dre Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Because I didn't understand what you said... Seriously though, I don't think there is an appetite for boots on the ground fighting, even if we send boots to certain other missions. Right but they wont be honest with us. If they want us in a war we will be there. Its extremely easy for governments to fool the public into thinking the missions will be quick and easy, and that its a just humanitarian endeavor. Like I said... If Canadians were told the truth about Afghanistan we never would have supported it. But we werent. And we wont be in the future either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Youre ignoring how Afghanistan happened... Nobody came to Canadians and asked if we wanted a war that would last more than a decade. They always lie to us, and grossly underestimate whats involved. Afghanistan was supposed to take a couple of years. And we are always stupid enough to keep believing them. Theyll invoke the right boogeymen (terrorism!), and theyll say that "if we dont fight em over there, well have to fight em over here". And they appeal to our sense of humanity and show us images of people suffering. We eventually WILL stop doing all this idiotic world policing, but only when we are FORCED to stop for economic reasons. But yes... we will be in another shithole as soon as theres a chance for us to BE in one. The current government was FURIOUS that we werent in Iraq as well. They dont think we do ENOUGH policing and nation building. And no I dont consider it a win at all. Its extremely stupid behavior but its just what we do, and I dont see it changing until we simply can no longer pay for it anymore, and thats still 10 or 15 years out. My point still stands though…….contrast this will our involvement in Libya last year…….All three major political parties were on side, we toppled the Government and it hasn’t become a lasting domestic Canadian issue, all for a fraction of the cost of Afghanistan and no Canadian lives lost……….Mission Accomplished! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Yes we are. By far. 1/2 of Canadians never used to work at ALL. Now the majority of families need two incomes just to make ends meet. Not really. People buy too much shit. This is just the natural progression of that... they wont be happy until we have to work until we are 80 or 90. And when we live into our hundreds, that won't be a problem. I pay a shitload of money into that pension, and I should be able to retire when I want to. OAS? No you didn't. the 70s, btw, is an arbitrary measuring point. Edited March 30, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopstaaron Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 My point still stands though…….contrast this will our involvement in Libya last year…….All three major political parties were on side, we toppled the Government and it hasn’t become a lasting domestic Canadian issue, all for a fraction of the cost of Afghanistan and no Canadian lives lost……….Mission Accomplished! True, but we probably just screwed Libya up even more even though our intentions were good. However, this Iran business will be different. If we get militarily involved with Iran there is no coming back from this. Which is why it's very important that the majority of Canadian citizens support it. If they don't then we should not be involved militarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Not really. People buy too much shit. And when we live into our hundreds, that won't be a problem. OAS? No you didn't. the 70s, btw, is an arbitrary measuring point. People buy all that shit to keep the economy afloat. And when they stop theres going to be a deep recession. Thats why the discount window has been open for longer than ever in history, and youre getting unsolicited calls from bankers begging you to borrow more money. And when we live into our hundreds, that won't be a problem. Like I said... that justification doesnt wash... the effective retirement age has already been pushed back more than life expenctancy has increased over the last 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 BTW... Canadians are already retiring 3.5 years later than they did in 1990... So the claim that we need to change the retirement age due to life expectancy is really quite a sham. In other words... the retirement age has already been effectively pushed back, more than life expectancy has increased. It's just going to encourage more seniors to work longer, which is going to continue to screw young workers that already have the highest unemployment rate in Canada at over 14%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Yes we are. By far. 1/2 of Canadians never used to work at ALL. Now the majority of families need two incomes just to make ends meet.Largely because two incomes are need to buy a house in a market were prices are determined by what people can afford to pay. If we had a way to go back to single income families the cost of housing would drop and people would be in the same position. I pay a shitload of money into that pension, and I should be able to retire when I want to. Its my god damn money and they FORCE me to pay into it. I dont even plan on retiring in this country, so how am I supposed to get all my money back?Are really that ignorant of the difference between CPP and OAS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopstaaron Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Why are they cutting 7.5 million a year from Elections Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) It's just going to encourage more seniors to work longer, which is going to continue to screw young workers that already have the highest unemployment rate in Canada at over 14%.A short term problem which is not affected by the changes to OAS. In the long term young people are going to be in huge demand as the boomers retire. Edited March 30, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Largely because two incomes are need to buy a house in a market were prices are determined by what people can afford to pay. If we had a way to go back to single income families the cost of housing would drop and people would be in the same position. Are really that ignorant of the difference between CPP and OAS? Prices in the realestate market are determined by the availability of CREDIT. We are keeping rates pegged at historic lows to prevent a natural market correction. And yes. I was really that ignorant about the difference between CPP and OAS. Sorry about that. Edited March 30, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Cold comfort for the lost generation that's following behind the boomers and funding their insatiable greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Prices in the realestate market are determined by the availability of CREDIT. We are keeping rates pegged at historic lows to prevent a natural market correction.*real* interest rates are still hire than they were in the 70s:http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/real-interest-rate-percent-wb-data.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) Cold comfort for the lost generation that's following behind the boomers and funding their insatiable greed.Agreed. The generation graduating over the next 10 years or so is getting the shaft. But as I said, the OAS changes don't affect the job market over the next 10 years. Edited March 30, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Prices in the realestate market are determined by the availability of CREDIT. We are keeping rates pegged at historic lows to prevent a natural market correction. And yes. I was really that ignorant about the difference between CPP and OAS. Sorry about that. The government's involvement in people's retirement packages includes CPP, OAS, and GIS. People themselves may also have their own retirement savings such as RRSP, GIC, TFSA, and home equity. The problem is that the boomers had plenty of opportunity and enough benefits to put away into private pension plans and other investments. Meanwhile, stagnate wages and compensation packages that have been gutted of pensions, medical coverage, etc., has left this generation with little additional income to put away in the form of private savings and has seriously hindered their ability to become homeowners. I am not kidding when I say what's coming down the pipe is orders of magnitude worse than anybody right now either realizes or is willing to admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) *real* interest rates are still hire than they were in the 70s: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/real-interest-rate-percent-wb-data.html That doesnt change anything I said, or the fact they are trying to spackle over major structural problems in the economy by dumping mountains of easy credit into the system. This credit bubble has resulted extremely low savings rates, and this is a dire sign of things to come for any economy where consumption is such a large percentage of GDP. Whats going to be interesting is what happens to all the people that got mortgages around 2%... when the rates hit 5 or 6% again. Consumption is going to dry up as Canadians try to rebuild their nonexistant savings, and theres going to be a glut of forclosures. Realestate prices will drop back to mid nineties levels. Edited March 30, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MACKER Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Right but they wont be honest with us. If they want us in a war we will be there. Its extremely easy for governments to fool the public into thinking the missions will be quick and easy, and that its a just humanitarian endeavor. Like I said... If Canadians were told the truth about Afghanistan we never would have supported it. But we werent. And we wont be in the future either. they are still in afghanistan helping kill afghanis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 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. Actually, for my daughter it takes effect tomorrow. as of the 31 march she will be eligible for 2 more years working B4 she can receive the OAS. She will be 54 in June this year. I'm not knocking the idea but it does make a difference for people immediately, which may be a good thing because it will make more people prepare for the eventuality. 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. Some aspects of this policy make sense. Should a person with Downs syndrome be allowed to reproduce? And---- maybe not medical certification B4 marriage but a necessary psychological evaluation B4 becoming a parent might not be a bad thing in light of some of the atrocities that are currently in the news, committed by young fathers & mothers on their or their partner's kids. When we hear of a grown male sexually assaulting 3 month old babies it turns our stomachs and makes me want to see more restrictions placed regarding parenting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 Why are they cutting 7.5 million a year from Elections Canada? Do you really an answer to that one? Harper has no use for EC and now that EC knows this, they will do a even better job with the robocalls and other complaints dealing with elections from 2005-6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardguy Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardguy Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 the reality is that the age increase will not be implemented for several years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardguy Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 CBC gets their budget cut by 10%. FIST PUMP!!! Oh they're getting rid of the Penny too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardguy Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 they should have cut CBC's buget by 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardguy Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardguy Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardguy Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 no they have decided to implement the changes over time so people know what is coming and wont be ambushed by the changes. It's only fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.