We need to cut spending drastically NOW!

[Mr.Canada]

When will people in Ottawa understand that in order to get Canada in order we need to cut spending. The stimulus spending will not be able to solve all the problems plus it's very hard to turn off the tap once it's been turned on. Somewhere down the road we will need to cut expenditures.

Governments never have a revenue problem they always have a spending problem. The government needs to spend less, then everything would be fine, why can't they see that the government cannot be all things to all people. Give Canada what the majority of us want and scrap the rest, the minorities will get over it, they can always leave Canada if they don't like it.

TL;DR We need to cut spending in order to save Canada from future financial ruin. It's either cut spending or raise taxes.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Riverwind]

The government needs to spend less, then everything would be fine, why can't they see that the government cannot be all things to all people.

I guess you did not get the memo. You see Canadians are these evil creatures who despoiled the world and now have to pay off our 'climate debt' to the rest of the world. Our illustrous leaders are in Copenhagen negotiating the terms of payment which will include a combination of cash, technology and jobs. All of this will require higher taxes and cuts to services that Canadians actually care about.

BTW - you are not allowed to question whether paying this 'climate debt' is justified or even rational. If you do you are no better that a holocuast denier and you will be put on trial for crimes against humanity.

[Machjo]

When will people in Ottawa understand that in order to get Canada in order we need to cut spending. The stimulus spending will not be able to solve all the problems plus it's very hard to turn off the tap once it's been turned on. Somewhere down the road we will need to cut expenditures.

Agreed. Either spending must decline or revenue must go up, and we know what that means. Something's got to give. The question though is how to reduce spending while making the transition as painless as possible. I'll be creating a separate thread on that in a few minutes, since that really is a topic in its own right.

Governments never have a revenue problem they always have a spending problem.

Disagreed. The two go hand in hand. If government spending outstrips revenue, we have both a spending and revenue problem, though granted the solutions may vary. Either we reduce spending, increase revenue, or a combination of the two.

Or, if we don't feel the need to be so responsible, I suppose we could also inflate our way out of the problem, or at least get the false impression that we are.

The government needs to spend less, then everything would be fine, why can't they see that the government cannot be all things to all people. Give Canada what the majority of us want and scrap the rest, the minorities will get over it, they can always leave Canada if they don't like it.

Such a policy would likely tear the country apart. If we went all to English, Quebec would separate. Good luck removing special privileges to Catholic schools over other religious schools in Ontario. And where will the First Nations 'go back to'? Honestly, that route would be the beginning of the end of this great compromise we call Canada.

We need to cut spending in order to save Canada from future financial ruin. It's either cut spending or raise taxes.

Those are the two responsible options. Then there's the inflationary third option too, that some simpletons would happily go for.

Again, I'll be creating a thread in a few minutes on ways to cut spending while causing the least pain possible.

[Michael Hardner]

This thread seems to be alarmist, and not based on facts. As such, one might think that it's an example of emotionalism of the right-thinking posters here.

To cap: Canada is nowhere near the top of per-capita spending, having in place a Conservative and business-friendly government that is presumably preferred by right-thinking posters. Also, that government has been demonstratively reluctant to move on environmental issues.

[Machjo]

I guess you did not get the memo. You see Canadians are these evil creatures who despoiled the world and now have to pay off our 'climate debt' to the rest of the world. Our illustrous leaders are in Copenhagen negotiating the terms of payment which will include a combination of cash, technology and jobs. All of this will require higher taxes and cuts to services that Canadians actually care about.

BTW - you are not allowed to question whether paying this 'climate debt' is justified or even rational. If you do you are no better that a holocuast denier and you will be put on trial for crimes against humanity.

Ironically enough, we might be able to 'pay' our climate debt not by raising spending, but by reducing spending. For example, introduce a five-year moratorium on any further highway construction and suburban expansion projects. This would involve an end to highway expansion and thus savings. It would also put an end to road expansion in new suburban expansion projects, again translating into savings. This would naturally lead to a free market demand for higher density housing, resulting in a larger tax base supporting a smaller urban infrastructure, again resulting in savings.

Also, convert to a more user-pay tax base, such as a gas tax and reduce income tax. This too would encourage people to make less use of our transportation infrastructure, resulting again in less government spending on road repairs, etc.

[Mr.Canada]

The whole climate thing is a hoax imo. First they called it "Global Warming" then it was proven that the Earth is actually cooling, not warming so they scrapped that. Now they have called it climate change. The climate changes on its own over time and there is no irrefutable proof that the change that may or may not be occurring are man made changes. It could be the Earht natural cycle.

Since it's popular on the left to trumpet unproven issues we have a new boogie man in this new science called "Climate Change". I wonder what they will call it next.

I don't think Harper should give one penny to anyone for this hoax and Canada should go about its business as usual. If the whiners don't like it I hear China is a great place to live.

Bottom line is we need to cut spending we don't need the PM acting like the Mayor of Toronto who has raised taxes by 43% since he took office to fund his pet projects. They have no respect for our money at all and that needs to change.

We've been giving Billions of dollars to our own poor in Canada and to other countries for decades. If they cannot get it together by now that's their problem. This piggy bank has run dry, time to take our own poor and the worlds poor off the teat. They need to learn to stand on there own two feet and take responsibility for themselves instead of being a perpetual victim.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Riverwind]

Ironically enough, we might be able to 'pay' our climate debt not by raising spending, but by reducing spending.

The 'climate debt' cannot be settled in that manner. The 'climate debt' requires the transfer of wealth from Canadians to developing countries. Any policies which we adopt ourselves are an expense over and above the cost of the 'climate debt' payments.

[charter.rights]

We've been giving Billions of dollars to our own poor in Canada and to other countries for decades. If they cannot get it together by now that's their problem. This piggy bank has run dry, time to take our own poor and the worlds poor off the teat. They need to learn to stand on there own two feet and take responsibility for themselves instead of being a perpetual victim.

I understand that you are on that gravy train. When are YOU going to stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for yourself? "Hypocrite" comes to mind as a term that would best describe your position.

[Smallc]

Governments never have a revenue problem they always have a spending problem.

Sorry, but no. There are programs that need paying for. If revenue drops causing a deficit, you have a revenue problem. If spending increases causing a deficit, you have a spending problem.

[Michael Hardner]

The whole climate thing is a hoax imo. First they called it "Global Warming" then it was proven that the Earth is actually cooling, not warming so they scrapped that. Now they have called it climate change. The climate changes on its own over time and there is no irrefutable proof that the change that may or may not be occurring are man made changes. It could be the Earht natural cycle.

Since it's popular on the left to trumpet unproven issues we have a new boogie man in this new science called "Climate Change". I wonder what they will call it next.

I don't think Harper should give one penny to anyone for this hoax and Canada should go about its business as usual. If the whiners don't like it I hear China is a great place to live.

Bottom line is we need to cut spending we don't need the PM acting like the Mayor of Toronto who has raised taxes by 43% since he took office to fund his pet projects. They have no respect for our money at all and that needs to change.

We've been giving Billions of dollars to our own poor in Canada and to other countries for decades. If they cannot get it together by now that's their problem. This piggy bank has run dry, time to take our own poor and the worlds poor off the teat. They need to learn to stand on there own two feet and take responsibility for themselves instead of being a perpetual victim.

You are so uninformed on the issues here that even I am surprised. As for whiners, your entire post sounds like a whine of misinformation.

We have been giving money to the poor for decades. In fact I know one - a welfare recipient from years ago who took social assistance and eventually got it together and started working on his own software projects. You guessed it, he's rich now.

The thing is, my story is just one example and not anything that we should base policy decisions on. Get it ? So, Mr. Canada, if you want to contribute positively then back up your claims. This is the second post of yours today with bad if not worthless information. You're zero for two.

You've been on these forums for long enough that you should know how real posters behave.

[Machjo]

Also, that government has been demonstratively reluctant to move on environmental issues.

On the contrary, our highway and suburban environments are in full growth.

[Machjo]

The 'climate debt' cannot be settled in that manner. The 'climate debt' requires the transfer of wealth from Canadians to developing countries. Any policies which we adopt ourselves are an expense over and above the cost of the 'climate debt' payments.

Simple free trade would give poorer countries an edge over us owing to their cost advantage. So instead of giving them money, how about we simply remove trade barriers against them?

Also, let's consider that our current international language situation transfers wealth from poorer countries to English-speaking countries. According to the Grin Report published in 2005, the EU subsidizes the UK economy from 17 to 18 thousand million euros annually through the English-language industry alone (in spite of the UK being the wealthiest country in the EU), including textbook and dictionary publishing, IELTS tests and courses, hiring British teachers abroad, 'linguistic tourism' to the UK, university tuition there to learn English, etc. And that does not include the more subtle advantages such as being able to negotiate contracts more easily in their native language, etc.

The same study suggested the EU (including the UK and Ireland) could save up to 25 thousand million dollars annually if it switched to Esperanto owing to the language's ease of learning!

Perhaps restructuring the world's language order could be a way not for wealthier countries to give money to poorer countries, but to just put an end to the transfer of wealth from poor countries to rich in the first place. Looking at it that way, it's not our charity that these countries need, but justice. We need to restructure the world language order to no longer advantage wealthier countries unfairly.

[Machjo]

The whole climate thing is a hoax imo.

iyo. Agreed.

[Riverwind]

Simple free trade would give poorer countries an edge over us owing to their cost advantage. So instead of giving them money, how about we simply remove trade barriers against them?

Sure. The problem is they are in Cophenhagen demanding money - lots of it and our leaders are lining up to oblige since Canadians cannot seem to figure out that giving money away for 'climate debt' means services must be cut at home.

[Machjo]

Even ignoring the environmental side of this, there is still the issue of resource depletion.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure. The problem is they are in Cophenhagen demanding money - lots of it and our leaders are lining up to oblige since Canadians cannot seem to figure out that giving money away for 'climate debt' means services must be cut at home.

Stick to the facts. It's enough to tell people that the Kyoto process for managing carbon credits is deficient without having to resort to hyperbole.

I was convinced by the former fact (i.e. flaws in the process) but if you post that our leaders (i.e. Harper to my mind) is lining up to oblige, you are preaching to the converted.

[DrGreenthumb]

I agree, we should immediately stop funding churches with our tax money.

[Riverwind]

Stick to the facts. It's enough to tell people that the Kyoto process for managing carbon credits is deficient without having to resort to hyperbole.

There is no hyperbole - the demands for massive cash transfers from the rich to the poor are real. Harper has already signalled his willingness to contribute to $10 billion fund at the Commenwealth meeting a couple weeks ago. The only question is how much Canadians will be asked to sacrifice in order to pay this so-called 'climate debt'.

This thread on what we should cut to get spending under control. Bribe payments under the guise of environmental action should be the first to go.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In my view it is not that we are spending to much, but instead that we have less revenues than expenditures. With that in mind I suggest that we increase revenues. That does not mean simply increasing taxation, it does mean designing a system of revenue stream generation that meets the needs of the citizens. Lets face it folks, we wanted all those programs the government runs, we must have because we supported the government in free elections that created those programs. We didn't depose them and eliminate the program spending, so all that we can take from that is the reality that the people of this nation got what they asked for.

I think we have a good shot at turning things around working within the system we have if we simply utilize the resources available to us. The north is a vast treasure trove of natural resources. The Territories have little say in what happens up there because they simply don't have provincial rights and authorities. So it becomes a no-brainer, develop the north and utilized the royalty revenues to compensate for our expenditures and revenue shortfall.

[Topaz]

The good old Finance has said he is going to cut spending and they are also raising EI premiums, which he says isn't a tax, but will bring in another 8 Bil. yearly. Every time the government cuts spending it always hurts the lower end and you hardly ever hear the well-to-do, as the politicans, and others like them complain when there are spending cuts! Until jobs are being created for those thousands and thousands of unemployed, Canada won't come ahead or even get back to any normacy. What happens to those who can't find a job or only find part time but its not even to cover the mortgage and other expenses. People then will start to lose their homes and the homesless will expand and we will go through what he rest of the countries have aleady gone through, foreclosures, and banks being owners of other people homes. This government is in this for themselves and business, they only care about people when there a election!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Governments of any partisan faction have a difficult role to play. Once elected the daily chore of running the nation takes precedence over partisan whims and the concerns of individuals. Of course a balance must be struck, but that is not visible to the citizens at all, or ever.

[Mr.Canada]

I understand that you are on that gravy train. When are YOU going to stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for yourself? "Hypocrite" comes to mind as a term that would best describe your position.

I have no idea or clue as to what you're talking about.

[Mr.Canada]

You are so uninformed on the issues here that even I am surprised. As for whiners, your entire post sounds like a whine of misinformation.

We have been giving money to the poor for decades. In fact I know one - a welfare recipient from years ago who took social assistance and eventually got it together and started working on his own software projects. You guessed it, he's rich now.

The thing is, my story is just one example and not anything that we should base policy decisions on. Get it ? So, Mr. Canada, if you want to contribute positively then back up your claims. This is the second post of yours today with bad if not worthless information. You're zero for two.

You've been on these forums for long enough that you should know how real posters behave.

I am? There is no empirical proof that anything man made is causing "Climate Change" other than obvious ones like dumping toxins into the ocean etc. "Global warming" Was proven to be false so they now call it "Climate Change". This is a fact. The socialists constantly need guilt sticks to beat the most wealthy nations with. If not environmental issues it's race issues and so on and on and on and on.

One person out of millions on welfare doesn't make the case for us to funding the lazy forever.

As I've said before, don't worry you leftists, socialists, communists are winning and the world will one day be under your control as a one world government. So don't get too upset with me you guys are going to win within 30 or 40 years. A structure like the UN will control the nations of the world. One world government will be here. The richest nations wealth will be stolen and given to the poorest and they will screw it all up just like in South Africa where South Africa went from one of the wealthiest nations to the poorest in less then a decade.

[Michael Hardner]

I am? There is no empirical proof that anything man made is causing "Climate Change" other than obvious ones like dumping toxins into the ocean etc. "Global warming" Was proven to be false so they now call it "Climate Change". This is a fact. The socialists constantly need guilt sticks to beat the most wealthy nations with. If not environmental issues it's race issues and so on and on and on and on.

I haven't heard that dumping toxins in the ocean causes climate change, that's a new one on me. Do you have a cite ?

Depending on where you draw the line, there is definitely evidence that man-made CO2 is causing the world to warm and there is scientific consensus on that.

Global Warming hasn't proven to be false, and even the folks on this board against AGW acknowledge that the world is getting warmer.

The term "Climate Change" is used because the term "Global Warming" is too easily misinterpreted by people who assume that every point on the globe will get warmer as a result, which is not the case.

Your point about the socialists is an opinion so I'll leave that alone, but

One person out of millions on welfare doesn't make the case for us to funding the lazy forever.

So for your first paragraph, you're 0 for 3 pending your site on dumping toxins in the ocean. This is why I call you misinformed.

As I've said before, don't worry you leftists, socialists, communists are winning and the world will one day be under your control as a one world government. So don't get too upset with me you guys are going to win within 30 or 40 years. A structure like the UN will control the nations of the world. One world government will be here. The richest nations wealth will be stolen and given to the poorest and they will screw it all up just like in South Africa where South Africa went from one of the wealthiest nations to the poorest in less then a decade.

This is just whining (didn't YOU complain about whining earlier ?) and paranoia.

You're overly emotional on this issue, and as such I can't take you seriously until you start backing up your claims, such as the one that we can save tens of billions by selling the Beer Store (which the government doesn't even own) the LCBO and the TTC.

If you even once acknowledged your mistakes, it would increase my respect for your postings.

[Mr.Canada]

We need to cut spending now. All those billions going to special interest groups needs to stop.

Canada is being blackmailed by the developing world into giving away billions for "climate change" the science of which is questionable at best.

The oil sands in Alberta produce 1/10th of 1% of the worlds CO2 and Canada as a whole produces 2% of the worlds total CO2 yet is being blackmailed into giving away more free money to these "developing" nations. Absurd.

Yes I am for privatization of almost everything, why are you so scared of having things run privately?

I want my taxes lower, not higher. I could care less if you respect my posting or not. This is an internet forum not real life, get a grip Michael Hardner. I don't base the value of life upon whether or not some internet geek likes me or not...lol.

You must indeed lead a shallow life if that's the case. I hardly ever post here because I am out there making real change happen. Armchair critics don't do much to help society except prove that too many people on these boards are shut ins.

I'm writing another book that will be published and available in your book stores at the end of 2010 or early 2011. I speak publicly regularly. If you really pay attention it really isn't too hard to figure out who I am in real life. What and where are your credits Michael?

Do you really need big brother government looking after you? Are you unable to make decisions for yourself? Why do you love the nanny state so much?

EDIT- Yeah I get emotional because I actually care about Canada and am passionate about my country and it bothers me when traitors try to tear her down and make her into something horrible. If Canada isn't for you please go live someplace more to your liking.

I'm not some academic who doesn't even care what country they're in as long as they get to push their socialist agenda. People like Ignatieff, the socialist hero, will never connect with Canadians because he doesn't love Canada. Sure, he says he does but his actions speak louder than words.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Mr.Canada