[Lemmy]

stokes stokes:

Lemmy this is Canada, where are you going to take the money from?

BECAUSE this is Canada, there are a thousand (a million places) to take the money from.

stokes stokes:

DND just there is a huge requirement for new equipment especially ships and aircraft?

I'd increase DND funding, reduce taxes and get rid of the deficit.

stokes stokes:

Health care?

Provincial matter. But I'd increase its funding and increase DND funding and reduce taxes and get rid of the deficit.

stokes stokes:

Welfare/ EI/ CPP?

I'd increase welfare funding. I'd get rid of EI. If employees want employment insurance, they can purchase that from a private insurance provider. CPP is going under because the Baby-Boomers anyway, so, for me, it's a pyramid scheme that I'm paying into but will never get a payout from it. I'd shut it down in an instant.

stokes stokes:

Government Motors? Well actually I never would have sunk money here to begin with!!!

Fuck 'em. They were inefficient producers of poor-quality merchandise.

stokes stokes:

Any urge to cut funding for anything will be met with heavy resistance, remember the "arts funding" in Quebec, cost the CPC a majority.

If you cut the 70% of wasteful government spending, you can increase the spending on the meaningful programs, like DND, Welfare and, yes, even arts funding.

stokes stokes:

So as far as I can see things the only way to climb out of this deficit is to raise taxes because no one wants to face cuts again like we did in the 90's!

[/quote][/quote]

Raising tax rates won't raise government revenues. You need to learn about the Laffer Curve. Canadians are already over-taxed. Taxing them more will actually REDUCE government revenues and worsen the deficit. We are AT LEAST at the peak of the Laffer curve. More likely, we're on the downslope. Government needs to be MUCH smaller and, therefore, better able to fund meaningful programs.

edit for misquote

[stokes]

Lemmy, you have some great ideals, but I am not convinced on their practicality. The only way to reduce government spending is by reducing manpower which is the biggest cost, but can it be done without cutting the level of service? I dont know the answer but like all Canadians I want to hear how its going to be done because Iggy has made a rather bold statement with no information coming as to how to do it without screwing everyone by either raising taxes or cutting services.

[Lemmy]

I understand your scepticism, but I think you vastly underestimate the depth and pervasiveness of government bureaucracy in our country. You're exactly correct; the bulk of cuts would be manpower. But I'd argue that most government labour costs are not "service" but "waste". The vast majority of services offered by government in Canada:
a) are things that do not provide benefit to most (or even many) Canadians;
b) could be provided more efficiently by the private sector.

If we cut the waste and fat we could better fund all the social services that we most cherish.

[stokes]

I work for the government so I understand how the bureaucracy works, but try explaining to someone who instead of waiting 6 weeks for EI now has to wait 8 or longer, not to mention the areas where we are really short like immigration, border control, safety inspectors etc. As for contracting out to the private sector, they have done that here in BC and yes it saves money but the quality of work sucks.

[NancyDrew]

Every opposition leader says the same thing......."we won't raise taxes"..........they always do.

[Lemmy]

stokes stokes:

I work for the government so I understand how the bureaucracy works, but try explaining to someone who instead of waiting 6 weeks for EI now has to wait 8 or longer, not to mention the areas where we are really short like immigration, border control, safety inspectors etc. As for contracting out to the private sector, they have done that here in BC and yes it saves money but the quality of work sucks.

This is a larger philosophical debate than we can't handle in one general discussion like this. Again, you're citing areas of need that could easily be funded if all the worthless spending was cut. With most of the work that would diverted to the private sector, well, who cares if the quality of work sucks? If I don't benefit from the work, I don't care how shittily it's done (is that a word, shittily?). I'm concerned about saving MY money, not anyone else's. Others can spend their dough on whatever they like.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Of course the chances of Ignatieff winning a majority and having to make good on his promise are exactly none. He might form a minority with the NDP but then all bets are off on the no tax increases.

[saturn_656]

NancyDrew NancyDrew:

Every opposition leader says the same thing......."we won't raise taxes"..........they always do.

See my sig for proof of that...

[Lemmy]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

NancyDrew NancyDrew:

Every opposition leader says the same thing......."we won't raise taxes"..........they always do.

See my sig for proof of that...

And, likewise, my sig relates directly to that quotation...not that I'm admitting that I made such a call, despite the physical, electronic evidence provided by Crown, which I maintain was collected illegally.

[saturn_656]

Lemmy Lemmy:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

NancyDrew NancyDrew:

Every opposition leader says the same thing......."we won't raise taxes"..........they always do.

See my sig for proof of that...

And, likewise, my sig relates directly to that quotation...not that I'm admitting that I made such a call, despite the physical, electronic evidence provided by Crown, which I maintain was collected illegally.

Priceless.

[NancyDrew]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

NancyDrew NancyDrew:

Every opposition leader says the same thing......."we won't raise taxes"..........they always do.

See my sig for proof of that...

Yes, I recall McGuinty saying that.......didn't believe him then either.

The opposition will say practically anything to con the voters.

[saturn_656]

NancyDrew NancyDrew:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

NancyDrew NancyDrew:

Every opposition leader says the same thing......."we won't raise taxes"..........they always do.

See my sig for proof of that...

Yes, I recall McGuinty saying that.......didn't believe him then either.

The opposition will say practically anything to con the voters.

What's even worse is the dirty bugger did it twice, when he was running against John Tory he said there would be no further tax increases... then he comes at us with the HST.

The man lies like he breathes.

[herbie]

He'll do all the mundane predictable things same as every Liberal gov't ever has.
Which everyone will like and things will grow because they're predictable, like it has every single time we've thrown a Conservative gov't out on it's ass.
Because they can only think of a "bigger slice of the pie" for them and their friends, they're incapable of comprehending making bigger pies....

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

That is a patently incorrect statement. You can CUT taxes and eliminate a deficit. All you have to do is cut spending.

Although theoretically true, the sad fact is, the government is basically the Patron of basically everything these days. I remember when Harper proposed cutting some arts funding not long ago, and the elitist snobs, as well as the arts community starting removing some pots and pans from a modern art sculpture and starting banging them together in protest.

Sadly, any government budget is hopped with pork. I'm sure, if I had the right connections, I could get a few hundred thousand on a study on the effectiveness of toilet brushes. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with it wholeheartedly, but without some majority government, and then only with some high level politician with some big balls, these layers upon layers of pork can't really be destroyed.

I bet, if we get a few independent accountants, economists, and hell, a bunch of stable households, we could probably cut expenses in a variety of things. Of course though, this won't happen either. Or at least it won't change anything.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

We're all forgetting areas where huge savings can be realized. Scrap the Senate, if we don't elect it, we don't need it. If we're gonna have one, at least give some semblance of representation. Which brings us to cut number 2. A cap on what MP's can make in a year which would entail an immediate cut in pay AND perks. The 6 year service, full pension bullshit at the senior level has to go as well.
We could save a nice chunk of change before going on to reduce the duplication of services and the elimination of "niche" services.
But that'll never happen because the pigs at the trough will never willingly pull themsleves away from it.