CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:38 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
Martin's failing was the failure to pay more debt when we had massive surpluses. If he and his cronies had kept their goddamn hands out o' the till, we wouldn't so fear a plunge into deficit like the one we're ass-deep in now.


Regardless of how much Martin paid off or how much Harper paid off, the deficit would still be a major issue.


Lemmy Lemmy:
There is PLENTY of wasteful spending that could be axed, while INCREASING funding for health care and the military, AND, simulataneously, paying debt and lowering taxes.


During a healthy economy, yes. Harper did a fair amount of exactly what you mentioned above. That can't be done right now.


Lemmy Lemmy:
There's no question that balancing the budget would have been a painful pill for Canadians to have swollowed. But it would have cost us all an aweful lot less in the long run if we had.


How so?

I don't agree because there are so many factors to consider when you cut federal spending, especially on issues such as health care. Add to that the thousands on thousands of people on EI from the cut programs and failing industries....long term looks even more bleak.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:52 pm
 


OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Regardless of how much Martin paid off or how much Harper paid off, the deficit would still be a major issue.


No question. $80B is an astronomical number. But the less debt, the easier the deficit is to manage.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:
During a healthy economy, yes. Harper did a fair amount of exactly what you mentioned above. That can't be done right now.


I disagree. You cut over-paid, unproductive, wasteful government service jobs. You fire them from their $50K/yr jobs and turn them onto the brown envolope for whatever the EI rate is or else you buy them out. It's much cheaper than continuing to pay their overblown salaries. Harper hasn't done any slashing in his brief time in office. The last PM to really do any was Dief.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:
How so?


Because deficit spending comes with interest and at the expense of other public spending.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:
I don't agree because there are so many factors to consider when you cut federal spending, especially on issues such as health care. Add to that the thousands on thousands of people on EI from the cut programs and failing industries....long term looks even more bleak.


But when it's government employees we're talking about, someone being paid 55% of their wage/salary on EI is CHEAPER than funding their employment income. The longterm isn't so bleak if we have good fiscal position because we can fund job creation programs. It's only bleak if you've committed an overwhelming percentage of future budgetary spending to Swiss bankers' interest charges.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:02 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:

But when it's government employees we're talking about, someone being paid 55% of their wage/salary on EI is CHEAPER than funding their employment income. The longterm isn't so bleak if we have good fiscal position because we can fund job creation programs. It's only bleak if you've committed an overwhelming percentage of future budgetary spending to Swiss bankers' interest charges.


Well, yes....but then you have all the increased costs of putting them out of work on top of the EI you're paying.

It's a bad spiral that we're seeing today.

Sure, cut Federal jobs, then you put so many other things on high alert. Increase health care costs, more people on welfare, people losing their homes, real estate market taking a dive...each action has severe consequences.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:14 pm
 


OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Well, yes....but then you have all the increased costs of putting them out of work on top of the EI you're paying.

It's a bad spiral that we're seeing today.

Sure, cut Federal jobs, then you put so many other things on high alert. Increase health care costs, more people on welfare, people losing their homes, real estate market taking a dive...each action has severe consequences.


You're absolutely correct. It's BECAUSE things are so in-the-shitter that I would recommend such a policy. But if economic history has anything to tell us, it's these two immutable, universal truths: 1. government bailouts are a dead-weight loss on national welfare; 2. national debt is the single biggest cause of nations' economic failures.

Spending sprees by Roosevelt and King in the 30s just made the bad times last longer. The best course of policy in a recession is to be frugal, not spendthrift.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:17 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Well, yes....but then you have all the increased costs of putting them out of work on top of the EI you're paying.

It's a bad spiral that we're seeing today.

Sure, cut Federal jobs, then you put so many other things on high alert. Increase health care costs, more people on welfare, people losing their homes, real estate market taking a dive...each action has severe consequences.


You're absolutely correct. It's BECAUSE things are so in-the-shitter that I would recommend such a policy. But if economic history has anything to tell us, it's these two immutable, universal truths: 1. government bailouts are a dead-weight loss on national welfare; 2. national debt is the single biggest cause of nations' economic failures.

Spending sprees by Roosevelt and King in the 30s just made the bad times last longer. The best course of policy in a recession is to be frugal, not spendthrift.


We'll have to see how we make out after this. I think that we'll be out of this faster than some expect.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:23 pm
 


OnTheIce OnTheIce:
We'll have to see how we make out after this. I think that we'll be out of this faster than some expect.


If we hadn't panicked, perhaps we'd already be out of it. I generally share your optimism. The markets have rebounded and inflation remains low. Our credit markets held. We've shed a lot of jobs, but we're retiring a lot of Baby Boomers. We might be okay. But we'll need a quick re-bound to pay the drunken-tab we're running up this year, and that may depend more on the US economy than our own.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:36 pm
 


Lemmy Lemmy:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
We'll have to see how we make out after this. I think that we'll be out of this faster than some expect.


If we hadn't panicked, perhaps we'd already be out of it. I generally share your optimism. The markets have rebounded and inflation remains low. Our credit markets held. We've shed a lot of jobs, but we're retiring a lot of Baby Boomers. We might be okay. But we'll need a quick re-bound to pay the drunken-tab we're running up this year, and that may depend more on the US economy than our own.


The media made it out to be much worse than it was, fueling people's fears to the point of panic.

I'm sensing the confidence of the people is starting to grow.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:39 pm
 


OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The media made it out to be much worse than it was, fueling people's fears to the point of panic.

I'm sensing the confidence of the people is starting to grow.


That was certainly true in the financial sector. I'm sensing some optimism as well. That $3.65/share Citigroup stock price is still REALLY disturbing to me though.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4814
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:53 pm
 


Pumping 10.5 billion into a failing business to save what the government believes would be 85,000 jobs does not make sense to me. This equates to $123,000 per job. If the average salary of these employees was $40,000 it would be the same as putting up 3 years salary for each of them for a chance that the business will recover. I myself don't think that GM will recover, there was somthing very wrong which is why it failed. Whatever happened to survival of the fittest and free markets. When a void is created in the marketplace, industry steps in to fill the need. When industry floods the market with unneeded products, those industries are eventually forced to stop production.If there is no demand for the product, wtf are we doing bailing out this company ? I agree with a previous poster who said it would be better to give the money directlt to the employees. Chances are the money would last longer than their GM jobs are going to.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15102
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:56 pm
 


Delwin Delwin:
Pumping 10.5 billion into a failing business to save what the government believes would be 85,000 jobs does not make sense to me. This equates to $123,000 per job.

That's cheaper than starting from scratch and hoping the private sector creates 85k jobs.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4814
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:07 pm
 


Well if it is nothing more than a make-work program why not have the public sector create jobs instead of clinging to obsolete ones ?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15102
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:12 pm
 


Delwin Delwin:
Well if it is nothing more than a make-work program why not have the public sector create jobs instead of clinging to obsolete ones ?

They aren't obsolete, we still need vehicles. We also need vehicle companies that run sound business models and take a firm hand with out of control unions. It's not a coincidence that the car companies that aren't going bankrupt are the ones without union shops.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4814
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:23 am
 


I agree GM has priced itself out of the industry with it's $75/hr workers. Of course we still need cars but we dont need GM cars, don't you think that if GM went under and the demand for vehicles rose that other auto companies would expand to take a piece of the pie ? Your a free market capitalist aren't you ? The market is reflexive and I believe that if there is money to be made someone will step in and make it. It would not happen overnight, but I definetly think we would see more expansion within the next three years.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:01 pm
 


livefreeordi livefreeordi:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
You lack common sense.

If common sense = flushing $9,000,000,000 of taxpayer money
down the toilet then I don't want any.
Lemmy Lemmy:
There's no question that balancing the budget would have been a painful pill for Canadians to have swallowed. But it would have cost us all an awful lot less in the long run if we had.

Well said Lemmy!


You'd rather give away more than 9 billion directly to taxpayer bank accounts via EI payments and various financial assistance options than save one of Canada's largest industries and keep our economy from diving even further?

That is a lack of common sense.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 6584
PostPosted: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:09 pm
 


OnTheIce OnTheIce:
livefreeordi livefreeordi:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
You lack common sense.

If common sense = flushing $9,000,000,000 of taxpayer money
down the toilet then I don't want any.
Lemmy Lemmy:
There's no question that balancing the budget would have been a painful pill for Canadians to have swallowed. But it would have cost us all an awful lot less in the long run if we had.

Well said Lemmy!


You'd rather give away more than 9 billion directly to taxpayer bank accounts via EI payments and various financial assistance options than save one of Canada's largest industries and keep our economy from diving even further?

That is a lack of common sense.


I don't think EI would have paid 1.4$M to every job... Anyway GM, without the help, would have go bankruptcy earlier. Bankruptcy doesn't mean a total shutdown but a restructuration. :idea:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 121 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.