government would do a better job and be more easily controlled by the people? And would it not also be correct to assert that the government in Canada derives both it's power and money from the citizens of Canada and when the government of Canada is sleeping with Big business and special interest groups, might it be easier to change this relationship, by people excersizing their power over the government?

Easier said than done. The people have long relinquished their power over the government by paying little attention to what government does and voting for those who are the best funded (through their connections with BB) and are the most convincing liars (with the help of BB again). It's difficult to say how the people can be made to take their watchdog responsibilities more seriously - something that may be a good start would be mandatory voting. In any case, more interest and participation on behalf of the public is what's needed here but any measures that will be beneficial in that respect have to be pushed for by the public (again) because the politicians stand to lose from more public scrutiny.

[jdobbin]

So if we asked the government to do less and focus more on neccessary specific tasks while also making the government more transparent does it not stand to reason that perhaps the government would do a better job and be more easily controlled by the people? And would it not also be correct to assert that the government in Canada derives both it's power and money from the citizens of Canada and when the government of Canada is sleeping with Big business and special interest groups, might it be easier to change this relationship, by people excersizing their power over the government?

I have no problem with that.