close to 70000 Federal Public Sector jobs on the block

[MACKER]

So job numbers are down, with the youth population reporting something like 80% unemploymet up to the age of 25.

Now some 70,000 public service jobs are on the chopping block in the upcoming budget.

What areas are these coming from there are only so many opposition ridings.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MACKER

[Jack Weber]

So job numbers are down, with the youth population reporting something like 80% unemploymet up to the age of 25.

Now some 70,000 public service jobs are on the chopping block in the upcoming budget.

What areas are these coming from there are only so many opposition ridings.

Youth unemployment is "somethiing like 80%"...I've heared it's around 20,which is bad...

You'll have to come up with a link,or something,to prove it's at 80%..

By the way,any ideas on how to cut the deficit?

[UofGPolitico]

So job numbers are down, with the youth population reporting something like 80% unemploymet up to the age of 25.

Now some 70,000 public service jobs are on the chopping block in the upcoming budget.

What areas are these coming from there are only so many opposition ridings.

Where is your source for both of your claims in this post?

[olpfan1]

8 billion in cuts? not bad! now what would help them even more is to cut their spending

[j44]

Where is your source for both of your claims in this post?

I think the 80% unemployment should read 80% employment.

[UofGPolitico]

I think the 80% unemployment should read 80% employment.

Still he should provide a source either way.

[olpfan1]

Does this mean no more 50 million pork barrel beauty projects for slippery Tonys riding?

what a pathetic man this guy is, clement and toews are scum and should be shunned by harper

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/10/pol-tony-clement-march-budget-culture-shift.html

The upcoming federal budget will mark the start of a "culture shift" in Ottawa from "spending enablers" to "cost containers," Treasury Board President Tony Clement says.

[MACKER]

Youth unemployment is "somethiing like 80%"...I've heared it's around 20,which is bad...

You'll have to come up with a link,or something,to prove it's at 80%..

By the way,any ideas on how to cut the deficit?

q1. Youth unemployment is "somethiing like 80%"...I've heared it's around 20,which is bad...

a. http://www.youth.gc.ca/eng/audiences/unemployed_youth/index.shtml . No sorry but unemployment is only a measure of those who are looking to find work who can't find work, as opposed to youth who arn't looking for work and don't have work, the REAL unemployment factor, also one must take part time hours and fold the total part time hours into full time equivolents, yeilding an 80% youth Unemployment rate.

q2. By the way,any ideas on how to cut the deficit?

a2. Sure. Don't spend. The long answer of course is much more complex, Government have cut down whole forests not to come to this resolution. I come from the non keynesian party. Here is the formula.

1. Remove the debt by imposing a direct tax to apply against the debt.

2. Conversion of all debt to Canadian dollars.

3. Create a wealth export tax

4. Rapid Inflation of Canadian currency through massive printing

5. Print all funds needed to pay beyond revenues.

6. Merge government services

7. The Social Platform of paid health insurance for the wealthy from a national plan.

8. Having corporations pay for infrastructure.

9. Increase royalties as a percentage of the rate of increase in the price of resources matched to the CLI, and export taxes on domestically in demand products, set price caps on strategic resources until essential domestic demand was met, essential domestic demand would be the measure in which shortage results in failure to perform or reduced service on fair market value

10. Support the construction of a handful of public refineries owned by the public

11. Run government departments from the sectors they administer. Eg. Fisheries and Martime would be funded from revenues from those segments. Industry from Industry, Health from Health, etc..

12. Selling products like flags, flagpoles, pictures, etc.. selling second rate consulate posts

13. renting out the Canadian Forces as security guards with revenue return to the GC.

14. Employing the CF as resource gatherers.

15. Not giving licenses for resource extraction to international companies and instead developing the billions of dollars of resource ourselves?

16. Making standards that Canadian companies will be advantaged by so that money stays local.

17. Developing renewable resource industries.

18. Developing greenhouses in the North. Food is so expensive up there some Federal Greenhouses would make so much money.

19. Divulge the debt on a per capita payment and create a death tax, for anyone that doesn't pay off their portion of the debt before they die, with hardship taken into consideration.

20. Create a development strategy to employ the unemployed that directly lowers the cost of providing for those living in poverty, through renewable streams of support such as co-op gardens, capacity building projects, habitat for humanity programs, and startup to compete with imports.

21. Creating a waste import fee for environmental costs of imports made of plastic or similar materials that are of a non biodegradable composition. Also set this fee for domestically produced products that are non biodegradable.

22. Convert social programs into work insurance programs.

23. Build the Navy from a Merchant Marine that required imports into Canada imported by the Canadian Merchant Marine ships. Afterall a Navy costs money commercial ships make money.. If all you are doing is watching the water put it on boats and do stuff while you watch. throw a couple missile platforms and CAWS and there yah go. Its not like they wont be sunk in a real naval battle anyway.

The key is having government do as little as possible and have self supporting programs in their place.

#1 Rapid Servicing of the debt to remove it at the earliest possible time outright.

#2 Conversion of the government into essential services, and program support services. Essential services would be reoriented to be tasked with economic development, while support service programs would be turned into fee based services

#3 Poverty elimination and reorientation of poverty people into productive members of society if they weren't before.

#4 Creating a duplicity economy both separate and non dependent on and aided by the West such as America and Europe.

Canada is big, it has many resources, it don't need no body else. So #1 is attain autarky #2 is create and support a strong export market in renewable resources and services. #3 is reduce poverty. #4 is create stability in the system.

#1 Service the debt through direct taxation to the debt.

#2 Balance the budget through the essential/program division.

#3 Have Canada maintain its wealth by self provisioning

#4 Increase productivity of those in poverty.

If you have more specific questions, you can ask and someone will give you an answer.

What you do is take every need of Canadians and have Canadians provide for it. While anyone who wants to take from Canadians, take an equal amount or greater amount from them?

For every public need insure the public can fullfill it.

You can give me any need and I can make it self supporting.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MACKER

[olpfan1]

4. Rapid Inflation of Canadian currency through massive printing

Who are we now China? screw that

You want Canada to isolate itself from the world.. that is crazy

Nationalism only leads to problems

Edited March 11, 2012 by olpfan1

[MACKER]

4. Rapid Inflation of Canadian currency through massive printing

Who are we now China? screw that

You want Canada to isolate itself from the world.. that is crazy

Nationalism only leads to problems

People can have reserve currencies. So do governments.

Canada has resources people will buy.

Foreigners holding our currency equals debt in terms of foreign ownership of our assets. We don't want them to hold on to our money we want them to buy in only when they need something it is better for both of us.

The depreciation of currency value is only a small segment of the valuation of total assets of the Canadian economy. Goods will maintain value.

You want to balance the budget debt paydown, domesticization of the debt and inflation are the keys to that paired up with a solid poverty removal mechanism. You need to trim things down make sure that the bottom end is protected and let the system maintain itself.

The current method just isn't working. People have nothing to fear in a depreciated currency, unless they have money. Most people have debt. The wealth they have is usually in hard assets which won't loose value from currency depreciation.

Banks would be smart enough to diversify holdings to non currency based holdings. The banks and other financial institutions would have a few hard years, but after that the sky would be the limit.

You can't get out of debt increasing the value of your debt. 1/2 trillion at .63 is a lot less than 3/4 trillion at parity.

See how 500,000,000,000 turns into 315,000,000,000 vs 750,000,000,000

Bring in imports in the higher rated stable currency and the money makes itself. The money is coming from the oil industry so locking export intakes with CLI and price of oil is an insulated passive revenue stream for the government. While funds movement tax stops liquidation of domestic assets.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MACKER

[olpfan1]

People can have reserve currencies. So do governments.

Canada has resources people will buy.

Foreigners holding our currency equals debt in terms of foreign ownership of our assets. We don't want them to hold on to our money we want them to buy in only when they need something it is better than both of us.

The depreciation of currency value is only a small segment of the valuation of total assets of the Canadian economy. Goods will maintain value.

You want to balance the budget debt paydown, domesticization of the debt and inflation are the keys to that paired up with a solid poverty removal mechanism.

Have you considered that our main trading partner would consider doing what you propose to be a declaration of war or do you just plan on screwing the worlds # 1 power and not having to face any sort of consequences?

[MACKER]

Have you considered that our main trading partner would consider doing what you propose to be a declaration of war or do you just plan on screwing the worlds # 1 power and not having to face any sort of consequences?

If you are talking about the US, we feed their economy not the other way around.

You are talking total nonsense. How is autarky a declaration of war?

Put some facts into what you are saying, draw a point that is a no go.

there is nothing in there that would be a declaration of war.

A strong Canada is good for the US.

Screwing the US, we'd be feeding them PEZ.

If the US is so jealous of Canada its not like they can't move here.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MACKER

[bush_cheney2004]

A strong Canada is good for the US.

Screwing the US, we'd be feeding them PEZ.

Not likely, as PEZ are manufactured in Traun, Austria and Orange, Connecticut (USA).

[MACKER]

Not likely, as PEZ are manufactured in Traun, Austria and Orange, Connecticut (USA).

Well if we are going to target import markets we'd have to make domestic PEZ.. CEZ.

Plus American would love to keep their crap.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MACKER

[Guest Derek L]

If you are talking about the US, we feed their economy not the other way around.

You are talking total nonsense. How is autarky a declaration of war?

Put some facts into what you are saying, draw a point that is a no go.

there is nothing in there that would be a declaration of war.

A strong Canada is good for the US.

Screwing the US, we'd be feeding them PEZ.

Do you make your own clothes? Grow your own food? Did you build your home from the ground up? What if a family member requires medical attention, would you perform an operation within your own home?

[MACKER]

Do you make your own clothes? Grow your own food? Did you build your home from the ground up? What if a family member requires medical attention, would you perform an operation within your own home?

Yes. But if it is really dirty maybe outdoors. People die get over it and stop denile.

Social Autarky is not the same as individual self provisioning.

Social Autarky is about economic planning so as to be able to provide for societies needs. Not as a command economy but as a mixed economy with command economy characteristics for management of resources and production that arn't be met by domestic production.

That is another issue, millions of dollars to keep people alive. We need to be sane and understand spending millions on keeping people alive is a waste of resources. People die get over it. You'll be together again if you've been together this long. Time flys, and so can you.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MACKER

[Guest Derek L]

Yes. But if it is really dirty maybe outdoors. People die get over it and stop denile.

Social Autarky is not the same as individual self provisioning.

Social Autarky is about economic planning so as to be able to provide for societies needs. Not as a command economy but as a mixed economy with command economy characteristics for management of resources and production that arn't be met by domestic production.

That is another issue, millions of dollars to keep people alive. We need to be sane and understand spending millions on keeping people alive is a waste of resources.

But why the difference between a self sufficient society versus self sufficient individuals? Surely if your one proposed position in ideal, wouldn’t self sufficient individuals be even further beneficial?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well if we are going to target import markets we'd have to make domestic PEZ.. CEZ.

But it wouldn't be PEZ. And it wouldn't be an iPad. And it wouldn't be a Ford F-150.

Plus American would love to keep their crap.

Nope....remember, American wouldn't matter anymore....you would be on your own. Good luck with that.

[Guest Derek L]

But it wouldn't be PEZ. And it wouldn't be an iPad. And it wouldn't be a Ford F-150.

That was clearly going to be my next point.......What if the people want American pick-ups, Japanese computers and South American coffee? Do you stop them?

Edited March 11, 2012 by Derek L

[j44]

Juche?

[Guest Derek L]

Juche?

Indeed..You could always invent the Cheeseburger and Ipod for the people……all the well having a perfect score on your first try at the new game you invented…..Golf

[bush_cheney2004]

That was clearly going to be my next point.......What if the people want American pick-ups, Japanese computers and South American coffee? Do you stop them?

Yes....Canadians would have to choose between Lada or Trabant.

[MACKER]

But why the difference between a self sufficient society versus self sufficient individuals? Surely if your one proposed position in ideal, wouldn’t self sufficient individuals be even further beneficial?

Socialism.

Oh rather. When people work together, they can accomplish more than they can as an individual. That is why companies form and prosper.

Sure it is a better ideal, but there are efficiency models, because some tasks are better suited, take the model T for example the first assembly lines.

The corporation is basically a segment of a socialistic society. Monopolies likewise can take that a step further, another form of socialism.

Yes definitely people should manage certain personal tasks, like having a bath, going to the washroom, putting food in their mouth. But only one person needs to serve the table... there is only so much room to move around in the kitchen.

If an efficient way of harvesting wood is possible then waste in wood cutting can be reduced. If we know how much wood we need to heat our homes we can figure out how to manage our forests so we don't freeze.

Since it is not just me or you that needs to survive it s also our wives and children, and perhaps our children are married to one another it is our family no matter how we look at it.

Some areas of the economy can benefit from a command economy, while others are hindered by controls.

As there is a needs based economy and an artificial economy. Control of the artificial economy is not required because it is waste, but control of the needs economy is required. Sometimes the economies will mix, and this is when a mixed economy is useful.

But back to your point of backwoods doin it. For sure, but few men are islands.

You are correct though, it is an ideal, but social isolationism is problematic for building a society.. even if it helps maintain one. There is a line that needs to be managed between a community and community service.

So only to the extent that it creates a better society. We need to encourage good will and cooperation because there are finite resources that we must share, if we are to be humane and not just execute our competition for resources and wealth. True it would be more efficient to do that and it would lower the debt if people we owed money to were targeted for execution, but that model is problematic due to us being "good" people. We might need to re-engineer our social values to escape that paradigm.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes....Canadians would have to choose between Lada or Trabant.

Or this:

[MACKER]

That was clearly going to be my next point.......What if the people want American pick-ups, Japanese computers and South American coffee? Do you stop them?

NO that would be wrong, you just make sure that people can't afford them.

Just kidding of course people are free to buy what they want.

However for the poverty elimination programs people would buy Canadian eat from local coop gardens etc..

The government would BUY CANADIAN etc.. just like the Americans do.

It is our own municipalities that suggested the program due to the BUY AMERICAN program in the US.

https://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=buy+american+act&oq=buy+america&aq=1&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=24180l24788l7l26432l7l4l0l3l3l1l135l423l2.2l7l0&gs_l=hp.3.1.0l4.24180l24788l7l26432l7l4l0l3l3l1l135l423l2j2l7l0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=8a31f9f17ce08d07&biw=1213&bih=739

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/buy_american_provision.html

Plus some stuff is hard to buy its not like we are going to take peoples pay checks away.

Actually we'd do nothing of that sort. ON the contrary we would target the poor and unemployed

10% of a 250 billion revenue stream is 25-75 billion in potential untapped productivity.

Edited March 11, 2012 by MACKER