- Reaction score
- 4,318
- Points
- 1,160
A useful infographic (sourced from the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, David Christopherson is chair) that shows how much of our national expenditures goes towards defence:
E.R. Campbell said:I agree with you, but nothing sickened me more than a general, the CDS in fact, going on TV to lie and blame his own people for the fact that the prime minister of the day didn't want to interrupt a vacation with his grandchildren to attend the funeral of a respected international leader ... that was in 1999.
It's one thing to know that there is political civilian oversight/control of the military, but you & OGBD have hit the nail on the head re: using the military in PARTISAN political ways - no matter what colour the gov't of the day is.E.R. Campbell said:I know I'm repeating myself, but a major political (highly partisan political) component has been a feature of our defence production/procurement system for nearly 500 years.
And the Minister's "child soldiers" would have over-ruled you by making your boss, or your boss's boss, or your boss's boss's boss overrule you, I'm afraid ....Oldgateboatdriver said:Had I been the senior officer there, I would have halted the thing before it starts - reminded the minister that we are not his toys and these people have work to do; told the minister to hire actors at his own cost if he wanted background, but that they better not put a uniform on or else I'll have them arrested for impersonating.
E.R. Campbell said:And that, as much, perhaps more than anything else, opened to the door to be CF being made into a partisan political prop. As is so often the case we have only ourselves to blame for all this.
That pie chart is a piece of crap created by the government.E.R. Campbell said:A useful infographic (sourced from the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, David Christopherson is chair) that shows how much of our national expenditures goes towards defence:
In fact, it appears the EI kitty's helped lead to the government's current numbers.E.R. Campbell said:Although the government is no longer responsible for funding the EI, it is still on the hook for any deficits (and can take any surpluses as revenue). I don't have immediate access to the number post 2008 (too lazy to look, to be honest) but I would be surprised if contributions (from employers and employees) have been sufficient to cover payouts since the Great Depression began. But, :dunno:
milnews.ca said:In fact, it appears the EI kitty's helped lead to the government's current numbers.
Is taking money out of a pot filled by workers & companies a "cost" to the government in the same way as transfer payments & the CAF are "costs"? Discuss.
I agree completely with this statement.recceguy said:IMHO, money collected for a program, should only be used for that program (to pay out to contributors and fund the administration of it).
If there becomes a surplus, outside a buffer amount, contributions should be lowered or cancelled until required.
X Royal said:I agree completely with this statement.
The problem with the EI fund is the government has been cutting down the benefits paid out to create a larger surplus they can raid.
E.R. Campbell the EI system has not been a drag on the taxpayers as you tend to believe. Actually it been the opposite.
That pie chart only goes to show how the government manipulates figures to their benefit as it suits them.
I think you put them there your self.E.R. Campbell said:Please don't put words in my mouth.
Yes you implied that in your belief the tax payers have been funding the IE system.E.R. Campbell said:(too lazy to look, to be honest) but I would be surprised if contributions (from employers and employees) have been sufficient to cover payouts since the Great Depression began. But, :dunno:
E.R. Campbell said:I am not unhappy with the government being on the hook for deficits in the EI funding, when times are tough, but that also means, it seems to me, that governments should be able to tap surpluses when they are over some predetermined level.
recceguy said:I disagree. The only surplus that should be in EI is a buffer for when things go pear shaped and then only enough until they can increase contributions to fund everyone entitled.
X Royal said:E.R. Campbell as a further to your statement the Great Depression ran from 1929/30 until the start of WW2 in 1939.
The Unemployment Insurance Act was first proclaimed in 1940.
So by your guess it never funded itself. :
X Royal said:That pie chart is a piece of crap created by the government.
The Employment Insurance Benefits account for 6% of your taxes?
I call complete BS on this figure.
The fund for this is funded by contributions from both the employees and employers. In fact the federal government has been siphoning off of this fund for years. Tax dollars don't pay for this.
If they have misrepresented 6% what other figures are incorrect.
E.R. Campbell said:I'm fairly sure[/color] that accountants (I'm not one) would agree that this, having EI "in" the public accounts, is better for transparency.