What government cuts wouldn't hurt the destitute?


White_Unifier
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
Many hold the false belief that any reductions to government spending would automatically hurt the destitute when in fact some cuts to government spending would not hurt the destitute at all and might even benefit them?

What cuts to government spending can you identify that the destitute would probably not even notice or, if they did notice it, would probably applaud it?
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
+1
#2
kill the war machine
 
White_Unifier
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by DanbonesView Post

kill the war machine

You know, an international police force of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men is all Canada would need to defend its borders. Many states could pitch in to fund it and it would be more than adequate to protect the borders of a number of states.

Beyond that, legalize ownership of automatic assault rifles (within specified rules and with some exceptions of course) and have children learn simplified tai chi chuan in PE class) with more able kids learning a more traditional martial art.

Remember, we'd still have the RCMP as our national police force as a back up. Just make sure it can maintain a professional counter-terrorism unit, and that would be all Canada would need to defend itself adequately.

What we have right now is overkill.
 
Said1
Free Thinker
+1
#4
Since federal funding has more like a trickle down effect with it depends on where the provincial and municipal govs cut funding. Federal funding cuts also come in the form of policy changes that target specific groups, which is probably worse.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#5
@WU
the swiss seem to be doing fine with everyone owning an auto and getting some range time in
its our bush

we know it best
 
White_Unifier
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by DanbonesView Post

@WU
the swiss seem to be doing fine with everyone owning an auto and getting some range time in
its our bush

we know it best

The Swiss weapons are government-funded though. I was thinking more along the lines of let him who wants to buy one buy one.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
+1
#7
lol
if I am just defending me I'll pay
but if I have to defend politicians and their gurl frendz
I wanna freebie!
 
petros
#8
Carbon tax.
 
Ludlow
No Party Affiliation
+1
#9
Soylent green. Turn all the bums into food.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by White_UnifierView Post

You know, an international police force of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men is all Canada would need to defend its borders. Many states could pitch in to fund it and it would be more than adequate to protect the borders of a number of states.

Beyond that, legalize ownership of automatic assault rifles (within specified rules and with some exceptions of course) and have children learn simplified tai chi chuan in PE class) with more able kids learning a more traditional martial art.

Remember, we'd still have the RCMP as our national police force as a back up. Just make sure it can maintain a professional counter-terrorism unit, and that would be all Canada would need to defend itself adequately.

What we have right now is overkill.

UH, overkill? We barely have 100,000 military members and that's including regulars and militia. We have a navy that couldn't even secure the Great Lakes, let alone our coasts. Our air force is puny and the army finally got some more real tanks.
In 2016, Canada spent a whopping 1.02% of it's GDP on defence, up from 0.98% the year before. That's dick, dude. To put it in some perspective, Canada budgeted $20.3 billion for defence spending in 2016. The Toronto Police budget for 2016 topped $1 billion.
 
DaSleeper
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by White_UnifierView Post

Many hold the false belief that any reductions to government spending would automatically hurt the destitute when in fact some cuts to government spending would not hurt the destitute at all and might even benefit them?

What cuts to government spending can you identify that the destitute would probably not even notice or, if they did notice it, would probably applaud it?

E Tu French Patriot?
 
JamesBondo
#12
Cutting the spending on JT's mansion would hurt the destitute. Surely we can all agree on that one.
 
tay
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by White_UnifierView Post

Many hold the false belief that any reductions to government spending would automatically hurt the destitute when in fact some cuts to government spending would not hurt the destitute at all and might even benefit them?

What cuts to government spending can you identify that the destitute would probably not even notice or, if they did notice it, would probably applaud it?

By destitute do you mean those who are physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves?

I think the program that gives money to Bombardier would be the first one that I would cut and it would not hurt the destitute......
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by White_UnifierView Post

You know, an international police force of a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men is all Canada would need to defend its borders. Many states could pitch in to fund it and it would be more than adequate to protect the borders of a number of states.

Beyond that, legalize ownership of automatic assault rifles (within specified rules and with some exceptions of course) and have children learn simplified tai chi chuan in PE class) with more able kids learning a more traditional martial art.

Remember, we'd still have the RCMP as our national police force as a back up. Just make sure it can maintain a professional counter-terrorism unit, and that would be all Canada would need to defend itself adequately.

What we have right now is overkill.

Please do your homework. What we have now has been cut back so many times over the last five decades that it barely functions as an armed force, anymore. We deployed just a couple of thousand troops to Afghanistan in rotation and it stretched the Armed Forces to the breaking.

What we have done is turn our security over to a foreign power. As long as our requirements coincide with that of the Americans it is not problematic but we quietly handed over our sovereignty to them in the process. Grown-up countries defend their own territory. Colonies have someone else do it for them. We were able to defend ourselves for a brief two decades after WW II, then we surrendered to another Colonial power...

...'cause it was the cheap route.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondoView Post

Cutting the spending on JT's mansion would hurt the destitute. Surely we can all agree on that one.

sure, starve the dry wallers


Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

Please do your homework. What we have now has been cut back so many times over the last five decades that it barely functions as an armed force, anymore. We deployed just a couple of thousand troops to Afghanistan in rotation and it stretched the Armed Forces to the breaking.

What we have done is turn our security over to a foreign power. As long as our requirements coincide with that of the Americans it is not problematic but we quietly handed over our sovereignty to them in the process. Grown-up countries defend their own territory. Colonies have someone else do it for them. We were able to defend ourselves for a brief two decades after WW II, then we surrendered to another Colonial power...

...'cause it was the cheap route.

No, it was because the jtf-2 scare the crap out of the other guys in the field and they didn't want both AVROs and a jtf-3 and -4 next door...
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by DanbonesView Post

sure, starve the dry wallers




No, it was because the jtf-2 scare the crap out of the other guys in the field and they didn't want both AVROs and a jtf-3 and -4 next door...

That's an old story. I remember an exercise back in the 1970's between some US Marines and the Van Doos that had to be cut short because our pongos were literally beating the Marines into hospital beds.
 
no new posts