What to do with surpluses?


Tonington
#1
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
#2
All the money that were cut from government programs can be put back to start
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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
#4
R&D...
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
-1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

R&D...

W.T.F. are you talking about, Petros? -
 
Walter
#6
Less tax.
 
petros
#7
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
No Party Affiliation
-1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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
+4
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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

So maybe I should ask the CC women instead of asking all the community
 
petros
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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
No Party Affiliation
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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
#13
Whiz kids have been handed some decent funding recently to develope new UG99 resistant wheat cultivars.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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
#15
Less tax.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+3
#18
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
No Party Affiliation
+4 / -1
#19
The infrastructure deficit will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Walter's ideas, while attractive to some, are overly simplistic.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
-2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

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.

"Could you elaborate Petros. I don't know what R&D is" would be a good alternative
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+4
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

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?

Eliminate the debt in it's entirety
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+2 / -1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Eliminate the debt in it's entirety

That's not realistic. It should be a goal but either taxes would have to go way up to do it reasonably quickly or it would take too long. There will be other pressing issues that will have to be dealt with. Like Walter, your idea is too simplistic
 
grumpydigger
+3
#24
as far as surpluses go . We're coming up to another federal election and Harpo is scared of Trudeau and the NDP.

so I see this talke of a surplus , is merely a vote buying ploy to try to regain a majority government.

And a way to try to deflect from the scandals.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+3
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

That's not realistic. It should be a goal but either taxes would have to go way up to do it reasonably quickly or it would take too long. There will be other pressing issues that will have to be dealt with. Like Walter, your idea is too simplistic

It's not a short term achievement by any means. However, application of surplus cash towards that debt has a positive and compunding effect.

Less debt translates into less interest and over time, that results in tax relief, capacity to expand gvt services (as necessary), etc.

Not recognizing the debt component is no different than living on borrowed time
 
El Barto
+5
#26  Top Rated Post
PAY the Debt !!!!!
less money we pay out for interest , keep paying it till there is no more!
It is that simple. Then pass a law to not get in debt for social programs, that was the most irresponsible spending anyone can do.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

It's not a short term achievement by any means. However, application of surplus cash towards that debt has a positive and compunding effect.

I don't disagree. I'm saying that the focus can not be on debt reduction at the expense of other more pressing issues
 
El Barto
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by grumpydiggerView Post

as far as surpluses go . We're coming up to another federal election and Harpo is scared of Trudeau and the NDP.

so I see this talke of a surplus , is merely a vote buying ploy to try to regain a majority government.

And a way to try to deflect from the scandals.

Harper is not a fiscal Conservative, his government failed miserably when it comes to money and how things cost versus the real cost.... F 35 prime example.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by El BartoView Post

Harper is not a fiscal Conservative, his government failed miserably when it comes to money and how things cost versus the real cost.... F 35 prime example.

Paul Martin was a better conservative than Harper. Harpers a better social conservative
 
El Barto
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Paul Martin was a better conservative than Harper. Harpers a better social conservative

Maybe so but he also stole from the IU coffers, which is not the governments money btw.
 
no new posts