The federal government cannot argue poverty. Even after increasing spending by 53 per cent since 1997, it has still recorded huge annual surpluses, including $10 billion last year. On Tuesday, the Conservative government should give Canadians not only the GST cut it promised, but also retain the Liberal income tax cuts.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Nice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CTF You Tube Channel
Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box
25 comments:
after increasing spending by 53 per cent since 1997
Nice cherry picking. Now lets have a look at reality. Spending has only increased by 53% since 1990.
Good point Robert. In 1990 we were spending ourselves into oblivian.
Let's see, in 1990 our population was just over a million. With a 53% increase in spending, Saskatchewan's population must be hovering around the 1.5 million mark. Regina's population has to be at least 450,000.
Actually, those numbers are federal government spending figures. Saskatchewan spending has only increased by 47 per cent since 1997.
In 1990 we were spending ourselves into oblivian.
Were we? Lets see, in 1984 program spending was at $76 billion. By 1990 program spending had risen to $101 billion. Using the Bank of Canada inflation calculator shows that $75 billion in 1990 dollars is $98 billion. I can't see how you can say that we were spending ourselves into oblivion when spending barely rose above the rate of inflation.
The relative increase is irrelevant, it's the spending that matters. To use percentage increase from 1984 to 1990 to prove we weren't over spending is...well...silly.
So we're back to that tired old canard.
We're spending too much cuz I say we're spending too much--so sayeth Davey.
How on earth can you discount inflation ?
We're spending too much cuz I say we're spending too much--so sayeth Davey.
We're spending too little cuz I say we're spending too little--so sayeth Robby.
What's the difference?
I didn't discount inflation. Read the comments thorougly before posting. That's a new rule.
And you would be above putting words in peoples mouths or picking and choosing bits and pieces to comment upon ?
What's the difference?
The difference is that I never said we're spending too little.
How on earth can you discount inflation ?
Actually he's not saying that, Chad. What he's saying is much dumber.
Basically Davey's point is that no matter how far back in time you go to look at spending, it's still too much. So go back to day one and assume our goverment spent a dollar a year back then. After adjusting that measly buck for inflation, lets say, for arguments sake, it's roughly equal to what we spend now. According to Davey that would still be too much spending.
So what should the government spend ?
Oh, that's right, you've never claimed that funding should be increased.
What it illustrates, Davey, is that you tax cut sons of bitches need to be beaten up for destroying our healthcare system. It won't work if it's not properly funded and it can't be properly funded if you selfish pricks want to cut taxes all the time.
The one thing you consistently harp on is that fact that funding needs to be increased.
Increased funding to one program does not mean increased funding overall, rube. I'm more than willing to trade off an increase in healthcare funding for a decrease in something else. And I'm sure lots of other Canadians would too.
Well you've proved one thing; you love the ad hominem attacks. But then again, what's a fallacy to keep a conversation going.
In order to fund healthcare at the level you propose would require massive restructuring to funds that would take away from your other Marxist loves in the welfare state.
In order to fund healthcare at the level you propose would require massive restructuring to funds
Harper is going to announce $10 billion in tax cuts on Tuesday. That money would fix the healthcare system's problems and then some without requiring any restructuring.
other Marxist loves in the welfare state.
Such as? Beyond healthcare what "Marxist" programs do you think exist on the federal level?
$10 billion would fix it, Robert? That's news to me. Because nation wide health spending has increased by at least $10 billion a year for several years. It doesn't even make a dent. There is no "fixing" this system.
Simply increasing the healthcare funding by the inflation rate every year won't fix any problems, Davey. They system needs an infusion of cash to that. And it will work too. Martin's 40 billion over ten years has already halted the growth of the waiting list times. An injection of ten billion combined with several initiatives to streamline the system will once again make our healthcare system the envy of the world.
I wish health spending was held to inflation. It's rising at 10 per cent a year, Robert. And yes, I remember Paul Martin's "fix for a generation." Some fix.
Public sector delivery healthcare spending is rising by 4% a year. Private sector delivery healthcare spending is rising by 7% a year.
But that aside, rising healthcare costs are not a factor of the type of healthcare system used. It's happening everywhere, regardless of whether the system is public, like ours, two tier, like European countries use, or private like the US system is.
And to hold healthcare funding just to the overall inflation rate only undermines its effectiveness. Which is why our system is crumbling. It's underfunded.
I remember Paul Martin's "fix for a generation."
The money has only been in play a year and already, according to the Fraser Institute report, stopped the waiting list times from growing. If that trend continues or reverses it's clear evidence that underfunding is the problem.
Some fix.
Are you looking for some sort of magical solution? Only fools think a decade of damage can be repaired overnight.
Such as? Beyond healthcare what "Marxist" programs do you think exist on the federal level?
I didn't realize that CTF changed policy and suddenly only talked about federal issues.
Perhaps we can try out another healthcare model aside from the North Korean/Cuban model. ;)
Back to the original post, you silly little plebs seem to forget the infinite knowledge and beyond human abilities possessed by common bureaucrat in being able to deal with what the public desires (far beyond the free market's ability to do so, mind you). They are far more capable of spending money for what matters than the person who earned the money in the first place.
Don't believe me.
Walk into any public administration building and ask yourself what that old guy who can be found all day walking around through the cubicles does.
Answer that and you have found your answer.
rs porter:you tax cut sob's are the problem.
How much tax money needs to dumped into this black to make it work according to you.I'd just like to know.
Post a Comment