Cuts VS Taxes -- Ontario

[CPCFTW]

Even your hypothetical had bogus numbers. If you are going to use another nation to make a point, try to get it right.

850B is approximately the government spending on health care. I've explained numerous times why I used those numbers.

Patently false....many non "one percenters" get profits from private health care. My health care stocks have done quite well.

Of course many do... I've made that argument many times. But the whole point of the Occupy movement was that 1% controlled over 50% of the wealth or something like that (I think that was their point?) If governments owned a significant portion of private assets, then their point would be moot, and the only argument would be how to distribute the returns of government owned assets.

They already are.....education....licensing....regulation....hospitals.

Not enough.

It's more fun to just taze and gas the "hippies".

Can't argue with that.

Edited February 19, 2012 by CPCFTW

[bush_cheney2004]

850B is approximately the government spending on health care. I've explained numerous times why I used those numbers.

Christo! First it was $805B...now it's $850B. Make up your mistaken mind.

Of course many do... I've made that argument many times. But the whole point of the Occupy movement was that 1% controlled over 50% of the wealth or something like that (I think that was their point?) If governments owned a significant portion of private assets, then their point would be moot, and the only argument would be how to distribute the profits of government assets.

'Eff 'em...that's communism! Let 'em sit in the park and freeze their asses off.

Not enough.

Actually, it's too much.

[TheNewTeddy]

Not certain I understand the above the discussion... but I'll pose a second question: where would you cut?

[bush_cheney2004]

Not certain I understand the above the discussion... but I'll pose a second question: where would you cut?

Not sure what you mean either...cut it all and see who screams the loudest.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

It is hard in a country as big as ours. What works for Alberta wont work for NS, and what works in Ontario wont work in Sask and so on.

Alberta has a large amount of government per capita, funded by oil. They are by no means lean. It's quite ironic.

If Ontario could pump money out of the ground, it'd be able to claim that pure Conservatism works... while having a larger program scope and government size like Alberta.

Edited February 20, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[TheNewTeddy]

Alberta only gets a quarter of it's money from oil

http://alberta.ca/AlbertaCode/images/Aboutalbertasbudget_GraphRevenue.jpg

Edited February 20, 2012 by TheNewTeddy

[Smallc]

Well, that and the higher personal and corporate incomes that come with it.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Smallc

[TheNewTeddy]

No! All of that is from hard work and the reason Ontario and Quebec are poor is because they are all lazy.

I once had this argument - both this post and the one I posted above - presented to me seriously. The guy actually meant "only 25%" and was not sarcastic.

I thought I'd share these posts here for those who are in the need for a bit of levity.

[Evening Star]

Voted 2:1 but I'm actually also on board with CPCFTW's nationalization schemes. What do you think of having a socialized bank/credit lender?

[dre]

Voted 2:1 but I'm actually also on board with CPCFTW's nationalization schemes. What do you think of having a socialized bank/credit lender?

Most of the banking/monetary system should definately be taken over by the government but not all of it.

Theres two types of loans... You can borrow money that actually exists (for example a bank could accept deposits and loan them out like banks used to work hundreds of years ago), or you can borrow money that does NOT exist (like the vast majority of bank loans today).

Currently both of those systems are partially public and partially private.

The government should get completely OUT of the first scenario. Any private individual or lender should be allowed to loan out whatever money they have at what ever interest rate they can get for it. This would become "private banking", and these banks could do whatever they wanted as long as all their loans were real deposits. Governments should completey stop insuring deposits in these institutions as well.

The government should completely take over the second scenario. Only the national bank would be allowed to make loans by creating new money the way private banks do today, and these loans would either be interest free, or the interest would be used to fund the government, or be returned to the tax payers as dividends.

Edited February 20, 2012 by dre

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Voted 2:1 but I'm actually also on board with CPCFTW's nationalization schemes. What do you think of having a socialized bank/credit lender?

I laughed.

What a left wing nut. One of the most leftist/socialist of all ideas... Nationalization...

[punked]

BC is not Alberta but they're still able to have the same corporate tax rate as them, just like Ontario can.

How is that argument working out for you?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/bc-budget-raises-corporate-taxes/article2345365/

[CPCFTW]

I laughed.

What a left wing nut. One of the most leftist/socialist of all ideas... Nationalization...

Who said anything about nationalization? I specifically said the government should invest in non-voting shares/bonds (ie. I clearly was advocating a system whereby politicians and hippies like you would have no control over the investments).

Edited February 22, 2012 by CPCFTW