Federal Budget 2016: $29B Deficit

[Resolute 14]

It seems - whether you realize it or not, Matty - that you are also arguing that mankind needs to cease advancing technologically.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It seems - whether you realize it or not, Matty - that you are also arguing that mankind needs to cease advancing technologically.

From what I gather, Matty is arguing that we need to evolve beyond capitalism we all know and love.

How on earth are you suggesting his argument is that humans need to cease advancing technologically, unless you're somehow arguing that technological advancement is the domain of capitalism at which point I'll have to give one of my guffaws usually reserved for peter12 and exit this thread a little lighter in my step.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It seems - whether you realize it or not, Matty - that you are also arguing that mankind needs to cease advancing technologically.

I don't think that's true.

I do think that there can and should be a re-tread to localized food production, because we can create any growth environment we want indoors.

We don't need money to advance our civilization, we need resources. And the only reason those things equate is that we created money to represent our resources. And in some cases, money actually prevents from reaching resources (as we see now, we wait for alternative energy to become profitable before we use it, vs just waiting for the technology to exist and using it). What happens when we can just download and print anything we want? Think about the entertainment industry and the hit it has taken with illegal downloading. What happens when you can do that for almost all physical products? You can argue that the 'ink' has to come from somewhere, but where are people getting money from if almost anything can be had for free? I think this type of stuff is worth thinking about.

There are things that would need to happen that scare people. A global government. A group that decides what the best allocation of resources is depending on what humanities needs are. Those people can be democratically elected, but yes, it would very much resemble something like communism (OH NO!). Communism and what happened in the Soviet Union are not the same thing in theory. In order for something like communism to work it would require full global participation, and people that can be trusted to act altruistically in positions of power. Those things are pretty far-fetched, so someone like me is likely doomed to just begrudgingly participate in our system until it actually implodes on itself. And I'm not necessarily saying these things are good or bad, just that I think it's where we are headed and that we should be trying to adjust for these possibilities rather than just waiting for it to happen and going "oh crap!"

And again I've bogged this thread down in my personal theories, which I didn't intend. None of this really has much to do with the 2016 Canadian Federal budget. But I do find the conversation very interesting, as long as people have more to offer than "well that's bizarre". Thanks, I know that. Doesn't mean it's not possible. Things like wireless communication and refrigerators were once called bizarre too.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

So although you agree that Capitalism has been so hugely successful in changing the scope of living conditions that a 50 or 100 year comparison to our past is completely useless, you think it's time to be done with it?

Totally bizarre.

To be fair, a lot of these arguments are disregarding the impact that socialism has had on tempering capitalistic exploitation and providing a social safety net that rapidly improved the lifestyles of the impoverished. Not to mention the labour movement which was primarily responsible for the creation of the middle class.

[Resolute 14]

Utopian communism is straight out of the fantasy universe Star Trek created, and it is, unfortunately, completely counter to human nature. We're programmed to want to get ahead and that is why idealism is usually trounced by realism.

And as to my comment on your unwitting argument about needing to cease advancing technologically, I argue that on the lament about how advances are causing jobs to disappear. If technology makes more jobs obsolete than it creates, that is going to create problems whether you live in a perfectly capitalist or perfectly communist society.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I do think that there can and should be a re-tread to localized food production, because we can create any growth environment we want indoors.

You can do that, if you have unlimited local energy for light and heat... And unlimited local supplies of water... And unlimited local supplies of nutrients... And unlimited local labour to grow and harvest the food.

So what I'm saying is, you might as well just run it on unicorn farts.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Utopian communism is straight out of the fantasy universe Star Trek created, and it is, unfortunately, completely counter to human nature. We're programmed to want to get ahead and that is why idealism is usually trounced by realism.

Then join Starfleet. Durr.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Utopian communism is straight out of the fantasy universe Star Trek created, and it is, unfortunately, completely counter to human nature. We're programmed to want to get ahead and that is why idealism is usually trounced by realism.

If we're going Star Trek or Ayn Rand, I know what I'm choosing.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Probably not the best thread for it but still sort of relevant, Brett Wilson confirmed on Facebook this morning that he's running for office.

Unless this is an April Fools joke, in which case . . . . I suck lol

Looks like April Fools....

W. Brett Wilson I meant I am running to my office

[stampsx2]

Trudeau spends $2000 on a trip to the toronto area while Harper spent $0 to st. petersburg.

Interesting graph at the bottom of this link in travel expenses.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2621770/tr...nt-petersburg/

[Coach]

It says Harper's numbers "weren't reported" and that's why there's a zero.

Either way, F right off Trudeau.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Trudeau spends $2000 on a trip to the toronto area while Harper spent $0 to st. petersburg.

Interesting graph at the bottom of this link in travel expenses.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2621770/tr...nt-petersburg/

I dont know what to say about that. $2K in Toronto seems a bit steep but not outrageously so.

If anything I'd say that comparing it to Harper spending $0 to go to Russia concerns me. Its expensive to get to Russia. Did he not expense it? Was the accounting poorly done? Did he pay for it himself? That might be personal prerogative.

But I would imagine that a politician would expense a trip to Russia when he goes on Government business.

Why wouldnt it have been disclosed? Its not like he was renting the Czar's summer palace or anything.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know what to say about that. $2K in Toronto seems a bit steep but not outrageously so.

If anything I'd say that comparing it to Harper spending $0 to go to Russia concerns me. Its expensive to get to Russia. Did he not expense it? Was the accounting poorly done? Did he pay for it himself? That might be personal prerogative.

But I would imagine that a politician would expense a trip to Russia when he goes on Government business.

Why wouldnt it have been disclosed? Its not like he was renting the Czar's summer palace or anything.

Yeah, it is weird that there is a bunch of "not reported" in Harper's numbers. Also, the end of the article says Trudeaus trip was for TO and Quebec City.

Speculation is that the difference may be due to Trudeau bringing his family along on everything. Which is ridiculous. Your wife? Maybe. There's no need to drag your whole family around on your PM trips. Especially with all that child care $$.

[stampsx2]

Let's not forget taxpayers also pay for trudeau's nannies.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...es-report.html

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know what to say about that. $2K in Toronto seems a bit steep but not outrageously so.

If anything I'd say that comparing it to Harper spending $0 to go to Russia concerns me. Its expensive to get to Russia. Did he not expense it? Was the accounting poorly done? Did he pay for it himself? That might be personal prerogative.

But I would imagine that a politician would expense a trip to Russia when he goes on Government business.

Why wouldnt it have been disclosed? Its not like he was renting the Czar's summer palace or anything.

The outlining story though is that Junior is spending considerably more taxpayer money on his travels than Harper ever did. I don't know if that's him taking advantage though as Junior was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and is simply travelling the way he has also been accustomed to. He was raised by nannies and had nannies to raise his kids before becoming PM so why not follow tradition and use his newfound position to be able to expense it to taxpayer dime? He's simply never lived like the peasants that he hoodwinked into voting for him and probably doesn't realize there are less expensive ways to travel. No point in complaining as Canadians wanted a spoiled, rich kid to run the country and that's exactly what they are getting.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Let's not forget taxpayers also pay for trudeau's nannies.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2...es-report.html

Or my personal favorite:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...rive-1.3285314

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Or my personal favorite:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-br...rive-1.3285314

didn't the Canadian Taxpayers Federation endorse this move by Trudeau?

[CaptainCrunch]

If its going to cost $10 million bucks to fix it, maybe its time to level the old place and build something new for half the dollars.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If its going to cost $10 million bucks to fix it, maybe its time to level the old place and build something new for half the dollars.

Fair point, but how much would a new building cost with whatever security features they are installing?

Is there a heritage aspect to this building? Is it worth the difference?

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

didn't the Canadian Taxpayers Federation endorse this move by Trudeau?

They whine about anything and everything usually.

Not sure about that one to be honest.

But it does support his drive to increase infrastructure spending. So there's that.

Harper lived in that residence for many years after the report stating the renovations required. He managed to get by without demanding a $10MM renovation.

Trudeau likes to spend money. Especially money that isn't his.