[eureka]

I did not say that the budget was a "cut to the jugular," andy. I am pointing to the foolishness of saying that the cuts were gentle and not harmless. The cuts are, though, draconian and no one should be fooled by Flaherty's blarney

As for the poster above who thinks I post crap about this, it would help him to take his Tory hat off and think about what is happening to the country and not only in this budget.

As to which Party reflects Canadian values, that is a foolish deflection. Since the Liberals represent the centre of the country - and a majority of the population in normal times, it is not an idle claim that they do. A Conservative Party could equally claim to do so since it desires a status quo.

Where does that leave a Socialist Party yhat wants to change the nation - but, unlike the CPC which is not a Conservative Party - to improve it.

The CPC is a radical organisation representing nothing but a top down ideology dreamed up by a handful of elitist libertarians. It is a mistake to think of it as a grass roots movement. And this budget is its first shot at implementing that ideal in more than the incremental changes that we have seen so far.

The Pension changes are entirely unwarranted and are included only to avoid the reversing of the policy of corporate tax cuts and tax credits to the unneedy that have been the defining events of this administration. Not only did the Budget Officer say that the present system is sustainable but the CPC commissioned a study before this and found the conclusion that that the pension plus programmes are sustainable not to it liking and so jettisoned that.

The cuts to the CBC are simply ideological. Canada needs a well funded Public Broadcaster more than most for reasons I gave in earlier posts. What we have is the worst funded of any country that does have a Public system. That is all developed countries except the USA. I say worst because these cuts will bring us below the one country, New Zealand, that props us up.

The Budget does away with safety regulations and the tools for the implementation in a few areas. We can expect more listeriosis type situations - more unnecessary deaths.

Environmental assessment is to be stunted in order to favour Harper's political base and dependency on the oil sands. Notwithstanding that it will do further harm to the rest of the country and particularly to Ontario's manufacturing. This will further anger the rest of the world about Canada's refusal to do its share with respect to climate change.

Jobs are being cut in a laughably named job creation budget. It is not coincidence that those cuts will be in Ontario to add to the thousands that have already happened there.. Transfer payments to Ontario will still be billions less than Ontario sends to Ottawa through taxes.

I could go through this item by item but it should not be necessary. Anyone with an open mind can see it.
And. let's not forget the effects of the crime Bill. That will cost Ontario around one billion dollars annually that the federal government will not compensate it for.

It will also cost other provinces proportionately.

This budget is nation destroying. And it is only the start.

If we want to talk of this in terms of Canadian values, then where is the compassion that Canada was once noted for. Where is the idea that the benefits and blessings of being a citizen of a rich, progressive nation should be shared. as those benefits are shifted further to the privileged sectors.

When will federal minimum wage be revised to be adequate to lift people out of poverty. It is, at present, in constant dollars, less than 75% of what it was in the late 1970s. The Liberals were partly responsible for that but the CPC steadfastly refuses to improve it at all.

Anyway, I could write a book on this but I don't feel like it at present. I will be spending time on actually trying to do something about this and that Angry Small Man syndromed Finance Minister. A man with a mind and conscience even smaller than his stature.

[andyt]

How are the cuts draconian? They're not even cuts, they're a reduction in spending increase from budgets that were at an all time high.

As you know, I don't have any love for Stephen Harper and still think he has a hidden agenda. But screaming wolf when there's a little mouse at best just isnt' going to help your cause. And I think most Canadians agree you couldn't just keep up the rate of spending that came about after the recession.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

andyt andyt:

I don't have any love for Stephen Harper and still think he has a hidden agenda.

0:

11026-tinfoil-hat.jpg [ 28.55 KiB | Viewed 323 times ]

-J.

[eureka]

The "rate of spending that came about with the recessi0on," andy was not a significant increase in spending. It was stimulus spending that has already ended. As an aside, what we need there is an assessment of the efficacy of that spending.

The $5.2 billion dollars are cuts to programme spending and to the jobs of those who distribute the spending ot are employed in thr cancelled programmes. The 19,000 jobs will be, likely, 100,000 or more as the cuts feed through.

There is nothing except a nod to R & D to replace them.

[andyt]

The media tells me these aren't cuts to spending but cuts to planned increases in spending. So govt spending will grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case,

And we certainly need to get a handle on spending. The days when we can just borrow on the hope of good times around the corner to wipe out debt are long gone. We do need to cut.

Where I disagree with the Reformacons is where to cut. The OAS raise in age is an example. Somebody already earning $69,000 post retirement at 65 isn't going to delay that retirement for a measly $6000 a year of OAS. They'll retire when they want to. But somebody who's been working poor all their life, who was counting on that OAS and the GIS that comes with it, they're the ones who will have to delay their retirement. They probably have a much more physically demanding job that makes it harder as they get old. The alternative is to reduce the income level at which OAS is clawed back. But that would more affect the people who vote CPC, so of course that is not what they did.

Only 6 percent of seniors are affected by the clawback - 94% receive OAS. That's rediculous for a welfare program. Lowering the clawback income would raise more cash than raising the retirement age and wouldn't harm low income seniors.

For the federal employees, definitely their wages and pensions need to be kept in line. But not until the politicians make a move on theirs.

[eureka]

I don't think that you are reading the "right" media, andy.

Be that as it may, though, Canada does not need to get a handle on its spending. It probably needs to improve its social programmes and spend more.

Canada is near the bottom of the OECD in both taxes and spending. In fact, there is little difference in the total spending of Canadian government than with the US. The mix is deifferent.

Spending in Canada has dropped from somewhere close to 50% of GDP when the Chretien/Martin administration came into being to less than 40% now. It is sheer Right Wing propaganda that has convinced Canadians that we are spendthrifts. The reality is that the Social Contract in Canada has been broken and that all programmes have deteriorated - to the delight of the current one that wishes to remove government altogether from every programme including Healthcare. Harper has long said so, btw.

Welfare has diminished drastically. Minimum Wages in every jurisdiction have declined to less than 80% of what they once were. Pensions is just one more in the saga of assaults on the gains made by working people and the unemployed.

[PluggyRug]

eureka eureka:

I don't think that you are reading the "right" media, andy.

Be that as it may, though, Canada does not need to get a handle on its spending. It probably needs to improve its social programmes and spend more.

Canada is near the bottom of the OECD in both taxes and spending. In fact, there is little difference in the total spending of Canadian government than with the US. The mix is deifferent.

Spending in Canada has dropped from somewhere close to 50% of GDP when the Chretien/Martin administration came into being to less than 40% now. It is sheer Right Wing propaganda that has convinced Canadians that we are spendthrifts. The reality is that the Social Contract in Canada has been broken and that all programmes have deteriorated - to the delight of the current one that wishes to remove government altogether from every programme including Healthcare. Harper has long said so, btw.

Welfare has diminished drastically. Minimum Wages in every jurisdiction have declined to less than 80% of what they once were. Pensions is just one more in the saga of assaults on the gains made by working people and the unemployed.

Please let me know when that falling sky is coming my way.

[andyt]

eureka eureka:

I don't think that you are reading the "right" media, andy.

Be that as it may, though, Canada does not need to get a handle on its spending. It probably needs to improve its social programmes and spend more.

Canada is near the bottom of the OECD in both taxes and spending. In fact, there is little difference in the total spending of Canadian government than with the US. The mix is deifferent.

Spending in Canada has dropped from somewhere close to 50% of GDP when the Chretien/Martin administration came into being to less than 40% now. It is sheer Right Wing propaganda that has convinced Canadians that we are spendthrifts. The reality is that the Social Contract in Canada has been broken and that all programmes have deteriorated - to the delight of the current one that wishes to remove government altogether from every programme including Healthcare. Harper has long said so, btw.

Welfare has diminished drastically. Minimum Wages in every jurisdiction have declined to less than 80% of what they once were. Pensions is just one more in the saga of assaults on the gains made by working people and the unemployed.

But I wouldn't hold Chretien's spending as sustainable. I agree we could and should raise taxes on people with higher incomes. But we need to get our spending vs income ratio to a point where we start making a serious reduction in the debt, not just the deficit. Where I would mostly disagree with the right, would be my guess is where to raise taxes and what to spend vs cut back on. Except for our poorest citzens, we all need to tighten our belts, IMO - just that I want the belt to be tightened the most with the people who have the fewest notches in it (think about it).