Argus Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 He has to make cuts. There are plenty of areas to cutback spending. Three billion in arts and culture spending, for one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 So far, I tend to agree with Dobbin that Harper and Flaherty have been spending like drunken sailors. Harper wants submarines, icebreakers, big airplanes. He threw a whack of money at the provinces. If teh Liberals had been smart in the last campaign, they could have hit Harper on this. Do Canadians want to have big airplanes? As usual for a Quebecer, the only thing, the ONLY thing you can imagine cutting back on is the tiny military. How about we cut back on all those subsidies to Quebec, and take a look at those multi billion dollar infrastructure agreements whereby the feds are agreeing to pay for such things as sports complexes in Laval. And with the military still to be fighting in Afghanistan for the next three years, you choose them, rather than looking at the 3 billion in arts and culture funding? I'd say we should cut that by about 50% anyway. If Quebecers are so keen on culture let them fund it out of their own pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Three billion in arts and culture spending, for one. I proposed how the CBC could be taken off the taxpayer system and still be available as a network minus the irritants that Tory supporters have about it. That alone would save hundreds of millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairvotecanada Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) He has to make cuts. There are plenty of areas to cutback spending. What can he still cut on some might not be popular as he will have to cut program for the "revenues" items(mid-wage earner and low-wage) as he has already taken everything away that was for the "costs" items(poor/disabled/unemployed/senior); economist maybe but not economy friendly at all... Do not forget for him you and I are one or the other! Edited October 23, 2008 by fairvotecanada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairvotecanada Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 As usual for a Quebecer, the only thing, the ONLY thing you can imagine cutting back on is the tiny military. How about we cut back on all those subsidies to Quebec, and take a look at those multi billion dollar infrastructure agreements whereby the feds are agreeing to pay for such things as sports complexes in Laval. And with the military still to be fighting in Afghanistan for the next three years, you choose them, rather than looking at the 3 billion in arts and culture funding? I'd say we should cut that by about 50% anyway. If Quebecers are so keen on culture let them fund it out of their own pockets. You again are so smart that you do not realize that Arts and Culture is an investment that brings in $85 billion a year to all Canada; and it was about $47 million investment for Quebec the rest was to go to every other area of Canada like BC for its film industry, Nunavut for its Native sculptors and Ontario for its Artists and cultural events which brings more tourist money than any other industry; so we should invest half and make just a half if it is possible just to please your cheap ass. I am happy you do not hold the government purse; you might manage to do worst than Harper. Instead of dragging the economy to a halt in most industry; you would have us killed them so not only we would close the door on the profit but would be paying to keep more people on welfare and unemployment (70% of the population of Canada depends on Tourism and Services industry jobs). Nice cut! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Some will have to cut far more than others. Alberta, is one such province.Ontario is one other province. Why bwould oue provincial government have to cut more than others? We are not in deficit spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) Why bwould oue provincial government have to cut more than others? We are not in deficit spending. The level of spending in Alberta is higher than other provinces. The level in the reduction on royalties will be greater as well. Alberta has gone through this before. They ended up in deficit in a big way as a result of it and had to cut in a big way because of it. You think that Alberta can continue to spend at the highest rate in Canada without an impact to the budget? In 2007, Alberta had spending of 17.3%. That was double the rate of inflation and population growth. It is unsustainable in a downward market when tax money coming in will be far less. Edited October 23, 2008 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brunopolis Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Three billion in arts and culture spending, for one. Normally I'd be against art and cultural spending, however, their is a rather big problem. Canada is a country that is next to a country that is not only very similar but also incredibly powerful both culturally and economically. Promoting some kind of national identity is important if you want Canadian's to actually care about their own nation. Not to mention the problem involving Canada's huge size. We are becoming divided and if we have no culture to unite us we'll split up. The only thing that is preventing this from happening is the immigration we are experiencing in all of the provinces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) You again are so smart that you do not realize that Arts and Culture is an investment that brings in $85 billion a year to all Canada; and it was about $47 million investment for Quebec the rest was to go to every other area of Canada like BC for its film industry, Nunavut for its Native sculptors and Ontario for its Artists and cultural events which brings more tourist money than any other industry; so we should invest half and make just a half if it is possible just to please your cheap ass. Why do you keep writing as if you had the faintest clue about what you're talking about? You have no idea what money is or is not generated through artistic and cultural grants or whether that money is or is not important to the economy. You have no clue what money went to Quebec or for what, or what goes anywhere else. You clearly aren't bothering to research anything - not that it's likely you could understand anything with sufficient clarity to make any coherent arguments anyway. Not that you've evidenced any tendency to make a coherent argument. I am happy you do not hold the government purse; you might manage to do worst than Harper. Instead of dragging the economy to a halt in most industry; you would have us killed them so not only we would close the door on the profit but would be paying to keep more people on welfare and unemployment (70% of the population of Canada depends on Tourism and Services industry jobs). Nice cut! Is English your third language? Edited October 23, 2008 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Normally I'd be against art and cultural spending, however, their is a rather big problem. Canada is a country that is next to a country that is not only very similar but also incredibly powerful both culturally and economically. Promoting some kind of national identity is important if you want Canadian's to actually care about their own nation. Can you explain how funding art few ever see, books few ever read, movies no one goes to see, and television no one watches are going to promote a national identity? Not to mention the problem involving Canada's huge size. We are becoming divided and if we have no culture to unite us we'll split up. The only thing that is preventing this from happening is the immigration we are experiencing in all of the provinces. I'd really like to hear your rationale for how immigration is somehow making up for us having "no culture" and keeping us from splitting up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 (edited) Why do you keep writing as if you had the faintest clue about what you're talking about? You have no idea what money is or is not generated through artistic and cultural grants or whether that money is or is not important to the economy. You have no clue what money went to Quebec or for what, or what goes anywhere else. You clearly aren't bothering to research anything - not that it's likely you could understand anything with sufficient clarity to make any coherent arguments anyway.Not that you've evidenced any tendency to make a coherent argument. Is English your third language? So enlighten us then, since you appear to know it all, where'd the money go and how much did it generate? Pikking on summ-one's uce uf the inglish langooage iz pettee. Edited October 25, 2008 by Who's Doing What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 The money still exists. We have very old school bankers in this nation - but in time they will be gone and they young replacements will be Americanized and without honour...I just hope that the new guys and girls take a lesson form their parents -----Honour your father and mother and your days on earth will be long and PROSPEROUS - WEALTH_ is wisdom passed from the previous generation to the next - Liberalism is teaching our children that their parents are to be disrespected and dishonoured - this will bring about poverty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 The money still exists. We have very old school bankers in this nation - but in time they will be gone and they young replacements will be Americanized and without honour...I just hope that the new guys and girls take a lesson form their parents -----Honour your father and mother and your days on earth will be long and PROSPEROUS - WEALTH_ is wisdom passed from the previous generation to the next - Liberalism is teaching our children that their parents are to be disrespected and dishonoured - this will bring about poverty. Yes, let's honour tha welfare crackhead parents who breed non-stop, and are the reason the system is so screwed. I can't wait to see the wisdom spouted by little Jimmy after watching his drunken father smack his pill popping mom around. Ofcourse chances are little Jimmy will be hooked on drugs or alcohol by the time he is 16 so atleast what he has to say should be entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 Yes, let's honour tha welfare crackhead parents who breed non-stop, and are the reason the system is so screwed. I can't wait to see the wisdom spouted by little Jimmy after watching his drunken father smack his pill popping mom around. Ofcourse chances are little Jimmy will be hooked on drugs or alcohol by the time he is 16 so atleast what he has to say should be entertaining. Remember - the welfare system that supplies Jimmy's mum with her oxy dope - is paid for by you and I - and also remember that the profits from this very clever addiction of the poor does not go back to the tax payer but to big pharma - buy stocks in the pill companie and put more folks on dope and welfare - ooops - apparently the scam is over - the stocks are dropping like a bottle of pills wacked out of Jimmy's mothers hands by drunken dad who is not his dad thanks to liberal social engineering and a feminist eccentric man hating family law system.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fairvotecanada Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 I proposed how the CBC could be taken off the taxpayer system and still be available as a network minus the irritants that Tory supporters have about it. That alone would save hundreds of millions. What do they need money for, don't they have advertisers paying them bundles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 The level of spending in Alberta is higher than other provinces. The level in the reduction on royalties will be greater as well.Alberta has gone through this before. They ended up in deficit in a big way as a result of it and had to cut in a big way because of it. You think that Alberta can continue to spend at the highest rate in Canada without an impact to the budget? In 2007, Alberta had spending of 17.3%. That was double the rate of inflation and population growth. It is unsustainable in a downward market when tax money coming in will be far less. NO I don't think that Alberta can continue on its path. I just think that its funny having the rest of the country tell Alberta what to do when a few other provinces are begging for transfer payments instead of controlling their spending, it just bugs me, that I am expected to fund their social programs but can't vote in their provincial elections, it amounts to taxation without representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 NO I don't think that Alberta can continue on its path. The last time they did, it resulted in a painful series of cuts. I just think that its funny having the rest of the country tell Alberta what to do when a few other provinces are begging for transfer payments instead of controlling their spending, it just bugs me, that I am expected to fund their social programs but can't vote in their provincial elections, it amounts to taxation without representation. Who in the rest of the country is telling Alberta to cut spending? I think no one. I am saying it about all provinces. Also, as far as transfer payments go, it was Harper that increased them in the past two years by a lot. And since Albertans voted en masse for the Conservative party, they can't say it is taxation without representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 What do they need money for, don't they have advertisers paying them bundles? The advertising budget for CBC TV pays for about $200 million of CBC's budget of $600 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 The advertising budget for CBC TV pays for about $200 million of CBC's budget of $600 million. The CBC wastes a lot of money. For example when French and English reporting teams go to an event together they bring two entirely separate crews when they could share the tape and dub it each respective language. Why can't they share the tape and camera crew when covering the same event? That is one example of the waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 (edited) The CBC wastes a lot of money.For example when French and English reporting teams go to an event together they bring two entirely separate crews when they could share the tape and dub it each respective language. Why can't they share the tape and camera crew when covering the same event? That is one example of the waste. Because one is from the CBC and one is from Radio-Canada. Edited October 25, 2008 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 Because one is from the CBC and one is from Radio-Canada. I know that smallc but they are both funded by the taxpayer and both are CBC. If it was a private media outlet they would share the camera crew why can't the CBC do the same? 2 reporters, 1 English, 1 French but surely they can share the camera, lights and sound guys. They are wasting our money, it's yours as well smallc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 The CBC wastes a lot of money.For example when French and English reporting teams go to an event together they bring two entirely separate crews when they could share the tape and dub it each respective language. Why can't they share the tape and camera crew when covering the same event? That is one example of the waste. I have no doubt that there can be savings with the CBC. It is why I said the CBC should no longer get any taxpayer money, have no commercials, be downsized, lose news and sports and be completely retooled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 I have no doubt that there can be savings with the CBC.It is why I said the CBC should no longer get any taxpayer money, have no commercials, be downsized, lose news and sports and be completely retooled. CBC should not lose the news as they do it very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 I know that smallc but they are both funded by the taxpayer and both are CBC. If it was a private media outlet they would share the camera crew why can't the CBC do the same? 2 reporters, 1 English, 1 French but surely they can share the camera, lights and sound guys.They are wasting our money, it's yours as well smallc. They aren't really the same organization though. I agree with you to a certain extent that there are savings to be found, but it has to be recognized that the French Radio-Canada and English CBC are two different services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 I have no doubt that there can be savings with the CBC.It is why I said the CBC should no longer get any taxpayer money, have no commercials, be downsized, lose news and sports and be completely retooled. The thing I hate about the CBC is that they produce shows that illustrate how we're supposed to live and what we're supposed to do according to them. Which is very arrogant indeed. So if they plan to show more shows like that forget it would be my vote. We don't need more socialist, hippy, everyone's the same, commie, love everybody programming. We have enough. Sports is the only respite we have from a 24/7 barrage on that network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.