Wasted tax dollars

[Esq]

Huge waste of tax dollars 6.5 million tax payer dollars to promote the Conservative Party.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-government-to-spend-65-million-to-promote-tax-cutting-record/article1893248/

"The 11-week campaign, called “Tax cuts … working for you,” will run until March 27 – right around the time an election would start if the Conservatives were defeated over the March budget. "

This is such a blatant corrupt use of public funds. It is disgusting.

Ironic "$4-million spent each year on the Tradespersons’ Tools Deduction" is less than the amount spent on the ads themselves.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Esq

[Shady]

This is such a blatant corrupt use of public funds.

Complete nonsense. Governments have always spent money on these kinds of ads. Your selective outrage is quite humourous.

[Topaz]

According to the article, Finance Canada says the federal DEBT will grow from $519.1Bil. 2009 to $626.1 in 2015-16/ The percentage of Canada's GDP, debt will peak at 32% in 2011-2012 and drop to 30.8 in 2015-16, and that's if they are lucky! The Tories have added 107 Bil to the debt and that's not counting the billions they want to spend on the F-35 and other military toys. This party should be farmers because they can sure make things grow! How is the next generation going to pay this off?

[Smallc]

The Tories have added 107 Bil to the debt and that's not counting the billions they want to spend on the F-35 and other military toys.

Yes, in fact those figures are included.

[dre]

Sure is easy to throw stuff on your kids tab Especially when current political leaders know they wont be around long enough to have to deal with the mid/long term implications.

[Shady]

Sure is easy to throw stuff on your kids tab Especially when current political leaders know they wont be around long enough to have to deal with the mid/long term implications.

I agree. I'm for an across the board 10% spending cut. Are you with me!

[Smallc]

I agree. I'm for an across the board 10% spending cut. Are you with me!

I'm for spending freezes and selective cuts. I'm not for an indiscriminate cut.

[GWiz]

Complete nonsense. Governments have always spent money on these kinds of ads. Your selective outrage is quite humourous.

Examples please! Con rhetoric doesn't cut it...

As I recall the last time anything close to this happened it ended up as quite the scandal for the Liberals, now I think it's the Con's turn to face an inquiry over this... What do you think?

[Shady]

I'm for spending freezes and selective cuts. I'm not for an indiscriminate cut.

I think an indiscriminate cut is a better way to go. Once you start selectivly cutting, you start pitting one political interest against another. I think if everyone knows that everyone else is sacrificing a little as well, it's much more doable.

[Smallc]

I think an indiscriminate cut is a better way to go. Once you start selectivly cutting, you start pitting one political interest against another. I think if everyone knows that everyone else is sacrificing a little as well, it's much more doable.

I'm saying, for example, don't cut OAS, and don't cut the Canada Health Transfer. Equalization is a grey area. Other things, generally, can be cut, but if they make people suffer needlessly, we shouldn't do it. The essential goal is to get the growth of the deficit below the growth of the economy. They you can work towards a surplus from there.

[Shady]

I'm saying, for example, don't cut OAS, and don't cut the Canada Health Transfer. Equalization is a grey area. Other things, generally, can be cut, but if they make people suffer needlessly, we shouldn't do it. The essential goal is to get the growth of the deficit below the growth of the economy. They you can work towards a surplus from there.

But those are the areas that are most responsible for the deficit. How can you take them off the table?

[Smallc]

But those are the areas that are most responsible for the deficit. How can you take them off the table?

Because you do. Seniors can't suddenly be forced to live in poverty, and we can't set the healthcare system back another decade. There are plenty of other things to cut from the CBC to VIA Rail to tax credits to business sectors that don't need tax credits.

Besides, those areas are no more responsible for the deficit than any other areas.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Smallc

[GWiz]

I agree. I'm for an across the board 10% spending cut. Are you with me!

Sure... IF you're willing to do the following -

Let's start with cutting the F-35 purchase (replace with 100 NEW F/A-18E/F NOW at 1/3 the cost), stopping all publicly funded advertising, and cancelling the corporate tax cuts...

Then -

Perhaps a small rise in the GST back to 7% and a 10% tax hike to everyone making over $500K NET a year, with a freeze on all taxes at current levels for everyone else, if you're serious about this and not just blowing smoke...

Now that's something I could vote for, eh...

[Esq]

According to the article, Finance Canada says the federal DEBT will grow from $519.1Bil. 2009 to $626.1 in 2015-16/ The percentage of Canada's GDP, debt will peak at 32% in 2011-2012 and drop to 30.8 in 2015-16, and that's if they are lucky! The Tories have added 107 Bil to the debt and that's not counting the billions they want to spend on the F-35 and other military toys. This party should be farmers because they can sure make things grow! How is the next generation going to pay this off?

thats not counting future dated bonds either -- last year was 250 billion alone.

Spending cuts arn't the answer.

You need to totally rearange these things. Governments spend as much money as they can get. Not what they need.

The problem here is that you give them too much to begin with.

The social party option of payfor and debt divulgence is the only working solution I've seen.

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/economicreform.htm

Edited February 6, 2011 by Esq

[dre]

I'm for spending freezes and selective cuts. I'm not for an indiscriminate cut.

The problem with that is that all that spending is somebodies beloved pet. The conservatives fawn after defense spending, liberals fawn over social spending... so its politically hard to cut ANYTHING much.

A modest cut across the board might be a good compromise measure.

If I was in charge, I would have all my department heads submit a plan to cut their budget 5% while compromising their program as little as possible, another plan for 10% and another plan for 20%. Each plan would have attached to it a risk assessment that outlined the degree to which services would suffer.

I do a lot of business process analysis for the company I work for, which in turn works for all kinds of other companies. Never have I come across a single department where you couldnt cut costs by 5% - 25% without compromising production at all. Not one single time, and I'll be suprised if I EVER see one.

Having said that, youre right in principle saying that some departments should be on the chopping block ahead of some others. The problem is no matter what criteria you use to make these decisions, theres gonna be lots of people that think the programs you want to cut actually need EXPANSION!

[Smallc]

Having said that, youre right in principle saying that some departments should be on the chopping block ahead of some others. The problem is no matter what criteria you use to make these decisions, theres gonna be lots of people that think the programs you want to cut actually need EXPANSION!

Well, you're right, but there are some things with very little overhead that actually can't be cut by much. OAS is the best example I can think of. Yes, efficiencies can probably be found, but I doubt that a 10% cut would be realistic without causing seniors real hardship.

[dre]

thats not counting future dated bonds either -- last year was 250 billion alone.

Spending cuts arn't the answer.

You need to totally rearange these things. Governments spend as much money as they can get. Not what they need.

The problem here is that you give them too much to begin with.

The social party option of payfor and debt divulgence is the only working solution I've seen.

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/economicreform.htm

You need to totally rearange these things. Governments spend as much money as they can get. Not what they need.

Then legislate away their right to defecit finance stuff unless theres emergencies, or the unemployment rate climbs above 8% or 10%. That would help, but the problem then becomes that spending would still be directed towards relatively short term initiatives that can help the government politically right away... and long term initiatives like keeping infrastructure servicable or build plants to provide for our energy needs 20 years from now would get neglected.

You would also need to tighten the rules on flogging off public assets, because this provides the government with another revenue stream with no real limit on it. If governments cant defecit finance to pay for their pet projects, they are likely to just start flogging off public property for a fraction of what its worth.

[Saipan]

Speaking of wasting money.

Ontario provincial NDP leader spent eight (8) times more on travel than Premier Mike Harris.

[dre]

Well, you're right, but there are some things with very little overhead that actually can't be cut by much. OAS is the best example I can think of. Yes, efficiencies can probably be found, but I doubt that a 10% cut would be realistic without causing seniors real hardship.

That seems right to me. For those areas you pick the 5% plan, or you leave them alone if the risk assessment is dire. The important thing is to break down each of those areas into a granular list of business processes and components and then study each one. You would be amazed how much slop is out there... I work in the PRIVATE sector and its BRUTALLY sloppy... in some cases the public sector can be even worse (although I dont at all by into that utopian libertarian crap about how government can never do anything right).

[Topaz]

Do Canadians really KNOW how we got to the 56Bil+ deficit? What did the Tories spend it on? First , if you remember they gave themselves a pay raise, they cut the gst,which would be lost revenue. Are the military toys paid for? Anyone else know how they spent the money?

[Smallc]

First , if you remember they gave themselves a pay raise

No they didn't, that happened automatically. They simply didn't vote to get rid of it. That would have required unanimous consent in the House, and some Liberals (yes, Liberals) didn't want that.

[GWiz]

Do Canadians really KNOW how we got to the 56Bil+ deficit? What did the Tories spend it on? First , if you remember they gave themselves a pay raise, they cut the gst,which would be lost revenue. Are the military toys paid for? Anyone else know how they spent the money?

Be patient, I'm sure the honest and OPEN "Conservatives" on here will be more than happy to answer ALL your questions about the how and why of such a LARGE, record breaking, deficit...

[charter.rights]

Do Canadians really KNOW how we got to the 56Bil+ deficit? What did the Tories spend it on? First , if you remember they gave themselves a pay raise, they cut the gst,which would be lost revenue. Are the military toys paid for? Anyone else know how they spent the money?

Don't forget that Harper also lost the $13 billion surplus Paul Martin Liberals left them. That means Harper costs us about $70 billion a year in deficit spending.

[Esq]

No they didn't, that happened automatically. They simply didn't vote to get rid of it. That would have required unanimous consent in the House, and some Liberals (yes, Liberals) didn't want that.

No it wouldn't require unanimous consent of the house. Where does this bullocks come from?

The salaries act does not require unanimous consent. Whoever told you change to their salaries take unanimous consent is a liar or stupid.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-s-3/latest/rsc-1985-c-s-3.html

Edited February 7, 2011 by Esq

[Smallc]

The salaries act does not require unanimous consent.

You'll have to take that up with Parliament, as in 2008 they said that it did.