PIK Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/court+appeal+unions+pension+fight/4736579/story.html Are we going to have to give this back? Edited May 6, 2011 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
The_Squid Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 They certainly should have to pay it back.... Quote
PIK Posted May 6, 2011 Author Report Posted May 6, 2011 They certainly should have to pay it back.... EXactly , so chretien/martin team screwed the taxpayer again. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Bryan Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 EXactly , so chretien/martin team screwed the taxpayer again. Yup. between that, the 54 billion raided from EI, and the 25 billion cut from healthcare, anyone who says Martin was a good finance minister is as big an idiot as he was. Quote
The_Squid Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 Yup. between that, the 54 billion raided from EI, and the 25 billion cut from healthcare, anyone who says Martin was a good finance minister is as big an idiot as he was. You won't get any argument from me.... they balanced the budget, on major part, by cutting valuable services and by raiding EI and pension fund surpluses and freezing PS wages. I would like to see Harper do it differently.... but I suspect it will be deep cuts to programs and services, if he balances the budget at all. Quote
scribblet Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 They were wrong in taking that money, it was illegal to do at the time (they legalized it later so yes, they should return the money. However, how big of an issue is it as long as the workers get the pensions they are entitled to? Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
TimG Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) The government is expected to cover any shortfalls therefore it is entitled to any surplus. It is rediculous to suggest that surpluses are "owed" by pensioners if they take no responsibility for losses. The money is "owned" by the people who get stuck with the bill. Edited May 6, 2011 by TimG Quote
icman Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 The government is expected to cover any shortfalls therefore it is entitled to any surplus. It is rediculous to suggest that surpluses are "owed" by pensioners if they take no responsibility for losses. The money is "owned" by the people who get stuck with the bill. Well, that will depend on the wording of the pension charter and contributor agreements, won't it? If the government was stupid enough to sign a contract saying that they will cover losses and take no surplus, that's how the cookie crumbles, aint it? (Not saying I like this, though). Quote
TimG Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 Well, that will depend on the wording of the pension charter and contributor agreements, won't it?Then you are agreeing that the civil servant rhetoric about the money being stolen is rediculous. Even if the government is not legally entitled to it most definately morally entitled to take the money. Quote
Topaz Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 First of all, isn't Capricorn a retired Fed worker? If not, sorry about the mistake but I thought she said she was at one time. If Chretien did then its wrong and they should get their money back. So he hadn't paid the deficit off, what would be the amount of the deficit and the interest amount added to the present deficit? Quote
Scotty Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 Then you are agreeing that the civil servant rhetoric about the money being stolen is rediculous. Even if the government is not legally entitled to it most definately morally entitled to take the money. I would tend to agree - if the money was surplus. But if the money was surplus - why did they then have to raise the contribution rates? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
RNG Posted May 6, 2011 Report Posted May 6, 2011 I would tend to agree - if the money was surplus. But if the money was surplus - why did they then have to raise the contribution rates? Because after they pulled the money out, then there wasn't a surplus, and there developed a potential liability, silly. Quote The government can't give anything to anyone without having first taken it from someone else.
Smallc Posted May 7, 2011 Report Posted May 7, 2011 Yup. between that, the 54 billion raided from EI, and the 25 billion cut from healthcare, anyone who says Martin was a good finance minister is as big an idiot as he was. So where should the money to balance the budget have came from? The tooth fairy? Quote
Battletoads Posted May 7, 2011 Report Posted May 7, 2011 "Baby Boomer Accounting" at work. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Sandy MacNab Posted May 7, 2011 Report Posted May 7, 2011 So where should the money to balance the budget have came from? The tooth fairy? The Liberals could have started with the $40million that somehow went "missing". Quote
Smallc Posted May 7, 2011 Report Posted May 7, 2011 The Liberals could have started with the $40million that somehow went "missing". Alright, so now we have 40 million...now, what do we do with the $42B that we have left? Your answer wasn't even close to legitimate. Quote
Sandy MacNab Posted May 7, 2011 Report Posted May 7, 2011 Alright, so now we have 40 million...now, what do we do with the $42B that we have left? Your answer wasn't even close to legitimate. Taxes from the boost in the economy following the (mis)interpretation that the Liberals had turned over a new leaf. Quote
Smallc Posted May 7, 2011 Report Posted May 7, 2011 Taxes from the boost in the economy following the (mis)interpretation that the Liberals had turned over a new leaf. So you don't have a real solution then. Canada did grow in huge amounts under the Liberals, btw. That was partly due to things that they did, and also due to the groundwork that Mulroney helped lay. Quote
Topaz Posted May 7, 2011 Report Posted May 7, 2011 Did any of you boomers know that under the Mulroney govrnment someone stole millions of money (gold) from the Canadian Mint and they never found it? I never knew that but I was watch CBC on Prime Minister of Canada and that can up. Quote
Smallc Posted May 7, 2011 Report Posted May 7, 2011 So where should the money to balance the budget have came from? The tooth fairy? Still waiting. Quote
PIK Posted May 7, 2011 Author Report Posted May 7, 2011 Did any of you boomers know that under the Mulroney govrnment someone stole millions of money (gold) from the Canadian Mint and they never found it? I never knew that but I was watch CBC on Prime Minister of Canada and that can up. I think that was figured out and nothing was missing. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
scribblet Posted May 8, 2011 Report Posted May 8, 2011 So, if the court rules that the gov't does have to pay back this money, it would increase the deficit, which means the gov't would have to make some cut backs elsewhere to do that. Not a good situation for any gov't. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
Evening Star Posted May 8, 2011 Report Posted May 8, 2011 Still waiting. Somehow I suspect that the people criticizing Martin's cuts would complain even more if he (or someone) had raised taxes to balance the budget... Quote
Smallc Posted May 8, 2011 Report Posted May 8, 2011 So, if the court rules that the gov't does have to pay back this money, it would increase the deficit, which means the gov't would have to make some cut backs elsewhere to do that. Not a good situation for any gov't. It would be a one time charge that would really have very little impact in the grand scheme of things. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted May 8, 2011 Report Posted May 8, 2011 I'd like to know when the failed leaders debts will be paid back in full. Ignatieff and Duceppe both received loans to run this election. Will they start getting their fat pensions before paying it back? What recourse does Canada have to get it's money back from these failed candidates? Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
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.