Federal Budget 2012

[Topaz]

Some of the Feds budgets is slowly leaking out and one item is the MP's will have to pay more on their pensions and wait longer to get it. What's the catch......not until the next election. Also, many people are working for the government will be in the EI line and the minister said they had hired them but now they don't need them.

[Smallc]

It seems like no matter what this government does, you try to spin it in a negative way.

[mentalfloss]

It seems like no matter what this government does, you try to spin it in a negative way.

Don't worry, there will be enough wrong with this budget that doesn't require any spin.

[Newfoundlander]

Some of the Feds budgets is slowly leaking out and one item is the MP's will have to pay more on their pensions and wait longer to get it. What's the catch......not until the next election. Also, many people are working for the government will be in the EI line and the minister said they had hired them but now they don't need them.

I agree with waiting to change the MP pension plan till have the next election, MPs are people too and ran knowing the current pension plan. From people I've spoken to in the federal government the departments are working with employees so that many younger workers don't lose their jobs and those that want to leave do.

[stopstaaron]

The Conservatives hyped this budget up so much and said that it would define their majority government among others yet it really doesn't do a whole lot to tackle the deficit ...

Edited March 29, 2012 by stopstaaron

[Moonbox]

It seems like no matter what this government does, you try to spin it in a negative way.

I'd have to echo your sentiment there.

Topaz buddy - Do you not realize how much of a hack you come off as with posts like this? You criticize Harper's spending, and then he does something, however small, to curtail it, and you wet your bed over it as well....

Choose your battles man.

[MACKER]

IMO

it is a conflict of interest for MP's to be voting on their own pensions. They should have nothing to do with it.

This is why MP's should not control their salary it should be the senate or the Queen by letters patent to determine the salary of the house (as put into the public rolls)... the senate is by measure disqualified.

Therefore it should not be paid. MP's should not get salaries. They should seek contributions from their ridings.

Then in anyway economically renumerate themselves is embezzlement of public funds. They should only be paid for reasonable costs.

The rolls should set the wages and benefits not the MP's themselves.

It is a clear conflict of interest for them to engage in that sort of activity.

It is illegal for them to have personal gain from the laws they pass.

example

http://ciec-ccie.gc.ca/Default.aspx?pid=94〈=en

The house is responsible to raise ITS OWN FUNDS, not embezzle from the public purse.

judging on the 2 million dollars the house raises it should have a sallary of perhaps 5000 per member to renumerate expenses.

Edited March 29, 2012 by MACKER

[punked]

I am hearing they are going to raise the retirement age for OAS to 67. Something they never mentioned during the election, something they have no mandate for, and something that is a surprise even to Con supporters. There is a reason why the PM can call and election any time they want, it is to go to an election on new things they never talked about. Tommy Douglas did it with Medicare if Harper was half the man Douglas was he would call an election and see how popular this thing he never talked about is.

[Shady]

I am hearing they are going to raise the retirement age for OAS to 67.

And when is that going to take effect? Probably not for several years, if not decades. Regardless, it's necessary, and I applaud them for taking on an unpopular issue.

Tommy Douglas did it with Medicare if Harper was half the man Douglas was

If he was anything like Tom Douglas, he'd be talking about forced sterilization, sub-normal people, and medical certification by the government before somebody can get married.

[punked]

And when is that going to take effect? Probably not for several years, if not decades. Regardless, it's necessary, and I applaud them for taking on an unpopular issue.

If he was anything like Tom Douglas, he'd be talking about forced sterilization, sub-normal people, and medical certification by the government before somebody can get married.

Yah Shady keep acting like Douglas was for Sterilization know where that actually happened in Canada Shady? Alberta and BC under CONSERVATIVE governments Douglas had plenty of time as BOTH THE HEAD OF GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH MINSTER in MAJORITY governments to do that yet the only ones who did Forced sterilization were your boys. We already know Shady you tell tall tails because you understand most things. Seems like someone protest to much.

Again if Harper had any class before he tries to make a huge change how Canada works he would ask the people. He only ran an election a year ago yet he couldn't mention this? Why he was in government for a long long time he knew if he had to do this yet he kept from Canadians. This PM needs to go.

Where I come from Actions speak loader then words, but in Shady's world Lies are much much better then actions. Seems like that is always the case in Conservative Party vs. The NDP doesn't it?

Edited March 29, 2012 by punked

[cybercoma]

What they should do is raise CPP to 65 and not allow people to draw early.

Although good for them on the MP front. It's about time they took care of that and I'm glad they're waiting until the new batch of MPs are hired (elected) before implementing it.

[punked]

What they should do is raise CPP to 65 and not allow people to draw early.

Although good for them on the MP front. It's about time they took care of that and I'm glad they're waiting until the new batch of MPs are hired (elected) before implementing it.

What they should is govern how they promised to govern in the election they just ran. If they want to make big changes they should go to the Canadian people and ask for a mandate to do that. That is why we have elections. You don't just get to pretend there is some big problem you have to deal with that you never mentioned when there was an election less then a year ago. Poor governance form a poor government. They are going to get hammered on this over and over again. This is the end for the Cons.

[Boges]

CBC gets their budget cut by 10%. FIST PUMP!!!

Oh they're getting rid of the Penny too.

[cybercoma]

What they should is govern how they promised to govern in the election they just ran. If they want to make big changes they should go to the Canadian people and ask for a mandate to do that. That is why we have elections. You don't just get to pretend there is some big problem you have to deal with that you never mentioned when there was an election less then a year ago. Poor governance form a poor government. They are going to get hammered on this over and over again. This is the end for the Cons.

And it's not like they inherited the books from some other government, so they can claim they weren't aware of this "problem." They were the government for 5 years preceding this decision. It's like Mulcair said, they created the problem by destroying the fed's fiscal capacity and now they're going to cut services because they're not "sustainable." As though their record on the oilsands and environment doesn't undermine the notion that they care about sustainability.

Edited March 29, 2012 by cybercoma

[punked]

CBC gets their budget cut by 10%. FIST PUMP!!!

Oh they're getting rid of the Penny too.

And raising OAS retirement age to 67 something the Canadian voters heard announced the first time from the PM when he was in a different country giving a speech to a bunch of rich people. Poor governance from a poor government.

[Boges]

And raising OAS retirement age to 67 something the Canadian voters heard announced the first time from the PM when he was in a different country giving a speech to a bunch of rich people. Poor governance from a poor government.

Is that all you got? I won't turn 67 for 30 plus years. It'll tell you what I feel about this then, assuming I'd qualify.

Apparently they're increasing the amount of Duty Free merchandise you can bring back from the US.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Boges

[Newfoundlander]

What they should is govern how they promised to govern in the election they just ran. If they want to make big changes they should go to the Canadian people and ask for a mandate to do that. That is why we have elections. You don't just get to pretend there is some big problem you have to deal with that you never mentioned when there was an election less then a year ago. Poor governance form a poor government. They are going to get hammered on this over and over again. This is the end for the Cons.

Yeah because the NDP would have done that if they veered of its platform.

[Shady]

And raising OAS retirement age to 67 something the Canadian voters heard announced the first time from the PM when he was in a different country giving a speech to a bunch of rich people. Poor governance from a poor government.

It's actually good governance. It's responsible governance, and will put us in a much better situation in the long run, for future governments of any party.

[Boges]

It's actually good governance. It's responsible governance, and will put us in a much better situation in the long run, for future governments of any party.

I guess if I was a 64 low income person I'd be PO'd a bit.

[punked]

Yeah because the NDP would have done that if they veered of its platform.

I just gave an example of how NDP governments did that seriously they have an actual TRACK RECORD of doing what I said a good government should do.

[punked]

It's actually good governance. It's responsible governance, and will put us in a much better situation in the long run, for future governments of any party.

Yah is doing something you never told the Canadian people about when you ran for election good governance Shady? There is that transparency we heard so much about from people like Shady and Harper when the Liberals in Power. Talk out of both sides of your mouth much Shady?

[Newfoundlander]

I just gave an example of how NDP governments did that seriously they have an actual TRACK RECORD of doing what I said a good government should do.

Just like the election Dexter had after he went back on raising taxes... Oh wait.

Did Romanow campaign on closing hospitals?

[madmax]

It's actually good governance. It's responsible governance, and will put us in a much better situation in the long run, for future governments of any party.

Yes.. Its responsible to make our Seniors shoulder the burden a few more years.

Its responsible because.. well.. the money is there now.. it will be there for the boom and it will run a surplus vs GDP when the boom is over...

It reminds me of the CPP scare that the public bought into.. Its been going on since CCP was created...

And its good for 70Years...

So.. consider OAS as a part of GDP , unless u believe the economy is going to permanently shrink..

[punked]

Just like the election Dexter had after he went back on raising taxes... Oh wait.

Did Romanow campaign on closing hospitals?

Give me a break Newfoundlander Dexter said he would Balance the budget and shift taxes if needed to do so when he was running, which is just what he did. Now he is cutting taxes, you forgot to mention Dexter is cutting taxes this year and will not raise user fees one cent. He could raised user fees, and done a bunch of other stuff to fill the holes left behind he didn't because he needed to man up and fix the situation which is just what he did. The same could be said of Romanow.

Harper just ran an election you are telling he didn't know what shape the books were in? Is your hate for the NDP so blind that you you refuse to educate yourself on what is actually happening so you need to distort record? What a Liberal.

[punked]

Yes.. Its responsible to make our Seniors shoulder the burden a few more years.

Its responsible because.. well.. the money is there now.. it will be there for the boom and it will run a surplus vs GDP when the boom is over...

It reminds me of the CPP scare that the public bought into.. Its been going on since CCP was created...

And its good for 70Years...

So.. consider OAS as a part of GDP , unless u believe the economy is going to permanently shrink..

The Craziest thing about this is the Government has decided to keep OAS for the boomers and hit everyone else. OAS is only unsustainable for the boomers after they gone it is in great Shape. They are actually making the problem worse.