Fiscally Responsible is Good for Socialism

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Fiscal irresponsibility costs everyone in the system more.

Trimming unnecessary funding and preventing run away spending before it goes too far ensures that services stay efficient and effective for tax payers.

Debt from providing unsustainable services today, means that tomorrow's services will suffer.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/tax-impot/2010/html-eng.asp

Our debt payments are 11 cents for every tax dollar. Imagine what we could do with $29.4 Billion a year if our previous leaders had been more fiscally responsible.

$29.4B to invest in small start-up businesses and spur innovation.

$29.4B to improve health care.

$29.4B that is wasted on nothing more than servicing our debt.

What other number is 29.4Billion close to... Hmmm.... Oh that's right, the deficit!

The cycle should be:

1 increase funding and increase services, if sustainable.

2 trim the fat that is spent unnecessarily.

Too bad, the cycle of the two statements above is pretty much a myth in Canada. All parties spend money, they just spend it differently.

Edited May 20, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Topaz]

I would think the deficit and the national debt is only going to get worse. Boomers are retiring and there isn`t going to be the tax revenues like before and you can`t get taxes from the unemployed. The government can only get back on services so much that the only thing left is to rise taxes.

[Shady]

The biggest problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

[Smallc]

The biggest problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

That's nice, except that it's nothing but a slogan. If you ignore that point that it makes sense for socialists to spend within their limits, then that old saying is in fact right. Otherwise, it's not.

[Remiel]

The biggest problem with socialism captilism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money excuses for other people's suffering.

[TimG]

That's nice, except that it's nothing but a slogan. If you ignore that point that it makes sense for socialists to spend within their limits, then that old saying is in fact right. Otherwise, it's not.

The trouble is socialists are incapable of saying no to what they think is a "good cause". This pretty much guarantees that socialists will eventually run out of other people's money.

[Smallc]

The trouble is socialists are incapable of saying no to what they think is a "good cause".

That's ridiculous. Socialism doesn't require that money be spent on everything that may potentially be a good idea. Such a thing would be avoided, in order to ensure that the system (a much greater cause, in their eyes) would survive.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Smallc

[Huston]

The biggest problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Seems to be the same issue with capitalism. Then again, capitalism has never existed without extensive government intervention into markets. All industries are heavily financialized. The "sovereign" debt crises occurred after the bail out of indebted capitalist institutions and neo-liberalized institutions.

The central bank system that made the west the way it was, was all debt driven, eventual the "capitalist" west imploded with unsustainable level of debt. There is no way to avoid it when your currency relies on the bond market. More debt.

[Evening Star]

If I'm ever in Winnipeg, remind me that I owe you a drink, Smallc!

[Smallc]

If I'm ever in Winnipeg, remind me that I owe you a drink, Smallc!