Spending our children's money...

[eyeball]

Umm, no. But anyone can start a business and thereby start building their empire.

True but this doesn't change the fact that its a lot harder to succeed in such a crowded, rules-laden and picked over world than it was during the anecdotal wild-west times people so often use to measure today's initiative and potential against.

You also seem to be able to divorce our economy from the planet's ecosystems but I can't since most of my economic activity still relies on the natural capital represented by fish, trees and unpolluted water and land. Your's does too but I wouldn't know it from listening to you.

[blueblood]

Birth control would be a better idea.

So you figure anyone can just start whacking down trees or trapping beavers tomorrow and start building their empires? How about just picking any old 3000 acres out of the wilderness somewhere and starting a ranch, what is there to stop anyone from doing that?

Am I supposed to believe you started from scratch? I mean I know a few self-reliant types around here who picked up or inherited thousands of acres that originally sold for .25 an acre but the only one's just starting out are doing so at more like $100,000 an acre. Who knows maybe that's just chicken feed for anyone with their sleeves rolled up where you come from.

Umm, the land survey system will put the brakes on arbitrarily setting up a ranch.

Farmland does not go for 100,000 an acre. It would be economically unfeasible. The only land that goes for that is land zoned for housing and is spitting distance from a city. Those who inherit wealth have to manage wealth or they go belly up. Some poor suckers have to buy out their parents and are married to the bank.

Lots of other businesses can be started, just takes some elbow grease. Other guys are doing it.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

\At least Harper is trying to pay the stupid thing off as efficiently as possible.

Exactly. Adding huge funding additions like jets and an omnibus crime bill is the responsible thing to do.

Wait... what?

If he was serious about making cuts, all of his programs would wait until he had a surplus in the budget to fund his agenda of already tested, and failed, hard on crime policies.

Want to Buy: Fiscal Conservative please.

Edited November 15, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[WWWTT]

Farmland does not go for 100,000 an acre. It would be economically unfeasible. The only land that goes for that is land zoned for housing and is spitting distance from a city.

This is a false statement.

Partially

Land that has already bein rezoned from agricultural to residential or commercial typiclly retails for around 300 000 to 400 000$ per acre app 43 000sq/ft

After that land has bein upgraded with services(gas,hydro,water/sewer,phone,cable)roads installed and lots surveyed each lot can retail for over 100 000 each.And there is typically around 6-7 lots per acre after everything is divyed up(on say a 100 acre parcell rezoned from agr. to residential mix of detached,semi and town house).

This aswell is a typicall G.T.A. example

WWWTT

[William Ashley]

I don't forsee myself ever having kids but I have relatives, and old friends with kids these days.

I do need to plan for a long life even if I can't forsee myself alive in even 5 years.

None the less. The monetary system is all wrong, but hell there is only so much luxury to go around.

This ain't a socialist country, even with neofascist imperialist conservatives at the helm and not everyone is always happy in socialism,

The government just isnt trying though.

The Social Party system would have Canada surplus.

Just cut all the crap. If people need it they can pay for what they need.

It isn;t fair that the public sector pays for the riches security fact is that public organization has been compramised and pandered off for fascist forces controlling monetary supply. Let special interests pay their own way, the money doesn't exist, if its not essential end it, oit based on politics but based upon pubkic needs not slush funding. The pigs can eat each other,

We can create inclusive land access insure a royalties system that developes the public but frankly people need people not offices,

WATER IT DOWN

why borrow what you can create?

The budgets just arn't realistic. They arn't trying to remove the debt. They are trying to make it look like they are being responsible while debt spending at the highest rates in Canadian history,

"It's only 30 billion this year..

If the public wants non essential programs let them pay for them via payfor. cut the taxes cut the bs program, turn the nonessentiao services into crown corps with public share and modernize.

Cut all subsidies and get back to governing instead of engineering society. Let the people run their own society we don't need an overarching police state.

Edited November 15, 2011 by William Ashley

[blueblood]

This is a false statement.

Partially

Land that has already bein rezoned from agricultural to residential or commercial typiclly retails for around 300 000 to 400 000$ per acre app 43 000sq/ft

After that land has bein upgraded with services(gas,hydro,water/sewer,phone,cable)roads installed and lots surveyed each lot can retail for over 100 000 each.And there is typically around 6-7 lots per acre after everything is divyed up(on say a 100 acre parcell rezoned from agr. to residential mix of detached,semi and town house).

This aswell is a typicall G.T.A. example

WWWTT

If it is rezoned it is not agricultural then is it. Unless you are in California and get 3 crops a year of high value food, the only way farmland can go for that much is if inflation takes off.

[August1991]

The posters here don't understand my basic point. So, let me lazily repreat it - twice:

IOW, whatever the federal government does to pay for its spending, these older white guys can undo it. These rich older white guys have a house/condo/property to leave to their kids. Whatever the government does, these rich older white guys will decide how much their kids will get.

----

Imagine that you're a "common" Canadian: You're a white, rich, boomer in Alberta, or St. John's. Your house (paid for) and RRSPs are worth about, let's say, $500,000. You're divorced, you have a pension and you have two kids.

Two possibilities: 1) Harper raises your taxes to balance his federal budget, you'll have less money in your RRSPs. 2) Harper doesn't raise your taxes and you'll leave more in your RRSPs (your estate) for your kids.

Between the two possibilities, there's no difference. Your kids get the same.

Bottom line: You can't take it with you.

I reckon that our public debates have more to do with an existential crisis than about health care or government debt.

And in this, I sometimes become a social conservative because I realize that people need support, and the State is a far worse support than any religious institution.

Edited November 18, 2011 by August1991

[dre]

The posters here don't understand my basic point. So, let me lazily repreat it - twice:

----

Imagine that you're a "common" Canadian: You're a white, rich, boomer in Alberta, or St. John's. Your house (paid for) and RRSPs are worth about, let's say, $500,000. You're divorced, you have a pension and you have two kids.

Two possibilities: 1) Harper raises your taxes to balance his federal budget, you'll have less money in your RRSPs. 2) Harper doesn't raise your taxes and you'll leave more in your RRSPs (your estate) for your kids. Bottom line: You can't take it with you.

I reckon that our public debates have more to do with an existential crisis than about health care or government debt.

And in this, I sometimes become a social conservative because I realize that people need support, and the State is a far worse support than any religious institution.

Two possibilities: 1) Harper raises your taxes to balance his federal budget, you'll have less money in your RRSPs. 2) Harper doesn't raise your taxes and you'll leave more in your RRSPs (your estate) for your kids. Bottom line: You can't take it with you.

You are completely ignoring what debt is and how it works. If the government borrows too much money too fast you wages are reduced, and the money you have loses purchasing power, and prices go up. If go too far they will need to raise interest rates in which case your mortgage payments may go up, and you might lose your home.

If national debt levels get excessive...

1. Interest rates will go up.

2. Taxes will go up.

3. Foreign investment will decrease.

4. Unemployment will increase.

5. Real wages will go down.

6. Prices will go up.

7. Business growth is stifled.

8. Currency will lose value.

These changes can result in real hardship for millions of people. People will lose their jobs, their homes, their savings, their pensions. They will be unable to buy as much food, unable to buy as much gas, unable to buy as much beer. If the government gets itself into a position where 20% of the federal budget is used to pay interest on the debt, then the government will have to raise taxes by 20% or the defecits will feed off themselves and start to grow exponentially.

Why do you continue with this claim? If you even did an honest 10 minutes research you would see the folly in it.

Edited November 18, 2011 by dre

[August1991]

You are completely ignoring what debt is and how it works.

When the State borrows or has debt, it not like when you have debt.

As I say, you can't take your debts with you when you die - at most, you can pass them to your kids, assuming that you have some.

dre, the thread's title is: "Spending our children's money"

Imagine that I am someone who doesn't have children. What do I care about this? Have I ripped the others off?

Edited November 18, 2011 by August1991

[dre]

When the State borrows or has debt, it not like when you have debt.

As I say, you can't take your debts with you when you die - at most, you can pass them to your kids, assuming that you have some.

dre, the thread's title is: "Spending our children's money"

Imagine that I am someone who doesn't have children. What do I care about this? Have I ripped the others off?

Imagine that I am someone who doesn't have children. What do I care about this?

I already explained this. If your debt levels get excessive it will damage people and business in the economy in the near term. Never mind peoples children.

LIke I said it can cause the following.

If national debt levels get excessive...

1. Interest rates will go up.

2. Taxes will go up.

3. Foreign investment will decrease.

4. Unemployment will increase.

5. Real wages will go down.

6. Prices will go up.

7. Business growth is stifled.

8. Currency will lose value.

Those things can hurt us all now. NOt just compromise our childrens future.

Edited November 18, 2011 by dre

[August1991]

I already explained this. If your debt levels get excessive it will damage people and business in the economy in the near term. Never mind peoples children.

LIke I said it can cause the following.

If national debt levels get excessive...

1. Interest rates will go up.

2. Taxes will go up.

3. Foreign investment will decrease.

4. Unemployment will increase.

5. Real wages will go down.

6. Prices will go up.

7. Business growth is stifled.

8. Currency will lose value.

Those things can hurt us all now. NOt just compromise our childrens future.

Huh?

If you have no kids, why should you care about the State borrowing now.

But if you have kids, and your taxes are lower now because the government borrows, you can leave more money to your kids so that they'll have the money to pay the higher taxes.

-----

Government debt seems to encourage childless families. dre, is that your point? If true, how sad.

As I say, I am not opposed to abortion. The world does not lack children. Rather, it lacks civilized, educated children.

Edited November 20, 2011 by August1991

[dre]

Huh?

If you have no kids, why should you care about the State borrowing now.

But if you have kids, and your taxes are lower now because the government borrows, you can leave more money to your kids so that they'll have the money to pay the higher taxes.

-----

Government debt seems to encourage childless families. dre, is that your point? If true, how sad.

As I say, I am not opposed to abortion. The world does not lack children. Rather, it lacks civilized, educated children.

If you have no kids, why should you care about the State borrowing now.

Because....

If national debt levels get excessive...

1. Interest rates will go up.

2. Taxes will go up.

3. Foreign investment will decrease.

4. Unemployment will increase.

5. Real wages will go down.

6. Prices will go up.

7. Business growth is stifled.

8. Currency will lose value.