Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

What to with to much money


Recommended Posts

Lefty Layton sure likes spending other peoples money on things they themselves would not spend it on, and of course, constitutionally, none of these items are business of the federal government. How about giving it back to those from who it stolen from in the first place so they can do with it as they see fit.

Quote : Layton

The surplus should be spent on foreign aid, affordable housing, public transit and reducing post-secondary tuition fees, Layton said.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/08...4446269-cp.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
affordable housing

This is the part that gets me. What the hell does it mean exactly? Housing is irrelevant, we can build them cheap and fast. it's the Land they sit on thats worth the money, not the actual buildings.

This clown pisses me off. He has no actual experience to back up the crap he spouts off about the state of the world, but he feels free to pontificate about all that is wrong with Canada and Canadians. He was a PolySci major for gods sake! His old lady is a T.V. personality who merely parrots her old mans party line. So why does anyone even give these a#%holes the time of day?

Sure, he's the leader we want, the leader we need. You can tell that by his troop supporting visits to Afghanistan ( they are Canadians over there after all).

Oops! Sorry, i forgot about how he's trying desperately to get over there, he just hasn't been given the "go ahead" yet. SURE!

As the leader of a major political party why doesn't the spineless wimp reach between his legs and find some balls? maybe for once in his life he should shut his cake hole and just show us how impassioned he is by all of this.

I really don't think that will happen soon though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the part that gets me. What the hell does it mean exactly? Housing is irrelevant, we can build them cheap and fast. it's the Land they sit on thats worth the money, not the actual buildings.

He means that the gov't should build housing and rent it out cheap to low income people. In other words more subsidized housing that we pay for.

I have to admit that the cost of housing is out of sight, and rents are not affordable for a lot of young single people unless you can share. Maybe the answer is to build a lot more apartments which would create a higher vacancy rate, thus lowering rents - no ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that is happening right now with higher surpluses is that Harper is spending at higher rates than what he promised when campaigning and as listed on the Conservative website presently.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/070824/...nada_budget_col

Consequently, nominal GDP growth, which has a strong correlation with tax revenues, has been revised up to 5.2 percent for 2007 from 3.9 percent. The figure for 2008 remains unchanged at 5.0 percent.

This would leave nominal GDP about C$20 billion higher in both 2007 and 2008 than projected in the March budget.

In its figures for what has already been spent in the first three months of the fiscal year, which started in April, the government showed that total spending had risen by 6.7 percent from the same period in 2006 to C$54.00 billion.

Flaherty has promised to limit spending to the rate of nominal growth in GDP on average over the mandate of the Conservative government, but he spent at a higher rate than that in the government's first year in office.

And according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Global Insight, the Tories have had fewer tax cuts in two years than the Liberals did in one.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to post
Share on other sites
He means that the gov't should build housing and rent it out cheap to low income people. In other words more subsidized housing that we pay for.

I have to admit that the cost of housing is out of sight, and rents are not affordable for a lot of young single people unless you can share. Maybe the answer is to build a lot more apartments which would create a higher vacancy rate, thus lowering rents - no ?

They would still have to be subsidized in some form to lower rents.

Building costs here in Alberta are outrageously high. Private developers can make a lot more money with buildings to be sold for condos.

Unfortunately, there doesn't really appear to be a market-based solution to the ridiculous cost of rents here. If anything you might see companies building more housing for their workers, but not likely in the big ciites.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They would still have to be subsidized in some form to lower rents.

Building costs here in Alberta are outrageously high. Private developers can make a lot more money with buildings to be sold for condos.

Unfortunately, there doesn't really appear to be a market-based solution to the ridiculous cost of rents here. If anything you might see companies building more housing for their workers, but not likely in the big ciites.

My son works in oil patch driving a truck out of High Prairie, his wife went up from BC to be with him. She said that it was the most terrible place she had ever seen. She went back home. She, in fact called it a hell hole. We have lots of relatives working there and the stories of drugs, booze and fights are really scarry. If this is what you call a great province then maybe you had better have another look. Elliot lake was like that during the boom there. Money does not necessarily mean good times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Margrace, your right about the social conditions up in the oil sands and other projects. It's a real mess. But this is the expected result when you have a bunch of teenagers with six figure salaries in cities with 50 men to 1 woman. They all choose to be there.

Edmonton and Calgary are both still safe, civilized cities. No issues there like they have in Ft. McMurry.

Nevertheless, I think I'd rather see a financially successful province, where everyone is employed and earning great cash... but with a few social issues in the boomtowns, than one where people are constantly depressed and whining about lack of work and poverty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Margrace, your right about the social conditions up in the oil sands and other projects. It's a real mess. But this is the expected result when you have a bunch of teenagers with six figure salaries in cities with 50 men to 1 woman. They all choose to be there.

Edmonton and Calgary are both still safe, civilized cities. No issues there like they have in Ft. McMurry.

Nevertheless, I think I'd rather see a financially successful province, where everyone is employed and earning great cash... but with a few social issues in the boomtowns, than one where people are constantly depressed and whining about lack of work and poverty.

Well there is a shortage of people here in Ontario as well, one of our premier vacation centres is have to have a fall work fair and has asked the gov't to bring in out of country workers. But I don't see the problems here, and its easy to judge when you don't live with the problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the problem in a nutshell.

From link above:

Consequently, nominal GDP growth, which has a strong correlation with tax revenues, has been revised up to 5.2 percent for 2007 from 3.9 percent. The figure for 2008 remains unchanged at 5.0 percent.

This would leave nominal GDP about C$20 billion higher in both 2007 and 2008 than projected in the March budget.

In its figures for what has already been spent in the first three months of the fiscal year, which started in April, the government showed that total spending had risen by 6.7 percent from the same period in 2006 to C$54.00 billion.

Flaherty has promised to limit spending to the rate of nominal growth in GDP on average over the mandate of the Conservative government, but he spent at a higher rate than that in the government's first year in office.

The federal government is consuming wealth (spending money) faster than the Canadian economy can generate it. In the first three months of the 2007-08 fiscal year, federal spending grew by 6.7% whereas the Canadian economy grew by about 5.2%.

If this were a one-time event, then it could be forgiven. But this is a government elected for its supposed prudence in spending public money. Moreover, this government sits alongside all the other governments of the past 100 years which have largely increased spending faster than the economy grows. You'll note too that the government's current budget surplus is irrelevant in this regard. A government budget deficit or surplus changes nothing about government spending as a percentage of the economy.

This growth in government clearly can't continue. If Harper can't beat back this behemoth, who can?

Of all people, I'll cite the ex-mayor of Toronto, Mel Lastman, talking about the same problem of over-spending in Toronto's municipal government:

He said since he left City Hall the spending is up well over a billion and a half dollars. "I realize some of it is inflation but not all of it," he said. "Except for when they are talking to their wife, it seems not spending is not in some politicians' vocabulary. I don't know of anyone on the executive committee of the council who has ever had to meet a payroll. And it shows."
Toronto Sun

The system is designed to make politicians say yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...