centre of the universe - the dreaming: Money

10/14/2004: "Money" I know what you're going to say. You're going to say that it's not right what the government is doing because they should have been able to predict we'd have this much extra money, and they should have told us that in the first place and at the very least they should have told us during the election that they were going to spend surplus money on paying down the national debt.

There are groups saying the money should go to ranchers and farmers, to social programs, to free national daycare, to tax rebates for Canadians to decide what they want to do with their own money, to the military, to the health care system, to the education system. Those are all great ideas, I'm sure.

When I was a student and a recent post-graduate, I paid my debt first, my bills second, and the rest went to wine, women, and song. Or at least wine. Um. And song. Uh, okay, and women.

Our national debt is over five hundred BILLION dollars. Five Hundred Billion. That's a lot of zeroes. I can't conceive of that much of *anything*. I doubt we'll ever pay off our national debt. But can you imagine what we could do if we *did*? Once you're debt free, you can start saving money to buy flashy sports cars, or a lifetime supply of silly putty. Or an endless current pool. You can send ALL of the children to university. You could probably even afford to keep more than one baseball team in the country, if you wanted to. You could even......reduce taxes.

And just what are we spending our money on? I am the first one to admit I know very little about federal politics and even less about federal finances. I'm horrible at arithmetic and probably could very easily get a jorb working for the federal finance budgeting department. But how do we spend FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!!?? Is this money we owe other countries? Money we owe to advertising companies?

What, are we buying truckloads of little expandable bamboo umbrellas for exotic drinks? They make those in Taiwan or something to that effect, and I think they cost about a buck for a bag of a dozen. Maybe we've invested millions in "Buy Canadian" sweatsocks made in Guam. Grain from China. Money from Lichtenstein. French underpants for every man, woman, and MP in the country. GIANT BALLS OF TWINE!!!!

And, if you'll pardon my forwardness, what the hell is the military thinking, buying submarines from England? Don't they know that the Brits have been a little upset with the colonists ever since King George III? OF COURSE THE SUBS DON'T WORK. We wouldn't want all the little Canadians firing ballistic weapons off the West coast of England at the Queen, now, would we? Shouldn't the Canadian military have been a *little* suspicious when the subs didn't come with a guarantee, a service agreement, and a lifetime warranty on all parts (5 years or 50,000 knots)? Didn't they see the 60cm high letters on the side of the bloody things that say "DO NOT IMMERSE IN WATER"!!??

What the hell does Canada need submarines FOR, anyway? Playing war games with the Yanks? Hanging out in the St. Laurent Seaway selling cigarettes and cheap prescription drugs? Sneaking around Gaspe Bay watching mollusks? The helicopters I understand. We need helicopters. We have lots of uses for helicopters. Like saving people whose submarines have gone on the fritz, for example. And if there *is* something we'd need submarines for, don't you think we'd need more than HALF A DOZEN!!??

"Gee, I'd really like to come and help do something about all those Italian fishing trawlers fishing illegally in Canadian waters, but our Submarines are off of Cape Cod playing "monkey in the middle" with some American ships."

If it's a question of national security, I'd like to know who we're securing ourselves against. If the Yanks really wanted to invade Canada, all they'd have to do is basically walk. I doubt the Australians are going to take up arms against us - we share each other's beer.

I am firmly convinced that the only reason we bought the damned things is because our prime minister still plays with submarine toys in the bath. And probably when in office, too, for that matter. That's what REALLY goes on at 24 Sussex Drive.

Hey *I* know. Let's settle this softwood lumber thing with the Yanks once and for all. We'll tell them they can have all the lumber they want; we'll just ship it via the HMCS Justshootame. Better yet, we can tell the Federal Government they can have all the tax dollars they want; we'll just send all of our returns to folks stationed on formerly British submarines.

Oh, *I* know. We spent several billion dollars on three cans of paint a few years ago, didn't we? Or was that millions? Because everyone needs a painting that Jeff Healey could have done, with or without his guitar. Never mind the thousands and thousands of artists in Canada who work their asses off at crappy minimum-wage paying jobs so they can afford to eat oriental noodles (just $.37 for three packs) and live in substandard housing while trying to create their art, write their novels, play the next gig, or audition for the next show. Yes, it's important to show that we appreciate the arts, but couldn't the government have bought a *print* of "Fire" for, say, $50,000 and spent the rest on arts grants?

Couldn't the government have had someone INSPECT the submarines to see if they worked? I can't buy a car in Alberta and bring it back to Saskatchewan without getting an SGI inspection; where the hell was that little troglodyte who looked over my Tercel with a fine-toothed comb when we were shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars for them. That miserable little man noted every speck of dust, every scratch, every loose hose on that car, and just kept walking around and around it saying "hmmmm....ooohhhh....mmmmm." What'd our government do with the subs? "Oh, just send us a three-line pencil sketch; I'm sure they're fine."

And it's not like we've had good *luck* with submarines: Not according to CBC, anyway.

DOES ANY OF THIS MAKE SENSE TO YOU!!???

Dear Canadian Government,

I support your decision to pay down the national debt with the surplus you have discovered in the Canadian Federal Government's budget. In the future, please ensure that nobody with signing authority has access to the Sears catalogue, Wireless, Lee Valley Tools magazine, or eBay. I'm sure you remember the program "Live it Up"? It used to run on CTV. There was a segment on that program called the "Watchdog"; it was a consumer/buyer beware segment similar to Dale Goldhawk's investigations. The reason I mention it is because it would maybe be a good idea for the Canadian Government to be a little more careful in its purchases. I understand that, for example, you trust England inherently because as we all know, everything the English do is cultured, proper, and good. But I think you may have been hornswaggled over the submarines. I don't mean to be overly critical; I just want to make sure you're really thinking through your investments.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Canadian Citizen

"Swimming and Flying, flying and swimming" "Halftime"

14 Comments

Smarty Pants , on Thursday, 14th October:

With regards to subs...
The Canadian Navy goes to Ottawa with a wish list. Ottawa says "no", you can have Used Brits subs instead. It's not the fault of the Armed Forces that they have dumb equipment. Think about it - why would they request shit equipment to do their own, life-and-death jobs? Our new-used subs are diesel, because Canada refuses to use (gasp) nuclear powered subs. Nor do they have ballistic missile capability. What would we lob at anyone with that kind of system - maple cookies thathave been in grandma's pantry since '67? Canad'a been (officially anyway) nuke free since we got rid of US Genie missile systems in '72.
The Canadian Forces are always getting the crap end of the stick and have to make do with lousy equipment. And you can't even blame it on the Feds...the Feds only focus on things Canadians are focussed on. And subs and war tools aren't very high on the list. Sure we like to bitch, but at the end of the day, when soldiers die in the line of duty because of garbage equipment, we should just look in the mirror. Should we have purchased used subs? No. Could we have afforded anything else? No. Do we need subs? Yes. Not only are they used to patrol our shores to "enforce" our sovereignty, they are also used for recon purposes in legal matters like smuggling and foreign fishing. (This includes Yank boats coming up from washington state and from Maine) In fact, diesels (believe it or not) can still be effective parts of a modern navy - they're apparently smaller and quieter than the big nuke boats used by most of the world's navies.
Do we need more? Yes. But is the public gonna say "better health care" or "more subs"?
I think the Canadian Government should sue the UK over the subs. people do it with catastrophically bad used cars all the time.

(phew)

Also, Mrs.Smarty Pants took an economics course and learned that governments can't function *without* some debt. I dunno how it works, but somehow deficits aren't as bad as they sound. I say use the surplus for tax breaks and a one-time cash infusion into the Forces. For sub repairs and a heavy-lift capability like a few C-5 Galaxies.

cenobyte , on Thursday, 14th October:

I think I was trying to find fault with the government in that rant, not necessarily the military.

But my point is still - isn't there someone out there who can build good submarines that are affordable and not cast-off hand-me-downs from the Brits?

schmutzie , on Friday, 15th October:

Ha! You made my snowy Friday morning. I always new those submarines were fishy.

Der Kaptin , on Friday, 15th October:

There was a report this morning that someone has suggested the accident was actually caused by operator error -- someone left a hatch open they shouldn't have, and the resulting water is what triggered the electrical incident? The real truth, or ministerial ass-covering? Will we ever know?

We don't know where all the deficit came from, but NONE of us would have wanted to spend the last 20 years (in which there have been two or three serious economic downturns at least) in a Canada that avoided going into debt. Way less stuff for all of us. And that means even less stuff for the many who don't have a lot of stuff right now -- check the child poverty report.

But there is a way we could significantly reduce our national debt, and drastically reduce the amount of tax we as citizens have to pay to maintain the lifestyle we'd like to remain accustomed to. Two things are involved -- 1. get the fine upstanding corporations who do business in Canada to pay the outstanding corporate tax that they owe us now. If, as a citizen, you have a concern or a protest on the amount of tax the government wants you to pay, you still have to pay it, then win it back on appeal if successful. Too bad the large corporations of our world don't have to live by these same rules
2. change the laws to prevent super rich Canadians from transferring all their money out of the country to avoid paying inheritance tax on it

These two measures alone would virtually WIPE OUT the national debt, leaving the rest of us to enjoy life as Canadians and have to pay no more than our share to do it. No more blaming the wrong people for our fiscal problems, pissing and moaning about having to support single moms and other welfare bums, or paying the equivalent of minister's coffee-fund budgets to support Canadian artists. Yes, I support cutting our individual taxes, just as soon as we get those who are making the real money to start paying theirs.

Terry , on Friday, 15th October:

Sometimes you are the most infuriating person on the planet. But other days, like today, your brain spews forth stuff that, combined with your considerable communication skills, paints a picture that would make classical art envious and makes my brain sputter with awe.

*Awe*

But for the record, I do agree. Paying down the national debt puts the country as a whole in a better position... Even if it is just so we can borrow more later.

cenobyte , on Saturday, 16th October:

*sometimes* I'm the most infuriating person on the planet?

Hm.

I guess I'm getting rusty in my old age. ;)

cenobyte , on Saturday, 16th October:

I'm also surprised nobody has replied with :

"FREE CANADIAN DAYCARE!" And a fist raised in the air, a la "FREE CHAD REISS!"

Smarty Pants , on Monday, 18th October:

With regards to my military mini-rant...I understand you were slagging the government. But I felt atleast one phrase was directed at the military. I'm biased, I did my time in the Infantry, and I wanted to make it *clear* that the military has little or nothing to do with it's own, sorry state.
As stated, if soldiers got everything they asked for, we'd have a very expensive, but super fine "can of whup-ass" to open on those who we felt deserved such treatment.

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 19th October:

Fair enough.

I really did mean to say "What was the Canadian Government THINKING" and not "What was the Canadian Military thinking". I have a lot of respect for our military, and I think it's awful they get shortchanged while still are expected to 'be the best they can be'.

Smarty Pants , on Tuesday, 19th October:

Well Cenobyte, if you feel that way, make military matters a higher priority in your politics. I was also trying to say that our military doesn't get government money, because the voting public (despite it's cries to the contrary) doesn't make it a priority. Canadians love their military, but would scream bloody murder if it was stabilized and beefed up at the expense of welfare or medicare, or any one of our cherished social programs. Our pride and confidence in our military, while deserved, is still based on accomplishments made over 60 years ago in France and Germany. And while that's all good, it's like a 40 year old bragging about his antics on the highschool football team, know what I mean?

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 19th October:

Good point again.

*I* still brag about our military/militia/angry farmers burning down the US capital over 100 years ago...

Smarty Pants , on Wednesday, 20th October:

Hate to burst your bubble Cenobyte, but that's a myth. The burning of the Whitehouse in 1814 was done by British regulars and marines. There were no Canadian militia units involved. It was a massive, punitive raid in retaliation for US forces burning York.
But I'm sure the angry farmers weren't so angry after that one. :-)

cenobyte , on Wednesday, 20th October:

Well, since back then, the only military that Canada had technically WERE British, I claim it a victory for the British Commonwealth of Canada, currently known as just Canada.

Up until 1985 or so, we were *all* technically British citizens.

Kinda.

Smarty Pants , on Thursday, 21st October:

True...however, Upper and Lower Canada fielded militia units (comprised of angry locals)during the War of 1812...none of which were involved in the burning of Washington. The troops doing the deed were all born & bred in the UK, many of whom had just finished with Napoleon and got shipped over here.
But yes - chalk one up for us...in a roundabout way. :-)

distractions