SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I understand that Layton has gotten {thank god} Martin to spend on some priority area. $4.6 bill if I have my figures right.
So far, thou, I have heard nothing but generalitites. This is especially true with the cities. All I've heard is money for the enviornment and that is suppose to include transit but I'm not sure.
Has anyone heard anything a bit more specific
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
$1.6-billion new affordable housing programs.
$1.5-billion given to the provinces for reductions in post-secondary tuition fees and for training programs for the unemployed.
$900-million for environmental programs and public transit;
$500-million for an increase in foreign aid; and
$100-million for a workers' pension protection fund.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
I just assumed it was for construction costs of the giant ungreased and splintered pole they were going to stick up Canada's ass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,767 Posts
Man...did they get off lucky. It's not like spending a little more on housing, education, the environment and public transit is a bad thing for anybody.

Sometimes I think we should have more minority governments...seems to do more, for more people, in a shorter period of time, than majority governments. Getting political parties to work closer together on issues aren't the worse thing in the world either.




KGB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
^^^^^^^^^^
I agree but I would rather have a minority where they can get a majority vote with just one other party instead of the juggernaut we are in. The Bloc will support very few government motions unless they have to do more with social policy...ie same-sex marriage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
Steeltown said:
$1.6-billion new affordable housing programs.
$1.5-billion given to the provinces for reductions in post-secondary tuition fees and for training programs for the unemployed.
$900-million for environmental programs and public transit;
$500-million for an increase in foreign aid; and
$100-million for a workers' pension protection fund.
THAT is friggin awesome.
 

·
expo
Joined
·
453 Posts
LooselogInThePeg said:
I just assumed it was for construction costs of the giant ungreased and splintered pole they were going to stick up Canada's ass.
Damn you are hilarious!





Evil NDP and Liberals! The Liberals compromising values to stay in power and the NDP and their "lets tax more and take money away from those evil corporations that employ people and bring in piles of money" :no:.
 

·
Edmontonian
Joined
·
710 Posts
I think that Paul Martin's minority government has done more for Canada in the few months it's been in power than Jean Chrieten has done in a decade.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
Steeltown said:
$1.5-billion given to the provinces for reductions in post-secondary tuition
Being a post secondary student I'm happy about this. My student debt is nuts. So bad I don't even bother to look at my debt statement lol.

I got the info from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114601860388_38/?hub=Canada Look near the bottom of the page to see the changes made to the budget.

The $500 million for foreign aid will bring Canada in line with the promise of 0.7 per cent of GDP. That will make Bono happy to hear.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,131 Posts
Unfortunately, even if the Libreals, NDP and Carollyn Parish vote together, the budget will still be defeated. There is not even the possibility of a tie, in which case the Speaker could make the budget pass. Martin still needs support from the Bloc. Will he make it? I certainly hope so, because these NDP initiatives are nothing short of spectacular, particularly the funds for affordable housing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,488 Posts
Steeltown said:
$1.6-billion new affordable housing programs.
$1.5-billion given to the provinces for reductions in post-secondary tuition fees and for training programs for the unemployed.
$900-million for environmental programs and public transit;
$500-million for an increase in foreign aid; and
$100-million for a workers' pension protection fund.
Not only is this a great way to spend the money, but it shows that NDP plays political opportunism smartly -- they can, at the very least, maintain their seat count, but almost certainly improve it by a healthy margin in case of an election, but they also know that:

a) this budget suits them fine
b) people don't want an election

Bloc looks pretty bad right now claiming that they will probably vote against the budget as it is not good for Quebec -- but as it should be evident from their platform, the budget should be good for Quebec by their standards.

Conservatives look about the same as they have in the past while.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
303 Posts
I actually have one probem with all of this. We are assuming that throwing more money at affordable housing is good. Maybe whats needed is more efficent use of the money they now get. Perfect example is the cost of a project here in Edmonton. Average cost per unit was 165,000. However new condo's towers in much better neighbourhoods were selling units that are larger better overall finish etc with the average at around 145,000. The value of the units that were built would only fetch 100,00 on the market. Could we not have just bought the units we needed that way instead of building them and saved money in the process and had them available for the poor in a faster timeframe. Heck what I would have done is give a rebate to the landlord and thus partially pay off part of thier rents. We would know the money went to the rents and thus the money would not be used for other uses. Thus we are not messing with the market, have people choose where they would live and not create areas with poor housing thus worse neighbourhoods in the long run. Just something to consider. Its all well and good to toss more money at it and hope it goes away, but if we are already tossing our money around and not using it effectively we have done very little and wasted tones of money in the process.

I personally would have liked all the money to go to debt repayment and then spend the intrest savings. The reason, the largest expense for the Federal government is still debt servicing and the highest debt per capita out of any government in Canada (well besides the Newfoundland provincial government) is the Federal government. We should not spend what we don't have but what we have. Just a thought what would happen if say we needed to start raising intrest rates again. We would be up the creek again. We are still not out of our fiscal mess and need much more to go to get it right. By the way anyone mention that we have the best situation of the G7 so we have it fine think again. All the G7 countries are doing a shitty job with fiscal management, and right now we are in a not as shitty a situation as the rest. But not in a good standing. I look at the $36 billion we spend annually on debt servicing and see what we could have done with that money. Say half goes to tax cuts and the other half to spending inititives. Think what could be done if we had an additional 18 billion a year to spend on priority areas and we cut every tax across the board by 10%.

Now I also hear about how a debt is like a mortgage and no sence paying off your mortgage if your roof is leaking. Well lets treat it like a mortgage and have a timetable to pay it off in 25 years. Basically lets increase our current payments from 39 billion in this budget (36 for debt servicing and 3 for the ecomonic prudence that goes to debt repayment) to 43.6 billion a year. Assuming we maintain the same intrest rates for the next 25 years, we would have paid off our debt with the money going to these spending inititives. Thus position us to actually be able to foster economic growth while funding anything we want at that point. By the way as the exonomy grows we would then have the money for either the tax cuts or spending proiorities as needed. This 4.6 billion may not sound like much to our 495 billion debt. But that money over 25 years along with the power of compunding intrest will save us a bundle.

Oh and in case any of you are wondering I have voted Liberal federally in every election I have been allowed to vote in (granted my MP David Kilgour is now an independant).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,664 Posts
Would have preferred less social spending, except for public transit, and more corporate tax cuts.

Or give the $4.6 billion back to the provinces from which it came. I just don't get so giddy on $4.6 billion on social spending, that if the liberals get total descretion on how they will spend it, will just get spent in areas to boost their own future election hopes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
SD said:
Minority governments are great. Feels like real democracy in action.
I think it's silly though that a new election can be called whenever by any of the parties involved in the coalition government. Yeah, it's democracy in action until one party does not like what's going on and democracy suddenly halts.

I wonder if it would be better to have fixed elections, that way it forces the parties to work with one another whether they like it or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,681 Posts
Instead of directly funding social housing, why not instead give tax breaks to companies who are willing to incorporate social housing into their residential developments? Or encourage NGOs (habitat for humanity, etc.) to build instead & offer grants to them....or possibly even free land.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
rt_0891 said:
Instead of directly funding social housing, why not instead give tax breaks to companies who are willing to incorporate social housing into their residential developments? Or encourage NGOs (habitat for humanity, etc.) to build instead & offer grants to them....or possibly even free land.
I hate government owned social housing. I prefer the Office of Dwelling Subisdization-approach. :)

Gotta agree with rt's approach too. Awhile back in Tampa, the company I worked for worked out an agreement with the local government to build free housing for the city in exchange for higher densities on the condominium development.

It was a win-win-win situation.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top