Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Political Stuff That Just Ain't Thread Worthy - Part IV
Yea, ain't subsidising companies that can't compete in the free marketplace grand? Hey, so what if they go belly up and all that taxpayer money goes *POOF* gone. It was all for a noble cause.
Those federal subsidies and crony capitalism are just great when they go to some BS environmental cause that you support. Something you don't like? **** those evil corporations!! Cut em off!
There is where you and I differ. I say cut em all off, and let the markets decide.
In the case of your beloved government pushing wind and solar on all of us. Why should we be forced to pay more for our energy, through taxes, and higher energy bills so that you can feel all good about yourself for supporting these boondoggles?
Because the market is notoriously bad at prioritizing the environment. It's an area that the government should be involved in. Why should you be "forced" to pay high energy prices? Because it's better for all of us in the long-run if the environment isn't shit away. Just because the market doesn't like solar energy right now, it doesn't mean that it's not of benefit to subsidize solar energy before it can succeed in the market (which can also vault it to becoming profitable). It's a net good. A right/left issue that we won't agree on though. The market isn't always perfect...
Ah yes, the glorious "free market" where oil companies receive massive subsidies and tax breaks.
It's also funny to see talk of free markets when the reality is so much, much more complex and goes beyond subsidies and tax breaks. We're not living in some libertarian fantasy - thankfully.
HA! I WISH! For some like myself who knows this company I can tell you that there are planely of people who should have been canned a very long time ago and yet are still working there because of the ******** politics.
My dad worked there for 30 years. It doesn't mean everybody you think should be let go will be. But they are clearly using the downturn in the economy as an excuse to clear some brush.
Hmm, we're actually not in bad shape comparatively.
A lot of those countries hold most of their debt federally and have almost no provincial or state debt like Canada or the US.
I have trouble believing the entire debt of Canada is around the 500bil number.
So for example the UK debt may be 1.2 trillion but Canada is what? 550 billion federally (I bet the number is much higher) - probably around 250 billion in Ontario, 150 billion in Quebec, 60 billion in B.C. and relatively insignificant amounts everywhere else.
That puts us as what? 65-70% of GDP? That's around the UK number (which I believe is also outdated).
I'm guessing one of the major reasons Canada is keeping its rating and its outlook is stable (aside from natural resources) is that the federal government in the 90s (and early 00s) managed to gain a fairly sizeable surplus after decades of horrible fiscal management. I'm sure the federal government and Ontario meeting their targets of debt reduction so far is also fairly reassuring.
That and the UK was running like 10% of GDP deficits whereas it was 3-5% in Canada (probably including provinces) during the height of the crisis.
Seeing as how Mr. Smith, as a state legislator, is a heavy recipient of public money, maybe we should cut him off. Bar his state-funded salary for a year and have him apply to have it reinstated next year. Same treatment as he would give the recipients of public assistance who fail their test.
