High Speed Train Coming?-split from boosting Canada’s military spending"

[Altair]

Or take that money to help pay off the outrageous debt were leaving our kids already do they have a fighting chance....even more brilliant.

Does this apply to defense spending?

 

[Altair]

I've argued that the feds should stop funding local public transit and dedicate that funding to regional transport projects that have wider economic impacts. Hard to do this politically though when MPs need ribbon cuttings.

Should be noted that Alto will cost basically as much as the feds are spending on local transit (through gas tax) through to 2040.

90b over 15-17 years is such a drop in a bucket amount I'm surprised it's brought up.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Does this apply to defense social spending?

Yes.

 

[ytz]

Does this apply to defense spending?

Yep. People are really forgetting what happened the last time deficit became priority #1. Which given the time some people here served I would think they would intimately understand.

But again, as I've said elsewhere. $80B per year on OAS. Not open to discussion. $80B over 15-20 years on rail that will serve every generation after? Waste. Hard to see how this is "fiscally conservative" and not just entitled.

Also, weird how we never talk about cutting OAS to balance the budget. The largest line item in the federal budget.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Does this apply to defense spending?

What a shock, STRAWMAN LIVES!!, I have no issue with proper spending on our defense but, if I were in charge, lots of unnecessary things would be gone. No loyalty to "that's the way its always been done" here.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

But again, as I've said elsewhere. $80B per year on OAS. Not open to discussion. $80B over 15-20 years on rail that will serve every generation after? Waste. Hard to see how this is "fiscally conservative" and not just entitled.

I guess if we just gave OAS to the folks in the Toronto to Montreal corridor I'd be for it.

You know, good for everyone....

 

[Altair]

Yep. People are really forgetting what happened the last time deficit became priority #1. Which given the time some people here served I would think they would intimately understand.

But again, as I've said elsewhere. $80B per year on OAS. Not open to discussion. $80B over 15-20 years on rail that will serve every generation after? Waste. Hard to see how this is "fiscally conservative" and not just entitled.

Our priorities are so messed up.

Cannot have decent infrastructure that will cost us on average 5-6b a year to get built, but we can afford 80b a year on OAS

Seems like if we want to eliminate the debt we should just implement a OAS suspension for 5 years

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yep. People are really forgetting what happened the last time deficit became priority #1. Which given the time some people here served I would think they would intimately understand.

But again, as I've said elsewhere. $80B per year on OAS. Not open to discussion. $80B over 15-20 years on rail that will serve every generation after? Waste. Hard to see how this is "fiscally conservative" and not just entitled.

We can cut defense spending, I hope we can all see where 60 years of that has gotten us.

But Canada should get what it deserves.

 

[ytz]

I guess if we just gave OAS to the folks in the Toronto to Montreal corridor I'd be for it.

You know, good for everyone....

Same logic. We cut OAS in Alberta to pay for pipelines. Cut OAS in the Maritimes and BC to pay for their ferries. Etc. I'm all for it. Not sure why you think I only care about infrastructure in my region or OAS for old people in my province.

I would actually vote for a government that offered to cut OAS. Happily. $80-100B per year could go a long way across my priorities (defence, infrastructure and deficit reduction).

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Our priorities are so messed up.

Cannot have decent infrastructure that will cost us on average 5-6b a year to get built, but we can afford 80b a year on OAS

Seems like if we warmth to eliminate the debt we should just implement a OAS suspension for 5 years

If I thought they would actually pay down the debt with it? In a heartbeat....

 

[Altair]

What a shock, STRAWMAN LIVES!!, I have no issue with proper spending on our defense but, if I were in charge, lots of unnecessary things would be gone. No loyalty to "that's the way its always been done" here.

Its simply that people who bemoan the debt don't seem to care when Canada increases the debt to fund the military.

Is it good debt then?

 

[Altair]

If I thought they would actually pay down the debt with it? In a heartbeat....

Shame Canadians would never go for it

 

[Halifax Tar]

Its simply that people who bemoan the debt don't seem to care when Canada increases the debt to fund the military.

Is it good debt then?

Perhaps Canadians have come to expect the federal Gov to provide too much.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Im loving the go with "but defense", ..oops, didn't work.
Next up,...."but OAS"...Oops, they agreed with us.
Next...?

 

[ytz]

Its simply that people who bemoan the debt don't seem to care when Canada increases the debt to fund the military.

Is it good debt then?

Or spend it on beer money for old people.

 

[ytz]

Perhaps Canadians have come to expect the federal Gov to provide too much.

Unfortunately, scope reduction is not politically feasible. But I fully agree here.

 

[Altair]

Or spend it on beer money for old people.

We all seem to agree that is bad debt.

Military debt is good debt.

Pipeline debt is good debt.

Rail debt is bad debt.

Meanwhile its all the same debt.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

We all seem to agree that is bad debt.

Military debt is good debt.

Pipeline debt is good debt.

Rail debt is bad debt.

Meanwhile its all the same debt.

Naw, I'm cool with some rail debt, put back the lines pulled up for more service that actually might pay for itself.
Im definitely down with what Ontario has done with Ontario Northland and I'm hoping it makes itself some money to expand its service since it actually benefits more then a couple cities.

Gee, ya' got me again....

 

[ytz]

Im loving the go with "but defense", ..oops, didn't work.
Next up,...."but OAS"...Oops, they agreed with us.
Next...?

This isn't a gotcha in this thread. You can search my history and see where I have discussed OAS as the biggest fiscal threat before. It's at $80B per year. Growing to $100B by 2030 (as per government estimate). It's larger than defence spending and child benefits combined. It eats up every single other priority. The Auditor General has pointed out that it's the biggest driver of the deficit. And yet people who claim to be fiscal conservatives never mention it or prioritize it last for cuts. You'll ignore a program growing $20 in annual budget over 5 years, while arguing over $80B in non-recurring capital costs over 15 years.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

It also isn't a bottomless pit, the boomers are all gone in the next 10 to 15 years.
All thise old age homes will be converted to pickleball courts.....