Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[ytz]

Absolutely. And also taxed at rates that would make Canadians riot.

And nobody in Scandinavia is arguing that social programs and services should be cut to fund defence. They have among the most generous welfare states in the world.

Low taxes, welfare state, good defence. Pick two. We choose the two former. The Scandinavians choose the two latter.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

And nobody in Scandinavia is arguing that social programs and services should be cut to fund defence. They have among the most generous welfare states in the world.

Low taxes, welfare state, good defence. Pick two. We choose the two former. The Scandinavians choose the two latter.

I would also add that the Scandinavians see a lot more value for money having higher taxes/welfare state than we do in North America.

Canada has tried to do low taxes/welfare state/poor defence for the last 60 years and its gone absolutely swimmingly...

 

[ytz]

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be investment. I'm just saying it's not really a Fed issue. The Feds, however, wish to be involved because of the great ecology hysteria and the fact that it sees them as being seen to be involved. Theoretically they should have been encouraging the provinces to do this.

No. It's the cabinet's consensus on what they imagine the people want in order to become reelected. The Feds have no problem ignoring concensus when it suits them to.

Do the Feds need "leverage?" Or is that just a way of imposing their will. There used to be a time when that leverage was used sparingly. Now there has been so much crossing into provincial matters that it has become a routine thing. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Fundamentally, you seem to have a problem with democracy. Federal politicians are doing what they are elected to do. You or I may not agree with it. But they got a democratic mandate to make those spending decisions. What's that Churchill said about democracy?

Do you really think that the taxpayer and voter get to decide how their money is spent? We've long ago lost the plot on true representative government. Spending is now controlled by isolated individuals reacting to polls, special interest group advocates and the best interest of their political party. Within that is a tiny residual consideration of what their voting faction wants and how one may influence the uncommitted. Herds do not decide on anything. They contently chew their cud and expect that the grass will keep growing, regardless.

You can say that. But at the end of the day, the general trend of priorities is going to be determined by the voting public. Not "special interests" (of which those of us here are one). You will not suddenly see massive cuts in healthcare spending because some special interest group demands it.

 

[ytz]

I would also add that the Scandinavians see a lot more value for money having higher taxes/welfare state than we do in North America.

Part of this is practice. We have degraded state capacity so much that government just can't do things anymore. So any new initiative inevitably ends up failing or coming in at an exorbitant cost, etc. But so much of that is just a learning curve. Transit construction is a good example of this. It's half the cost in a lot of Europe despite higher wages. Why? Continuously building has taught them various soft skills and management practices that keep costs low. We only build transit every two decades and then spend half a billion per kilometre of subway.