We need to cut spending drastically NOW!

[Michael Hardner]

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.

In real life, when people ask me why I have opinions I'm able to explain them.

As such, your posts are not real life.

I don't like you or dislike you, but you seem to be ok with just spouting opinions that are incorrect, and have no basis in fact. Despite my pointing this out to you, you still post opinions as fact, without any evidence.

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 actually sitting in an office chair. I don't care if somebody is a shut-in or not, but whether they have well thought out opinions, which you don't.

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?

This is call appeal-to-authority. People use this tactic when they have nothing to back up their claims. If I told you I had a PhD in physics, would that then allow me to tell you that I can fly through the air, that the sky is green and so forth ? Of course not.

Do you include footnotes in your books, by the way ? Because this is what I'm asking for here: cites and evidence.

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.

If you care about Canada, then spend your energy looking into things, DISCUSSING issues and reading. You're just angry and uninterested in doing anything other than making yourself feel better.

Why not go outside and kick a dog ? That would be as effective as what you're doing.

[Mr.Canada]

In real life, when people ask me why I have opinions I'm able to explain them.

As such, your posts are not real life.

I don't like you or dislike you, but you seem to be ok with just spouting opinions that are incorrect, and have no basis in fact. Despite my pointing this out to you, you still post opinions as fact, without any evidence.

I'm actually sitting in an office chair. I don't care if somebody is a shut-in or not, but whether they have well thought out opinions, which you don't.

This is call appeal-to-authority. People use this tactic when they have nothing to back up their claims. If I told you I had a PhD in physics, would that then allow me to tell you that I can fly through the air, that the sky is green and so forth ? Of course not.

Do you include footnotes in your books, by the way ? Because this is what I'm asking for here: cites and evidence.

If you care about Canada, then spend your energy looking into things, DISCUSSING issues and reading. You're just angry and uninterested in doing anything other than making yourself feel better.

Why not go outside and kick a dog ? That would be as effective as what you're doing.

Welcome to my ignore list. You join M.dancer.

So far you two are the only trolls who have made it to my list.

[Michael Hardner]

Welcome to my ignore list. You join M.dancer.

So far you two are the only trolls who have made it to my list.

I am honoured, sir. I'm also glad to hear that Morris holds your type of posting to the same level of contempt as me.

[M.Dancer]

I am honoured, sir. I'm also glad to hear that Morris holds your type of posting to the same level of contempt as me.

I don't believe for a second he has anyone on an ignore list. By his comments concerning pointing out his stupidity as an attack, and an attack on Jesu, I believe his has far too much narcissism to ignore posts that may mention him.

Ain't that right Mr C?

[ToadBrother]

Welcome to my ignore list. You join M.dancer.

So far you two are the only trolls who have made it to my list.

As Bugs Bunny would say "What a maroon!"

I often wonder whether you're a troll yourself. Sometimes your behavior is so ludicrous some part of me thinks your posts are some sort of clever satire.

[Mr.Canada]

We need decentralized power in Ottawa with the provinces having to deal with more of the day to day operations of their own provinces.

Unfortunately people seem to like the government wielding unlimited power over our lives. For all the hate you socialists have for Harper it's amazing how much you all are supporting him. I suggesting we take an amount of power away from the government and you all are suggesting we give them more...lol. I don't get it.

I would much rather the Confederate States style of government before the civil war, which is what the American Civil War was really about btw, not slavery as the Unionists would have us believe.

Decentralized power in Ottawa with more power running to the Provinces and the municipalities to make their own laws as they see fit. I'm tired of being treated like a child by Ottawa. I'm sure the BQ would love for this to happen same with Alberta.

Ottawa handling the big things obviously with the remainder taking care of the rest. This will obviously never happen it's purely theoretical of coarse.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[Michael Hardner]

We need decentralized power in Ottawa with the provinces having to deal with more of the day to day operations of their own provinces.

Decentralize power IN Ottawa ? Decentralize it to one place ? Confused.

Ottawa handling the big things obviously with the remainder taking care of the rest. This will obviously never happen it's purely theoretical of coarse.

This is a very coarse post, of coarse... (sic)

[ToadBrother]

We need decentralized power in Ottawa with the provinces having to deal with more of the day to day operations of their own provinces.

We have a constitution for just this sort of thing.

Unfortunately people seem to like the government wielding unlimited power over our lives. For all the hate you socialists have for Harper it's amazing how much you all are supporting him. I suggesting we take an amount of power away from the government and you all are suggesting we give them more...lol. I don't get it.

The Feds do not wield unlimited power.

I would much rather the Confederate States style of government before the civil war, which is what the American Civil War was really about btw, not slavery as the Unionists would have us believe.

It was about the idealized Jeffersonian-Madisonian agrarian libertarian state running up against a brick wall against a heavily industrialized economy. Considering that those agrarian libertarian states relied upon a large slave populace to make their economic system function, I'd say it had a good deal to do with slavery.

But let's just chalk up the US Civil War as another item you don't know anything about.

Decentralized power in Ottawa with more power running to the Provinces and the municipalities to make their own laws as they see fit. I'm tired of being treated like a child by Ottawa. I'm sure the BQ would love for this to happen same with Alberta.

The municipalities get whatever powers the Provinces give them. Do you even know how our country actually works?

Ottawa handling the big things obviously with the remainder taking care of the rest. This will obviously never happen it's purely theoretical of coarse.

What do you constitute as "big things"?

[Machjo]

The mantra of just cutting spending is too simplistic. Some suggestions have been brought up, but obviously not convincing ones otherwise there would have been little debate over it.

My question is, can anyone come up with suggestions on spending cuts that most could agree to across the political spectrum, something that could gain non-partisan support?

To do so, it would need to be backed up either by hard logic that any simpleton can understand or, alternatively, with research backing.

Among some examples that may or may not fit that category would be:

At the Federal level:

Internally:

replace Official Bilingualism with Regional Bilingualism. Both Conservatives and the Bloc would likely support it. That alone would be a significant portion of the population. This would save the federal government at least some money.

Externally:

Consult with other countries to try to adopt a more efficient language policy for organizations such as the UN, etc. so as to reduce translation and interpretation costs there.

At the provincial level:

Switch to a school voucher system which would increase school efficiency, as per the Swedish model. This would not necessarily reduce government spoending as such, but at least make it do more.

These are just some examples of how we could either reduce spending or at least get mroe for our money.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples beyond these limited examples, but I think we need concrete examples and not just a sweeping claim that we just need sweeping cuts.

Grant each school the freedom to teach the second-language of its choice, and each pupil to be tested in the second-language of his choice, as per the Hungarian model. Few succeed in learning their second official language anyway, so we might as well let schools exploit local advantage and circumstances to increase the rate of success, and allow pupils to exploit their natural language advantage in the same way. This, again, would not necessarily reduce government spending, but would, like the voucher system, help us get more for this money, and with more bilinguals, would help Canada build more trade relations worlwide and more efficiently, thus increasing government revenue.

[ToadBrother]

Switch to a school voucher system which would increase school efficiency, as per the Swedish model. This would not necessarily reduce government spoending as such, but at least make it do more.

Is there any evidence at all that the voucher system actually does more? The whole voucher argument seems more of an ideological one than one of savings.

[Machjo]

Is there any evidence at all that the voucher system actually does more? The whole voucher argument seems more of an ideological one than one of savings.

Hard to say. The argument in favour of a voucher system is that it encourages schools to be more responsive to student needs. Whether true or not is debateable I suppose, but it might be worth getting our hands on any research that might be available on how it's affected the Swedish system. I know that since its implementation, it pretty well has support beyond any party limitations. Even the Social Democrats are'nt putting up much a fuss about it anymore.

I'm guessing that it would be more efficient owing to the incentive to be more responsive to student needs, but I do agree with you that to be sure of that, further research would be needed. I'd be in favour of such research so as to allow us to discuss the issue more rationally too. Until then, I suppose it's not likely to go far as a political issue.

The other ideas with regards to language policy I think have stronger cases. There is plenty of economic research with regards to the economic impact of various language policies. Perhaps the most thorough of such projects is that of the language economist Francois Grin from the University of Geneve published in 2005, outlining how the difference between European language policies could involve a difference in savings to both the private and public sectors ranging in the billions of euros annually.

[ToadBrother]

The other ideas with regards to language policy I think have stronger cases. There is plenty of economic research with regards to the economic impact of various language policies. Perhaps the most thorough of such projects is that of the language economist Francois Grin from the University of Geneve published in 2005, outlining how the difference between European language policies could involve a difference in savings to both the private and public sectors ranging in the billions of euros annually.

The problem I have is that there's little push in English Canada to learn any second language. But if we're going to teach one, French is the logical one. There's an old saying that if you know French, English and Spanish, you can pretty much go most places in the world and find someone who you can communicate with. One of the arguments for teaching Latin in the olden days was that it pretty much gave you a leg up for learning any Romance language.

I worked for a Danish fellow who could speak fluent German, Norwegian (which he joked was Danish with a Swedish accent), Swedish reasonably well, enough Dutch to carry on basic conversations, as well as a smattering of French, not to mention English. He said it isn't really all that uncommon, and that when he was in school, German and English were both taught alongside Danish.

The same thing applies in Africa, where it's not uncommon to have someone fluent in English or French, along with their own language and probably two or three others besides. I remember watching an interview with Neil Peart (drummer for Rush) after he had bicycled across Africa saying that people over there often know three or four languages on top of their own.

The problem in the US and Canada (outside of Quebec) has been little impetus to learn anything but English. In reality, when a kid turns four or five, as their capacity to learn language is at its highest, we should be teaching them at least one other language, if not more.

[bush_cheney2004]

The problem I have.....

.....The problem in the US and Canada (outside of Quebec) has been little impetus to learn anything but English. In reality, when a kid turns four or five, as their capacity to learn language is at its highest, we should be teaching them at least one other language, if not more.

No, you were right the first time...it's a problem you have. Not sure how it's a "problem" in the US. Teaching children involves many things besides spoken languages. Do you know C# ?

[Machjo]

The problem I have is that there's little push in English Canada to learn any second language. But if we're going to teach one, French is the logical one. There's an old saying that if you know French, English and Spanish, you can pretty much go most places in the world and find someone who you can communicate with. One of the arguments for teaching Latin in the olden days was that it pretty much gave you a leg up for learning any Romance language.

I worked for a Danish fellow who could speak fluent German, Norwegian (which he joked was Danish with a Swedish accent), Swedish reasonably well, enough Dutch to carry on basic conversations, as well as a smattering of French, not to mention English. He said it isn't really all that uncommon, and that when he was in school, German and English were both taught alongside Danish.

What was his true level of fluency in each language? it may have been high, but if so, then it was not so common. Claude Piron, a one-time UN interpreter from English, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Mandarin Chinese into French, and now a professor of psychology at the University of Geneva, has quoted some research showing that the idea of the multilingual European is pure myth. Most bilingual Europeans speak their first language plus a neighbouring language, and only about 5 to 6 percent of continental Europeans are truly functional in English. When we say most Europeans 'know' English, we're talking about being able to ask for directions to the bathroom more or less.

Hardly an ideal scenario for European integration. Ulrich Matthias, in his book La Nova Latino por la Eklesio kau Ekumenismo, points out that according to one study, only about 6% of Germans are truly functional in English, and Germany is a Germanic country don't forget. We mustn't confound the educated classes and language specialists with the general population.

The same thing applies in Africa, where it's not uncommon to have someone fluent in English or French, along with their own language and probably two or three others besides. I remember watching an interview with Neil Peart (drummer for Rush) after he had bicycled across Africa saying that people over there often know three or four languages on top of their own.

You're right. Robert Phillipson has interesting points on that in his book Linguistic Imperialism. Again, in most cases that multi-lingualism involves the language of the school and local languages, hardly an ideal scenario for pan-African integration.

The problem in the US and Canada (outside of Quebec) has been little impetus to learn anything but English.

You've never been to Quebec, have you. When I lived in La Malbaie-Pointe-au-Pic, the only ones who really knew English were the local professional English teachers and a few tourism professionals working at the Casino de Charlevoix. The average Joe on the street couldn't function in English in the streets of Quebec City either, nor in Roberval. I even had to serve as an English_French interpretor in some meetings in Montreal since some did not know French while others did not know English. Sure, most Montrealers are French-English bilingual, but that's not universal. How much less outside of Montreal. Let's stick to facts, statistics and real life observations on the ground rather than spew out popular myth.

I happen to love language issues and so often test the locals. In the province of Quebec, I'd sometimes speak English in the street just to test the locals. Same in Ottawa in English, and I can say that the vast majority of English-speakers in Ottawa can't function in French, even after years of training with the public service. I've met plenty of such federal public servants who've received such training.

As for English-Canadians learning just English, it's true to a certain degree, but that still does not change the fact that most people in the world fail to learn English too. It goes both ways.

This is where the Hungarian Model is one worth emulating. Since each school is free to teach the second language of its choice, students are free to choose an easier language if they wish. English and French are useless if they're beyond one's ability to learn them after all. We might as well let them choose their second language and learn it well than impose a language on them that will likely lead, as per statistics, to failure and monolingualism. As a result of this freedom, many students in Hungary now choose Esperanto as their second language to fulfil graduation requirements. Italy, Poland, Croatia, England, the US, Australia, and a school in Halifax among others do allow Esperanto in school. It may be limited when it comes to business (though some do use it for business too), but even if just to make penfriends and enrich his life, learning an easier language well will prove much more fulfilling spiritually and culturally than failing to learn one beyond mechanical test-taking purposes.

In reality, when a kid turns four or five, as their capacity to learn language is at its highest, we should be teaching them at least one other language, if not more.

Again, Professors Elizabetta Formaggio from the University of Rome, Helmar Frank from the University of Paderborn, Penny Ur, author of various teacher training books, all disagree with your assertion, based on hard research. In fact, on an hourly basis, older children learn more than younger children, and owing to inefficient use of time, it's generally advised that they not start learning a second-language in school until the age of ten if it's a national or ethnic language, or eight if it's a planned language.

Also, a number of multilinguals and language experts, including claude Piron, Francois Grin, etc. support the idea of shifting towards easier langauges, based on their own personal experience in the field.

Again, language policy, especially school language policies, ought not be based on urban myths, ideology and politics but rather hard research and facts.

As for the myth that children learn more quickly, we forget that unlike in a classroom environment, they are exposed to the language about 12 hours a day and everyone is their teachers, not to mention natural motivation to communitate what they need.

None of this is easily reproducible in a classroom environment.

[maple_leafs182]

I have an idea to cut spending and raise revenue at the same time.

Legalize drugs.

The federal government is currently spending 500 million dollars annually to enforce prohibition of marijuana; 150 million dollars is spent on the court systems alone.

BC's marijuana industry alone is estimated to be worth $6 billion. I know lot's of that comes from the states but even if only 10% of that came from Canada it would be $600,000,000. That's a lot of money that can be potentially made off the tax from wholesale and retail sales.

Not to mention drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

[Michael Hardner]

I have an idea to cut spending and raise revenue at the same time.

Legalize drugs.

The federal government is currently spending 500 million dollars annually to enforce prohibition of marijuana; 150 million dollars is spent on the court systems alone.

BC's marijuana industry alone is estimated to be worth $6 billion. I know lot's of that comes from the states but even if only 10% of that came from Canada it would be $600,000,000. That's a lot of money that can be potentially made off the tax from wholesale and retail sales.

Not to mention drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

500 million sounds high to me. Do you have a cite ?

[Machjo]

I have an idea to cut spending and raise revenue at the same time.

Legalize drugs.

The federal government is currently spending 500 million dollars annually to enforce prohibition of marijuana; 150 million dollars is spent on the court systems alone.

You might have a point here. What about increased healthcare costs for marijuana-induced lung cancers? And how does marijuana affect the operation of a motor-vehicle? Then we have the issue of quality of life? Certainly we have a moral responsibility to protect people from addiction.

I'm not saying we shouldn't legalize it. I'm undecided on that front, though you do bring up a point. But legalized or not, it certainly would need to be regulated in some way. Por example, seeing it would likely increase hospital costs and costs to addiction clinics, we'd likely need to counterbalance that with high taxes on the marijuana. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of legalizing it, since that woudl also imply the right to advertize it and make it more accessible to a larger segment of the population. We have enough problems with nicotine on that front as it is.

BC's marijuana industry alone is estimated to be worth $6 billion. I know lot's of that comes from the states but even if only 10% of that came from Canada it would be $600,000,000. That's a lot of money that can be potentially made off the tax from wholesale and retail sales.

We can't look at money only. This would be government revenue on the backs of addicts! Similar to Lotto 6/49. It's usually the poor desperate to win some money who mostly buy those tickets. Same idea, it's essentially the government exploiting the least fortunate members of the population. I can understand a debate about whether the government ought to help the poor, and by how much. But I'd like to think we'd have unanimity on the idea that it's not up to the government to exploit the most vulnerable.

Not to mention drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

Some drugs are so addictive that they will push a person to spend all their money on the drug even while they're starving, are freezing, and have no shelter! Some will steal or even kill for their drugs. Do we not have an obligation to help these addicts and prevent others from accessing these drugs?

Personally, I'd be all for the death penalty for anyone dealing drugs, let alone the government getting into the business. The government's already into gambling with Lotto 6/49, and now we'll let it get into the drug industry?

[maple_leafs182]

I swear i read it in a cbc article but I can't find it.

The economy is our most unifying principle. Simply put, we can no longer afford cannabis prohibition and that cold, hard fact significantly impacts all of these pillars. The federal government currently spends close to 500 million dollars annually enforcing cannabis prohibition when estimates indicate lost tax opportunities on revenue in the tens of billions annually. This does not take into account other costs on municipal and provincial judicial systems, court time, legal fees in addition to lost revenues in the form of tax potential from the billions generated annually by Canada's cannabis industry.

http://www.norml.ca/

[Michael Hardner]

I swear i read it in a cbc article but I can't find it.

http://www.norml.ca/

Thanks for the cite, but I'm still suspicious of that number from Norml.

[Topaz]

I have an idea to cut spending and raise revenue at the same time.

Legalize drugs.

The federal government is currently spending 500 million dollars annually to enforce prohibition of marijuana; 150 million dollars is spent on the court systems alone.

BC's marijuana industry alone is estimated to be worth $6 billion. I know lot's of that comes from the states but even if only 10% of that came from Canada it would be $600,000,000. That's a lot of money that can be potentially made off the tax from wholesale and retail sales.

Not to mention drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

Legalize you say? It won't happen because it will spoil the plan of arresting more potheads and putting them in jail that the Tories have in their justice bill!

[maple_leafs182]

You might have a point here. What about increased healthcare costs for marijuana-induced lung cancers? And how does marijuana affect the operation of a motor-vehicle? Then we have the issue of quality of life? Certainly we have a moral responsibility to protect people from addiction.

There is no evidance to support the claim that legalizing will increase the use. It is readily available right now.

As for cancer, marijuana may not increase the risk of getting cancer.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060526083353.htm

I'm not saying we shouldn't legalize it. I'm undecided on that front, though you do bring up a point. But legalized or not, it certainly would need to be regulated in some way. Por example, seeing it would likely increase hospital costs and costs to addiction clinics, we'd likely need to counterbalance that with high taxes on the marijuana. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of legalizing it, since that woudl also imply the right to advertize it and make it more accessible to a larger segment of the population. We have enough problems with nicotine on that front as it is.

Technically marijuana isn't physically addictive. There are drugs like heroin and nicotine that replace chemicals in your brain, your brain will then stop producing the natural chemicals and when you are off the drug, your brain will crave those drugs because the other chemicals aren't being produced naturally. Pot doesn't do that. You can be psychologically addicted, but that is the same as being addicted to TV or Shopping.

We can't look at money only. This would be government revenue on the backs of addicts! Similar to Lotto 6/49. It's usually the poor desperate to win some money who mostly buy those tickets. Same idea, it's essentially the government exploiting the least fortunate members of the population. I can understand a debate about whether the government ought to help the poor, and by how much. But I'd like to think we'd have unanimity on the idea that it's not up to the government to exploit the most vulnerable

.

I know many people who smoke pot, who are they supporting? gangs. I would rather see the money spent on drugs go to help the economy then help gangs.

Some drugs are so addictive that they will push a person to spend all their money on the drug even while they're starving, are freezing, and have no shelter! Some will steal or even kill for their drugs. Do we not have an obligation to help these addicts and prevent others from accessing these drugs?

How would putting them in jail help them? Educate people on the dangers of drugs. If drugs were legal, people who become addicted would be more likely to come and look for help knowing the public won't scrutinize them.

Personally, I'd be all for the death penalty for anyone dealing drugs, let alone the government getting into the business. The government's already into gambling with Lotto 6/49, and now we'll let it get into the drug industry?

A little harsh.

Truthfully, I could care less if it was the government who sold pot, or 7-11 sold pot.

It's not the governments role to say what you can and cannot do with your own body.

[Battletoads]

I suspect we could cut some of the undeserved funding that Quebec gets.

[Smallc]

Examples of that funding?

[Machjo]

How would putting them in jail help them? Educate people on the dangers of drugs. If drugs were legal, people who become addicted would be more likely to come and look for help knowing the public won't scrutinize them.

If they're in jail, they can't sell it and hurt others by it anymore. Considering that they may be responsible for destroying lives, the death penalty may be appropriate in more extreme cases, especially with harder drugs.

A little harsh.

Not at all. To destroy a person's life by selling him Opium and such is paramount to murder.

It's not the governments role to say what you can and cannot do with your own body.

Even when you are no longer in contgrol of your body owing to your addiction? And who foots the bill to help you once addicted? And no moral responsibility?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Weed should be legal, period. Booze and smokes are, so why not weed? Sell it in government stores and tax the hell out of it just like smokes and booze. Big revenue stream and reduced legal expenditures. While you are at it, legalize the hookers but not the pimps. Make it legal and tax the hell out of that as well. I have said all along it is a revenue issue, not a spending issue.