punked Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 Perhaps Punked is onto something. Change the structure, i'm liking it...maybe to those little uniforms that the Beavers, Cubs, and scouts wear...you know the ones you earn badges for...better than medals...you 've got to shine them, wear them on parades, badges much better....Shit we could lower the age so everyone could join not only could they help out in disasters , and the north west passage but they could carry water to our drug plants, help stoners cross the road, fetch stoners muniches in the afternoon.... ...even carry our heavy protesting signs for " POT SHOULD NOT BE AGAIN"ST THE LAW"....and for the rest of us well we could go home and join the unemployment lines , the government would save huge amounts of cash for other stupid ideas like the "Right to vacation", or the Right to smoke pot....shit we could spend a ton of cash and not even dent 20 Bil ....where does a guy sign up.... Never suggested any of that. Just cause you don't like the idea doesn't mean you can pretend that I suggest any of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 We are now over 30 million,yet last I heard we were around 60 thousand souls. Actually, it's at about 68K. Things are going so well with recruiting (outside of the navy) that they've stopped accepting new sign ups for infantry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 Seriously, though, .5% is nothing. As much as Harris messed up Ontario with gross mismanagement, it shouldn't be a big problem to get costs down by that much. As I've already explained, it is not a half percentage at all. Once you take the money out of the equation which CAN NOT BE TOUCHED you are probably left with not much more than 25% of the budget. Now I'm not saying there can't be cuts. Don't get me wrong. I can think of any number of programs I could cut. However, I bet you and others would be appalled at seeing those programs cut. Cutting programs across the board is dumb. It leaves the overfunded, underneeded programs which operate at a very low level of efficiency being cut by the same as the highly important programs already running at peak efficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 Are you implying sir that Mr. Harris's Common Sense Revolution was neither common nor sensible? If so I'm both shocked and appalled. Interesting to note that many of the old Harris crew are currently entrenched on the federal level and it would seem our illustrious former provincial finance minister hasn't changed his ways in the least. I love overpaying for the 407, thank you Mr. Flaherty. What to sell next... I’m certain the ceremonial mace of parliament would fetch a decent price. I was never a fan of Harris' broad budget cuts. I like to think that dialyses has more importance than say, mime lessons, and that cutting both equally is - dumb. You go through programs, figure out which are the priorities, which are operating at efficiencies which can be improved upon, and then you make your cuts. But Harris was impatient for results. I was never a big fan of Harris, despite the fact he was at least several orders of magnitude better than the two idiots who preceded him and the two morons who followed. I guess I just have high standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 No matter were they cut people are going to be hurt but I did find the following. http://www.psac-afpc.com/news/2010/issues/20100302-e.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 No matter were they cut people are going to be hurt Not necessarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 Actually, it's at about 68K. Things are going so well with recruiting (outside of the navy) that they've stopped accepting new sign ups for infantry. And a very timely release: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?cat=00&id=3359 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 We spend 20 billion a year on the Military seems like finding 2 billion there should not be hard. Done and done. When (if) Canada pulls out of Afghanistan next year, i'd imagine finding 2 billion in savings would be fairly easy due to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 When (if) Canada pulls out of Afghanistan next year, i'd imagine finding 2 billion in savings would be fairly easy due to that. Soldiers get paid, fed whether they are in or out of the country.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 Soldiers get paid, fed whether they are in or out of the country.... Still, there will be a savings of about $1.5 - 2B (assuming we do nothing to replace the mission). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 Still, there will be a savings of about $1.5 - 2B (assuming we do nothing to replace the mission). And assuming we do not recruit or replace worn out equipment or continue to fund rebuilding programmes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 When (if) Canada pulls out of Afghanistan next year, i'd imagine finding 2 billion in savings would be fairly easy due to that. I would question that. The Navy was on yesterday, saying their ships NEED replacing and we have now, soldiers that need more healthcare than before and for longer periods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 Baby boomers are starting to retire and so goes income taxes, which is the government's largest revenue and EI is still paying out more than bring in, and so the only way I think they could pay this off in a short time is to sell Crown property. Canada also hasn't felt the effect of when the interest rates and mortgages rates start to climb and personal debt will hit by the end of the year. I hope I'm wrong though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 EI is still paying out more than bring in I have a feeling that this is fabrication. Cite please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 And assuming we do not recruit or replace worn out equipment or continue to fund rebuilding programmes. Dancer, don't be yourself. That is the cost of the mission. Procurement and recruiting are separate itemized costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 Baby boomers are starting to retire and so goes income taxes, which is the government's largest revenue and EI is still paying out more than bring in, and so the only way I think they could pay this off in a short time is to sell Crown property. Canada also hasn't felt the effect of when the interest rates and mortgages rates start to climb and personal debt will hit by the end of the year. I hope I'm wrong though. The EI situation is dependent on the economy, and I believe there was a surplus after Martin made major changes in the 1990s. When Baby Boomers retire, are they not replaced ? Won't there be a major hiring boom ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome Rob Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 When Baby Boomers retire, are they not replaced ? Won't there be a major hiring boom ? I would suggest that the economy will contract, with such a large group of people both using less services and no longer producing wealth. I just saw a figure of 3.7 million, 10 years at present levels of immigration, if, every new immigrant is of working age and doesn't draw on the system, which isn't the case. It's hard to say we won't feel the effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 The EI situation is dependent on the economy, and I believe there was a surplus after Martin made major changes in the 1990s. Yes there were EI surpluses but they were channelled into general revenues as another way to bring down the deficit - on the backs of workers and companies. The EI proposals from the government are to make it self-sustaining - keep any surpluses in the EI fund for a rainy day and if you have to overspend - like in this recession - then when it abates, raise the rates until such time as it's back to normal. No funny money - no shell game - money in - money out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 I would suggest that the economy will contract, with such a large group of people both using less services and no longer producing wealth. I just saw a figure of 3.7 million, 10 years at present levels of immigration, if, every new immigrant is of working age and doesn't draw on the system, which isn't the case. It's not the person that produces the wealth, it's the job. Sure, there will be a host of effects. Let's talk about some other ones: Expensive workers taken off the payroll and replaced with more efficient workers. Fewer payouts by company health plans. More advancement in the middle, more hiring at the bottom. Fewer workers working in dead industries such as manufacturing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 Fewer workers working in dead industries such as manufacturing. "dead"? The strongest economies in the world all make things: China, Japan,Germany, even the US. Emgering giants like India and Korea too. The cant that service or financial based economies are our future is nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 And assuming we do not recruit or replace worn out equipment or continue to fund rebuilding programmes. If you want to SPEND money I don't want to hear crying when our taxes go up. You don't get it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 If you want to SPEND money I don't want to hear crying when our taxes go up. You don't get it both ways. Bah...it's the useless funding that should be eliminated...I hear they have cut about 400 k from feminist advocacy groups who are too lame assed to raise their own money, and too dense to provide proper accounting of how they spent it... Kim Bulger of Match International said the Canadian International Development Agency abruptly informed her group last Friday that its funding of $400,000 a year will not be renewed. CIDA cited performance and financing issues but Ms. Bulger dismissed those as “red herrings.” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/womens-groups-decry-tory-funding-cuts/article1556539/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 "dead"? The strongest economies in the world all make things: China, Japan,Germany, even the US. Emgering giants like India and Korea too. The cant that service or financial based economies are our future is nonsense. Yes. They're strong because they're taking this over from us. Hence.... dead. What is our future then ? Explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 Bah...it's the useless funding that should be eliminated...I hear they have cut about 400 k from feminist advocacy groups who are too lame assed to raise their own money, and too dense to provide proper accounting of how they spent it... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/womens-groups-decry-tory-funding-cuts/article1556539/ Got it you want them to spend on only things you deem important. Got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 5, 2010 Report Share Posted May 5, 2010 Got it you want them to spend on only things you deem important. Got it. Good. National defence trumps professional feminists... 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.