[hurley_108]

Lemmy Lemmy:

My proposal would be more than a "spending check list" in that entire government agencies/ministries would be shut down if the majority didn't support those initiatives. The average Canadian has NO IDEA of the scope of government.

The average Canadian has no idea about a lot of things about Governemnt, as evidenced by all the false information and confusion in the coalition crisis last year.

[DerbyX]

We are to busy reading up on the five pages of coverage about Britiney spears thanking Sacramento then she was on stage in San Jose. What little time we have left we devote to either Paris or Lindsay depending on how does the more skankier thing.

[uwish]

Good luck getting elected with the 'new tax' campaign. Sounds to me like he is shooting himself in the foot. In general people will not support increases in taxes, it is just to difficult to sell.

[DerbyX]

Perhaps. Governments running massive deficits with little to show for it in terms of services or tax cuts tend to be a hardsell also. Being in charge during bad economics times is often the swan song for a sitting PM.

[uwish]

true, I don't think any have survived.

[bootlegga]

Lemmy Lemmy:

There are two other considerations: 1. The Laffer Curve. As you increase tax rates, you get to a point where tax revenues begin to fall. WE ARE AT THE PEAK OF THE LAFFER CURVE. Further tax increases will result in falling tax revenues. 2. There would be LOTS of money for all sorts of funding (military included) if we could just get rid of the waste and inefficiency. We could fund programs to make both left and right happy, AND reduce peoples' taxes significantly if we'd just start cleaning house.

One man's waste is another's gold. You might find something wasteful (like say the gun registry) but others don't. Who decides what is waste?

Lemmy Lemmy:

Well, I haven't really thought it all out fully, but ask Canadians what government services they're willing to pay for. Anything the majority doesn't want to pay for gets cut from the government budget. If that service is still in demand, private entrepreneurs can take up the initiative, if there's any profit to be made.

Kiss the military goodbye then. Most Canadians don't give a fig about it and we'd go back to having a 'Militia' (basically a country club with guns) like we did before WW1. Canadians didn't want to pay for it back then either, and given the low priority of defence spending in vote getting, it's still that way. We'd probably lose the Post office too, because the vast majority of people in the cities could get by using other services. Too bad for the 20% of Canadians living in rural areas who want to mail a letter. I could go on, but won't bother.

No, some things in the federal budget should never be subject to such an arbitrary vote.

[uwish]

In order for these ideas to work, the public would need to be vastly better informed than they are right now.

Plus, there are things in government that we will never know (not saying they are all bad things).

It's like the private in the army asking why the hell do I have to do this like that?

The OC is not just looking at his 'own' little peace of dirt, but at the entire company's peace of dirt! Suddenly the picture changes.

[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

One man's waste is another's gold. You might find something wasteful (like say the gun registry) but others don't. Who decides what is waste?

I know, that's something that needs more thought.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Kiss the military goodbye then. Most Canadians don't give a fig about it and we'd go back to having a 'Militia' (basically a country club with guns) like we did before WW1. Canadians didn't want to pay for it back then either, and given the low priority of defence spending in vote getting, it's still that way. We'd probably lose the Post office too, because the vast majority of people in the cities could get by using other services. Too bad for the 20% of Canadians living in rural areas who want to mail a letter. I could go on, but won't bother.

No, some things in the federal budget should never be subject to such an arbitrary vote.

I share your concerns, but I still think it's doable. The reason I believe this is that there are SO MANY things the government does that, once the public sees it, they won't NEED to cut the military.

For example, the Ministry of Agriculture runs a program called BIO (Beef Improvement Ontario) which, simplified, tests cattle for genetic traits and shares that information with beef farmers. WHY IN THE FUCK DO WE PAY FOR THIS AS TAXPAYERS? If beef farmers want genetic profiles of the their herd then they should hire a fucking private company to do it for them. There are COUNTLESS programs like this that need to be reviewed, across all ministries, across all jurisdictions. The military is safe; it's this fringe-special-interest shit that needs to be reviewed.

[Lemmy]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

The average Canadian has no idea about a lot of things about Governemnt, as evidenced by all the false information and confusion in the coalition crisis last year.

You're absolutely right, and you've cited just one of THOUSANDS of examples of such confusion. And I admit, I don't know exactly how this 'review of government scope' should be conducted. But it MUST be done. We simply cannot continue to feed a white elephant, at best, and (employing the old similie) a Frankenstein monster at worst.

[ryan29]

did anybody read some of the policy resolutions they plan on debating , considering the cots of them its no surprise iggy refuses to rule out a tax increase , how else do they plan on paying for everything ? spending billions of dollars on various programs would have to come with a significant price for the taxpayers .

[hurley_108]

ryan29 ryan29:

did anybody read some of the policy resolutions they plan on debating , considering the cots of them its no surprise iggy refuses to rule out a tax increase , how else do they plan on paying for everything ? spending billions of dollars on various programs would have to come with a significant price for the taxpayers .

What's Harper's plan to deal with his deficit? Oh right, it's not a "structural deficit." Conservative deficits just sort themselves out in the end. By magic, apparently.

[Lemmy]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

What's Harper's plan to deal with his deficit? Oh right, it's not a "structural deficit." Conservative deficits just sort themselves out in the end. By magic, apparently.

Sounds like the Natural Law Party.

[ryan29]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

ryan29 ryan29:

did anybody read some of the policy resolutions they plan on debating , considering the cots of them its no surprise iggy refuses to rule out a tax increase , how else do they plan on paying for everything ? spending billions of dollars on various programs would have to come with a significant price for the taxpayers .

What's Harper's plan to deal with his deficit? Oh right, it's not a "structural deficit." Conservative deficits just sort themselves out in the end. By magic, apparently.

ok under the liberal / bloc / ndp coalition the deficit would of been even bigger and economists have said that during a economic downturn running a deficit is ok .

anyways once the economy gets better i'm sure things will figure themselves out and stimulus spending that has contributed to the deficit would be stopped . this is a long term economic plan and one that will take time to work out . there is no magical solutions here and no one claiming to have one .

[hurley_108]

ryan29 ryan29:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

ryan29 ryan29:

did anybody read some of the policy resolutions they plan on debating , considering the cots of them its no surprise iggy refuses to rule out a tax increase , how else do they plan on paying for everything ? spending billions of dollars on various programs would have to come with a significant price for the taxpayers .

What's Harper's plan to deal with his deficit? Oh right, it's not a "structural deficit." Conservative deficits just sort themselves out in the end. By magic, apparently.

ok under the liberal / bloc / ndp coalition the deficit would of been even bigger and economists have said that during a economic downturn running a deficit is ok .

So why are you bitching about the Liberals' spending proposals?

$1:

anyways once the economy gets better i'm sure things will figure themselves out and stimulus spending that has contributed to the deficit would be stopped . this is a long term economic plan and one that will take time to work out . there is no magical solutions here and no one claiming to have one .

Oh, you're "sure things will figure themselves out." Great. Solid plan there.

[Lemmy]

ryan29 ryan29:

ok under the liberal / bloc / ndp coalition the deficit would of been even bigger and economists have said that during a economic downturn running a deficit is ok .

...and doctors have said that smoking is harmless. There certainly is NOT a concensus among economists on this point. I (and I believe I'm in the majority of economists on this) disagree with running deficits in any climate save PERHAPS periods of very high inflation.

ryan29 ryan29:

anyways once the economy gets better i'm sure things will figure themselves out and stimulus spending that has contributed to the deficit would be stopped . this is a long term economic plan and one that will take time to work out . there is no magical solutions here and no one claiming to have one .

The problems that we'll face in the future from dealing with debt will FAR outweigh the present-day costs of a little unemployment. The 1930s recession was made into a depression by similar policies.