Liberals push more stimulus

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's right, and it allowed the federal government to balance its budget, something that couldn't have happened at 50% funding.

Ultimately the costs of health care are going up. That is the real issue, dealing with this reality is the real problem. It is not how it is funded but instead how the money which only comes from end users is spent.

[punked]

That's right, and it allowed the federal government to balance its budget, something that couldn't have happened at 50% funding.

And put the debt on the provinces. Thanks guys great balancing. Rob petter to pay Paul.

[Smallc]

And put the debt on the provinces. Thanks guys great balancing. Rob petter to pay Paul.

The provinces were able to work it out so that most weren't in deficit in the end. Before cutting, we weren't even paying for healthcare, we were simply borrowing for it.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Smallc

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The people fund the system whether that model is provincially based or federally based, the citizen is the end user and sole funder of the system. All the smoke and mirrors in the world cannot hide the truth.

The issue is not funding, we have already determined who funds what. The issue is cost control, get a grip on reality people.

[punked]

The provinces were able to work it out so that most weren't in deficit in the end. Before cutting, we weren't even paying for healthcare, we were simply borrowing for it.

By cutting funding to school, and privatizing roads yes they were able to work it out so the 90's ran up the debt in almost all provinces.

[Smallc]

That's right, they transferred the deficits to the provinces, and then most provinces cut as they had to in order to work it out. The federal government finances were a mess, and they needed to be fixed somehow.

[punked]

That's right, they transferred the deficits to the provinces, and then most provinces cut as they had to in order to work it out. The federal government finances were a mess, and they needed to be fixed somehow.

And so they messed up provincial finances great..........that isn't balancing anything we still need to pay off that debt just the richer provinces now have much less to pay off and poorer provinces much less.

[Smallc]

Something had to be done. What else was there to do?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Something had to be done. What else was there to do?

Generate sufficient revenue streams to fund the programs..................duh!

[punked]

Something had to be done. What else was there to do?

Cooking the books is not doing something.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Cooking the books is not doing something.

Smoke and mirrors is all politicians offer in the way of solutions these days.

[Smallc]

Cooking the books is not doing something.

No one cooked the books.

[Smallc]

Generate sufficient revenue streams to fund the programs..................duh!

Do you think people would have liked taxes being raised by $50B

[punked]

Do you think people would have liked taxes being raised by $50B

It happened anyway in most provinces.

[punked]

No one cooked the books.

If I had a company that was in debt and I created subsidiary of that company and downloaded all my debt to this new company that would be cooking the books.

That is what they did, they said private health care is illegal in this country, and we aren't going to pay for public Health care. I am not saying private should be legal I am saying the Feds need to pay their share.

[Keepitsimple]

Something had to be done. What else was there to do?

In real business, when you're losing money - people get laid off. The Federal Government employes 400,000 people. When you include benefits, I'll bet the average compensation is $100,000 per year on average. If you reorganized and got rid of just 5% of the employees, you'd save $2 billion a year. The 5% could be achieved with attrition - people retiring or leaving and just not filling the job opening....and that's only 5%. If major companies like banks and insurance companies can cut 10 or 20 percent of their workforce - why couldn't the Federal Government? Could it be because they are all unionized? When you lose 1 person out of every 20, is it too much to ask the other 19 to pick up the slack - and keep their job? I know, they are already overworked or so says the union.

[punked]

In real business, when you're losing money - people get laid off. The Federal Government employes 400,000 people. When you include benefits, I'll bet the average compensation is $100,000 per year on average. If you reorganized and got rid of just 5% of the employees, you'd save $2 billion a year. The 5% could be achieved with attrition - people retiring or leaving and just not filling the job opening....and that's only 5%. If major companies like banks and insurance companies can cut 10 or 20 percent of their workforce - why couldn't the Federal Government? Could it be because they are all unionized? When you lose 1 person out of every 20, is it too much to ask the other 19 to pick up the slack - and keep their job? I know, they are already overworked or so says the union.

It isn't because they are unionized. All you have to do is look at the states why did it take the Fed so long to cut the F22 program? It was never ever used and cost 200,000,000 dollars to make each? Pork in home states. If someone gets fired you can forget about their family and friends voting for you. Good try in attacking the unions.

Edited July 26, 2009 by punked

[Smallc]

In real business, when you're losing money - people get laid off.

Government isn't business...and people did get laid off.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Do you think people would have liked taxes being raised by $50B

Now just exactly where did you see me say anything about taxes? You really do like putting words into peoples mouths, but spin just doesn't cut it here dude.

Just because you can't think outside of the box doesn't mean others can't either.

[Smallc]

Ok, where were we going to find $50B in revenue?

[punked]

Ok, where were we going to find $50B in revenue?

Apparently the Federal governments idea of generating 50 billion in revenues is to tell the provinces it is their problem now.

In the end there are several ways a government can do it. Selling off crown corporations which make money for a one time short term gain like the Liberals did with Petro Canada is not the way to do that. At the sametime creating corporations like DEVCO which lost in the billions like the Liberals did as well is not the way to do it.

[Smallc]

You know, if you could put partisanship aside for a minute, you might be able to see that something had to be done, and that it wasn't an easy situation. Of course if you cling to your NDP logo and hurl criticism, you never have to acknowledge that.

[punked]

You know, if you could put partisanship aside for a minute, you might be able to see that something had to be done, and that it wasn't an easy situation. Of course if you cling to your NDP logo and hurl criticism, you never have to acknowledge that.

I was pointing out other things could have been done in the past with good fiscal management and it would never have gotten to that point. Although you want to do something? Than actually do something becuase just putting that debt onto the provinces is not doing something. Help secondary processing bisuness develop in this country, or how about stop subsidizing the fishing industry into their own destruction like they did in the 90s. They spent something like 500 million a year in the 90's to help them kill off the cod stocks everyone would have been better off if they kept that money and didn't encourage them to kill off a profitable industry that grew this country. Encourage Uranium development across this country, almost every province has it but most wont mine it. Ohhhh here is one how about not spending money on advertising in Quebec which never happened bet that might save us some money.

There was money to be had for those who worked it instead of just putting the debt some where else they just didn't to spend the political capital it would have cost at the time.

Ohhhhh here is a plan take the whole 50 billion out of the EI.................wait that is what the Liberals did back then, I always wondered how they loaded the provinces with debt and then turned a surplus.

[Smallc]

As I said, this is all about blaming the Liberals for you. There wasn't much else that could have been done at the time. Canada needed to be out of deficit and it needed to be out fast. We couldn't wait around for a solution to appear. Say what you want, but the governments of both Mulroney and Chretien brought this country out of deficit, and they did it the only manner possible: by balancing income and expenditures. There was no magic pill that could have done what needed to be done while avoiding cuts.

[punked]

As I said, this is all about blaming the Liberals for you. There wasn't much else that could have been done at the time. Canada needed to be out of deficit and it needed to be out fast. We couldn't wait around for a solution to appear. Say what you want, but the governments of both Mulroney and Chretien brought this country out of deficit, and they did it the only manner possible: by balancing income and expenditures. There was no magic pill that could have done what needed to be done while avoiding cuts.

No there are real solutions where the money could ave come from in there you just choose to ignore them. you asked and I gave some real examples. Your claim that that was the only way is just wrong. It might have taken longer but every Canadian would have less debt now, becuase their province would not have had to add to the provincial debt. The only reason the Liberals get the blame is becuase they were in power when most these decisions were made.

I never said wait I said actually do work where do you see me saying wait around. Cut fishing subsidizes, don't give out contracts in which no work was done, don't sell off crown cooperations which make huge profits, at the same time don't create ones whose sole purpose is to loose money, Encourage development of Canada's natural resources and have some actual central planning. Pay down the debt every year make the hard cuts and when money comes back becuase the debt is gone RESTORE the programs you cut.

No one said it was easy but is was doable.

God help you if you balance your books the way the Federal government did. "OMG I have a 5000 dollar debt, I know what I will do, I will have a child and sign all my debt over too them."

Edited July 27, 2009 by punked