Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Titan2

He also spoke at the Canada Strong and Free annual conference. This is not an open mic night. Generally, like-minded people with influential ideas in favour of their party are the ones invited to speak.

Congratulations, you've caught up to the event that spurred this discussion.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Cuts are 100% necessary if we're going to take our own sovereignty, both economic & security, seriously given the new world order where the US is as much an advisory as friend. We need to free up tens of billions of dollars annually to push through critical economic infrastructure and expand our military capabilities.

What's this WE #### Mr. Chicago? Kidding, good to see the maple syrup still runs through your veins.

Also, advisory should be adversary.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Congratulations, you've caught up to the event that spurred this discussion.

Being a snarky #### because the people you support are saying they want to do heinous #### out loud and you want to pretend it isn't that bad isn't a good look.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Congratulations, you've caught up to the event that spurred this discussion.

Ooh. Burn. (Internal debate on explaining the point or moving on with my life... Debate over.)

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Titan2

What's this WE #### Mr. Chicago? Kidding, good to see the maple syrup still runs through your veins.

Also, advisory should be adversary.

Fixed

I'm a Canadian citizen who resides in both countries but works in the US. I am eligible to vote in the Federal election and will be voting.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm a Canadian citizen who resides in both countries but works in the US. I am eligible to vote in the Federal election and will be voting.

Well ####.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well ####.

At worst my vote can only cancel yours out. But for this election it might be cast in the same direction as yours.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Fixed

I'm a Canadian citizen who resides in both countries but works in the US. I am eligible to vote in the Federal election and will be voting.

Okay, fine. I thought you went over lock, stock, and barrel to the siren call of U.S. capitalism. It's good to hear that it's not the case.

Quick test, how do you feel about sending people to El Salvadoran prisons without being charged or found guilty?

[Drak]

Trumper voting for a Canadian Trump. What a shock.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Okay, fine. I thought you went over lock, stock, and barrel to the siren call of U.S. capitalism. It's good to hear that it's not the case.

Quick test, how do you feel about sending people to El Salvadoran prisons without being charged or found guilty?

It's more than disturbing to see that happen, the absence of due process, and the challenge to the separation of powers of the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive branch of government in this administration. My hope is the tariffs are enough of a ####show that enough house republicans cleave away from Maga and reclaim congresses power to bridge us over to the midterms when the Democrats will make gains and take over control of the senate and the house.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Feel free to do whatever interesting math you want but

https://markcarney.ca/spend-less-invest-more

But we're talking about the civil service, not overall spending. Obviously when you start subsidizing daycare, provide dental care to low income seniors, increase child benefits, have a growing senior population that receives generous OAS benefits, etc. then spending will rise. But spending on government staffing and operations is near historical lows relative to the size of the economy.

As for Carney, like any politician in a campaign, he's promising the moon and he won't be able to deliver on it. The idea that we can significantly reduce federal government spending without touching the things he says won't be affected (OAS, healthcare, child benefits, dental care, etc.) isn't really realistic. Everyone campaigns on finding efficiencies to do all the heavy lifting for their promises, but it never materializes.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But we're talking about the civil service, not overall spending. Obviously when you start subsidizing daycare, provide dental care to low income seniors, increase child benefits, have a growing senior population that receives generous OAS benefits, etc. then spending will rise. But spending on government staffing and operations is near historical lows relative to the size of the economy.

As for Carney, like any politician in a campaign, he's promising the moon and he won't be able to deliver on it. The idea that we can significantly reduce federal government spending without touching the things he says won't be affected (OAS, healthcare, child benefits, dental care, etc.) isn't really realistic. Everyone campaigns on finding efficiencies to do all the heavy lifting for their promises, but it never materializes.

Yeah. In the most recent estimates for this fiscal year

https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-bo...estimates.html

Transfers (which he promised not to touch) and interest on debt (which they're obligated to pay) come to 73% of budgetary spending.

Hard to see where new money for the investments he's also planning is going to come from. That same policy doc posted above says we need $60 billion more in carbon reduction spending and a bunch of other stuff as well.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But we're talking about the civil service, not overall spending. Obviously when you start subsidizing daycare, provide dental care to low income seniors, increase child benefits, have a growing senior population that receives generous OAS benefits, etc. then spending will rise. But spending on government staffing and operations is near historical lows relative to the size of the economy.

As for Carney, like any politician in a campaign, he's promising the moon and he won't be able to deliver on it. The idea that we can significantly reduce federal government spending without touching the things he says won't be affected (OAS, healthcare, child benefits, dental care, etc.) isn't really realistic. Everyone campaigns on finding efficiencies to do all the heavy lifting for their promises, but it never materializes.

You might be able to realize efficiencies, or at least reduce bureaucracy, by folding some of those programs (OAS, UI, child benefits, disability credits, etc.) into a broader UBI program.

[Johnny Makarov]

Ms. Polliever invests in Brookfield....

Holy effcakes! she is the Deputy Leader of the Cons? Talk about bottom of the barrel politicians they have! hahahahaha

Multiple Conservative MPs personally invested in Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s former company, a business their party has spent weeks attacking in the lead-up to this month’s election, according to an IJF analysis.

Disclosure reports filed to the Office of the Conflict of Interest show that seven Conservative MPs, including deputy leader Melissa Lantsman and two former shadow ministers, disclosed owning stock in investment firm Brookfield Asset Management and related companies since 2024.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by opendoor

But we're talking about the civil service, not overall spending. Obviously when you start subsidizing daycare, provide dental care to low income seniors, increase child benefits, have a growing senior population that receives generous OAS benefits, etc. then spending will rise. But spending on government staffing and operations is near historical lows relative to the size of the economy.

As for Carney, like any politician in a campaign, he's promising the moon and he won't be able to deliver on it. The idea that we can significantly reduce federal government spending without touching the things he says won't be affected (OAS, healthcare, child benefits, dental care, etc.) isn't really realistic. Everyone campaigns on finding efficiencies to do all the heavy lifting for their promises, but it never materializes.

Lets take a look at the PBO Personnel Expenditure Analysis tool: https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/research--...fonctionnement

Looks like total government operating expenditure increased from about ~$60M in FY2015 to ~$150M in FY2023. There was a 29% increase in full-time equivalent employees in that timeframe.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I believe part of the problem is the massively expanded use of contractors and consultants amounting to spending in the order of $ 20. billion every year for work that could have been done internally. I think this sort of thing could be corrected fairly quickly.

I agree both Liberals and Conservatives recognize that a certain amount of trimming in government should take place. But saying this in a reasonable and constructive manner does not give the circle jerkers here the chance to make PP look like Trump.

Are you calling people here at Calgary puck circle jerkers or does here mean here as in the article in question and refer to former Harper staffer asthe circle jerker?

It’s unclear which of the two you are complaining about comparing PP to Trump rather than talking about actually things they plan to cut.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Lets take a look at the PBO Personnel Expenditure Analysis tool: https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/research--...fonctionnement

Looks like total government operating expenditure increased from about ~$60M in FY2015 to ~$150M in FY2023. There was a 29% increase in full-time equivalent employees in that timeframe.

You should read what he’s actually saying before you try to respond.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You should read what he’s actually saying before you try to respond.

Total government operating expenditure according the PBO Personnel Expenditure Analysis tool increased from about ~$60M in FY2015 to ~$150M in FY2023. This is roughly 150% growth. Has the economy grown by 150% in that timeframe?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Total government operating expenditure according the PBO Personnel Expenditure Analysis tool increased from about ~$60M in FY2015 to ~$150M in FY2023. This is roughly 150% growth. Has the economy grown by 150% in that timeframe?

Did you look at the second chart? Did you think maybe something was out of wack in 2023 with "Other Subsidies and Payments" and perhaps investigating the data may have saved you the embarrassment of seeing these 2 charts?

Spoiler!

I'm going to assume those are settlement payments booked in 2023, but you, know, they could be anything.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Did you look at the second chart? Did you think maybe something was out of wack in 2023 with "Other Subsidies and Payments" and perhaps investigating the data may have saved you the embarrassment of seeing these 2 charts?

Spoiler!

I'm going to assume those are settlement payments booked in 2023, but you, know, they could be anything.

Remove "other subsidies and payments" and the growth of the other three categories is still around 70%. Just looking at the personnel category which is salaries and benefits it is a 65%.