The Cost of Balancing the Budget

[jacee]

Well Trudeau Sr single-handedly made Western Canada a wasteland for the Liberals for 35 years. The gazebo etc might be more recent, but as we saw back in 2010 the only people who really cared were the ones who complain about the Tories by default anyways!

And we can still make Tories turn pale here by mentioning "gazebos".

.

[Moonbox]

And we can still make Tories turn pale here by mentioning "gazebos".

If you say so.

As for the voting public (the only group that matters), gazebos are clearly not hot topics.

[jacee]

If you say so.

As for the voting public (the only group that matters), gazebos are clearly not hot topics.

Oh I am talking about voting Conservatives of the rural Ontario base: They're the ones who turn pale about 'gazebos'.

And you can bet it will be a 'hot topic' there during the next election.

.

.

Edited November 15, 2014 by jacee

[Smallc]

I bet nobody cares. I don't know anyone who does.

[Moonbox]

Oh I am talking about voting Conservatives of the rural Ontario base: They're the ones who turn pale about 'gazebos'.

Not really! Ontario voters gave Kathleen Wynne a free pass on the multi-billion gas plant cancellation scandal, so it's unlikely they're going to care much for a gazebo from 5 years ago!

And you can bet it will be a 'hot topic' there during the next election.

Only in your mind jacee, but I'm sure you're alright with that!

[overthere]

1. From 2011-12 until 2014-15, Veteran's Affairs staff has been cut by 24% and will lose an additional 1% by 2016-17 (p. 6).
2. Between March 2012 and April 2016, HRSDC will have its staff cut by 24% (p. 7).

Good. The number of living veterans, as noted, is dropping as WW11 and Korean war vets and their dependents die. The remaining more recent vets should have fewer needs since far fewer of them were involved in combat operations.

HRDC is a bloated mess. It's an example of a lack of review of resource needs in the public sector.

Another bloated one, though much smaller, is Health Canada.

Another is Aboriginal Affairs which still has 4500+ employees doing who knows what in an business environment that has seen a heavy devolution directly to First Nations.

Chop chop please.

[cybercoma]

You guys keep saying the number of veterans are dropping, meanwhile veterans are actually complaining quite vocally about the cuts to services. Harper doesn't mind using them for photo ops, but doesn't want to foot the bill for their care after they fight for our country.

[PIK]

The hot topic will be wallets. And that there is enough for harper to win another majority. People don't care about gazebos, in and out or spending to much on elections. The duffy affair ,we will wait and see. But a lot closer to the election will be harb case.

[cybercoma]

The hot topic will be wallets. And that there is enough for harper to win another majority. People don't care about gazebos, in and out or spending to much on elections. The duffy affair ,we will wait and see. But a lot closer to the election will be harb case.

We'll just pretend Harper's Parliamentary Secretary thing didn't happen.

[Smallc]

People won't care about that either.

[cybercoma]

People won't care about that either.

We know your opinion: nobody cares about any of the crappy things coming from the Harper Tories.

[Smallc]

They don't. They honestly don't. People don't care when they're doing well, and as stats can showed today, they are...the bottom 99% is getting richer and the economy overall is growing as it was in the past.

[On Guard for Thee]

We'll just pretend Harper's Parliamentary Secretary thing didn't happen.

He'll try and pretend it didn't happen, which is why we may well see a spring election. Which will be too bad as I'd love to see him under oath where telling lies can get you into trouble. I'm sure both Duffy and Wright have interesting stories to tell that Harper doesn't want revealed during a campaign.

[PIK]

But Harb's case comes after that.

[Keepitsimple]

They don't. They honestly don't. People don't care when they're doing well, and as stats can showed today, they are...the bottom 99% is getting richer and the economy overall is growing as it was in the past.

Our usual suspects tend to ignore good news. They also tend to ignore that:

1) The top 1% of earners pay over 20% of all Federal/Provincial personal taxes.

2) The top 10% pay almost 55% of all taxes.

3) The bottom 50% pay about 4%

Oh - and you only have to make about $90K to make it into the top 10% - hardly "rich".....and you need only $200K to break into the top 1% - hardly a King's ransom. It's called a progressive tax system for a reason - the rich pay more - much more.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

Our usual suspects tend to ignore good news. They also tend to ignore that:

1) The top 1% of earners pay over 20% of all Federal/Provincial personal taxes.

2) The top 10% pay almost 55% of all taxes.

3) The bottom 50% pay about 4%

Oh - and you only have to make about $90K to make it into the top 10% - hardly "rich". It's called a progressive tax system for a reason - the rich pay more - much more.

The top 10% also have almost 55% of the wealth in Canada.

The bottom 30% of Canadians have roughly 1% of the wealth.

I'll let you figure out how that relates to taxation.

[Icebound]

Of course we have to cut, cut, cut.

We need half a billion just to clean up a few pools of arsenic left behind by the mining industry. By the time we factor in the tar sands clean-up, and all the other toxic dumps around the country, we should just about use up all government revenues for the foreseeable future.

After all, we wouldn't want to bankrupt our precious industry to clean these things up, would we? ...

[Michael Hardner]

We need half a billion just to clean up a few pools of arsenic left behind by the mining industry.

After all, we wouldn't want to bankrupt our precious industry to clean these things up, would we? ...

We don't need to. Simply register the owners, and go after them later if there's a cleanup required, based on ability to pay.

Edit: I do also know how that would go over with investors, but the point is - investors want to make their money and cut out...

[Bryan]

Cutting services is almost always a good thing. Far too much money is spent on the vague notion of keeping services without quantifying what is being achieved. Veterans Services is a great example. Far less veterans need the services than before, and amalgamating the services with other departments means those who are using them are better served by having more services available in one place. The federal government needs to be aggressively doing a lot more of these kinds of things.

[cybercoma]

Cutting services is almost always a good thing.

When is it not a good thing?

[Smallc]

When is it not a good thing?

It's not a good thing when the services that are cut are core responsibilities of the government in question, or are essential public services as determined by...the public.

[cybercoma]

Meaningless platitudes. What are the "core" responsibilities? What are "essential" services? Who is "the public"?

Edited November 22, 2014 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Meaningless platitudes. What are the "core" responsibilities? What are "essential" services? Who is "the public"?

Core responsibilities are generally understood to be those outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867.

Essential services as determined by the public are generally understood to be those services that can be delivered as reasonably possible as determined by a majority (or at least a plurality) of voters. The days of funding every organization under the sun are, and, IMO, should be, over.

[cybercoma]

Core responsibilities are generally understood to be those outlined in the Constitution Act, 1867.

Essential services as determined by the public are generally understood to be those services that can be delivered as reasonably possible as determined by a majority (or at least a plurality) of voters. The days of funding every organization under the sun are, and, IMO, should be, over.

So our government should determine what's best for Canadians based on a document that is 150 years old?

And I like how you throw plurality in brackets, since you know damn well that the majority of voters actually aren't having their views represented in Parliament.

[Smallc]

So our government should determine what's best for Canadians based on a document that is 150 years old?

And I like how you throw plurality in brackets, since you know damn well that the majority of voters actually aren't having their views represented in Parliament.

A majority of voters can support a policy or a service and often do without a majority of voters supporting the government.

Also, there's a reason that we live in a federation and not a unitary state. The federal government actually has very few responsibilities. It's far better for most things to be handled at the more local level by the provinces. We have a Constitution for a reason, and unless someone has changed it and I'm not aware, we should stick to it.

There are, of course, exceptions, such as the Canada Health Act. A majority of people support the idea of a national standard delivered by the provinces, and so a compromise was devised.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Smallc