What to do with surpluses?

[Tonington]

The surpluses from 1997-2008 totaled $105 billion, and the deficits since 2008 have totaled $160 billion. So according to Finance, we should be back to surpluses next year. With that back drop, when we finally get back to surpluses, what should be done?

Infrastructure development? Health transfers? Broad educational spending? Tax cuts? An Arctic strategy? A fleet of aircraft carriers? A national savings account for rainy days like the 2008 recession? Chip away at the debt? A plan for financing an aging population? Competitive investments in R&D?

 

[Liberalman]

All the money that were cut from government programs can be put back to start

 

[JLM]

The surpluses from 1997-2008 totaled $105 billion, and the deficits since 2008 have totaled $160 billion. So according to Finance, we should be back to surpluses next year. With that back drop, when we finally get back to surpluses, what should be done?

Infrastructure development? Health transfers? Broad educational spending? Tax cuts? An Arctic strategy? A fleet of aircraft carriers? A national savings account for rainy days like the 2008 recession? Chip away at the debt? A plan for financing an aging population? Competitive investments in R&D?

"The best laid plans of mice and men"..........................-

 

[petros]

R&D...

 

[JLM]

R&D...

W.T.F. are you talking about, Petros? -

 

[Walter]

Less tax.

 

[petros]

That silly research and design crap where you put sharp young minds to work thinking up cool unique ideas that are Canadian exclusives until patents run out.

 

[JLM]

That silly research and design crap where you put sharp young minds to work thinking up cool unique ideas that are Canadian exclusives until patents run out.

Now you are starting to make sense, Petros, you mean young "whiz kids" whose total knowledge comes out of a book and they figure they have the world by the A$$ on a down hill pull. (You should have said that in the first place. -)

 

[Tonington]

"The best laid plans of mice and men"..........................-

So maybe I should ask the CC women instead of asking all the community :lol:

 

[petros]

Now you are starting to make sense, Petros, you mean young "whiz kids" whose total knowledge comes out of a book and they figure they have the world by the A$$ on a down hill pull. (You should have said that in the first place. -)

I remember this guy who got his BSc back in 91 who know how the fancy schmancy digital crap worked and had to teach the slide rulers types how to find their *** with both hands. He made a good name for himself helping to fine tune the Canadian designed and made by bookworms and geeks who got off writing 100,000 lines of code while watching a Fawlty towers marathon.

Now he's semiretired works about 10 weeks a year gambling on the weather.

 

[Tonington]

Now you are starting to make sense, Petros, you mean young "whiz kids" whose total knowledge comes out of a book and they figure they have the world by the A$$ on a down hill pull. (You should have said that in the first place. -)

The Human Genome project is a good example. Estimates have ranged between $65-178 to the US economy for every $1 invested. Even at the low end, that's a fantastic return.

 

[JLM]

The Human Genome project is a good example. Estimates have ranged between $65-178 to the US economy for every $1 invested. Even at the low end, that's a fantastic return.

Be interesting to see where that stuff will eventually lead. We could die of nothing at a very old age!

 

[petros]

Whiz kids have been handed some decent funding recently to develope new UG99 resistant wheat cultivars.

Be interesting to see where that stuff will eventually lead. We could die of nothing at a very old age!

Nanotech from UofA Edmonton nerds might be able to identify and kill cancers cells in the very near future.

 

[Tonington]

Be interesting to see where that stuff will eventually lead. We could die of nothing at a very old age!

Yes, that's a possibility. It's already allowed researchers to focus on specific gene targets for things like oncology research. For the curious, my avatar is actually the first sequenced genome of a living organism. Craig Venter's team published the work in 1995. Since then a number of organisms have been sequenced.

 

[Walter]

Less tax.

 

[JLM]

Yes, that's a possibility. It's already allowed researchers to focus on specific gene targets for things like oncology research. For the curious, my avatar is actually the first sequenced genome of a living organism. Craig Venter's team published the work in 1995. Since then a number of organisms have been sequenced.

I think you are going to see advancements happen fairly quickly now. I'd guess technology is probably accelerating by three fold every ten years now.

 

[Sal]

The surpluses from 1997-2008 totaled $105 billion, and the deficits since 2008 have totaled $160 billion. So according to Finance, we should be back to surpluses next year. With that back drop, when we finally get back to surpluses, what should be done?

Infrastructure development? Health transfers? Broad educational spending? Tax cuts? An Arctic strategy? A fleet of aircraft carriers? A national savings account for rainy days like the 2008 recession? Chip away at the debt? A plan for financing an aging population? Competitive investments in R&D?

yes:glasses9:

 

[JLM]

Three things - 1. Pay down debt, 2. Pay down debt, 3. pay down debt. Then take the money saved in interest payments and put it toward social programs like healthcare and housing for the destitute.

 

[Cannuck]

The infrastructure deficit will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Walter's ideas, while attractive to some, are overly simplistic.

 

[JLM]

W.T.F. are you talking about, Petros? -

I have a suggestion for you Cannuck (Dweeb), when you "red neg" something, suggest an alternative that makes more sense, otherwise uninformed readers might get the misguided opinion that you are an IDIOT.