Toronto as #2 - Page 26

Waterlooson · #**501** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 2:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

So without equalization that lady's subsidized daycare in Quebec would go up from 7 dollars a day to something like 8 dollars a day...

What is equalization worth to Quebec per year now a days? $8 billion perhaps? Quebec must have are really gigantic annual budget if the loss of $8 billion to its income only meant an extra buck per day just on daycare. Or perhaps someone's math is way off... yeah, that's it.

Centropolis · #**502** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelebes

That's a Canadian phrase to boot.

A boot what? >: )

Well it really caught on here.

Mister F · #**503** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 2:43 PM**

Why do these arguments always turn into pissing matches about money? Separatist movements have nothing to do with money, they're emotional and cultural. You guys harping about equalization are never going to convince anyone.

Acajack · #**504** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F

Why do these arguments always turn into pissing matches about money? Separatist movements have nothing to do with money, they're emotional and cultural. You guys harping about equalization are never going to convince anyone.

Absolutely right of course.

niwell · #**505** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F

Why do these arguments always turn into pissing matches about money? Separatist movements have nothing to do with money, they're emotional and cultural.

Indeed. Pretty sure separation movements don't really take economics into account - or at least it something that's on the backburner. I'd hazard a guess that from a purely economic standpoint most new nations are worse off than prior to separation, at least initially.

Waterlooson · #**506** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister F

Why do these arguments always turn into pissing matches about money? Separatist movements have nothing to do with money, they're emotional and cultural. You guys harping about equalization are never going to convince anyone.

Agreed, but then on the other hand, these discussions seldom change anyone's mind because people are too opinionated and won't consider the facts of the matter.

Acajack · #**507** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

What is equalization worth to Quebec per year now a days? $8 billion perhaps? Quebec must have are really gigantic annual budget if the loss of $8 billion to its income only meant an extra buck per day just on daycare. Or perhaps someone's math is way off... yeah, that's it.

Quebec's total provincial budget is in the 60 billion dollar range.

Of that, 8 billion comes from equalization. But equalization is paid out of general federal government revenues, of which Quebec contributes around 20 percent. So one fifth of the equalization money Quebec receives actually comes from Quebec.

All of which to say that equalization probably contributes a net of 10 or 11 percent of Quebec's provincial budget.

This means that without equalization there would be a 10% shortfall for overall provincial government expenses in Quebec.

If you distribute it proportionately among all government spending (I know it wouldn't be - but hey, simplistic logic based on numbers thrown around seems par for the course around here), then that shortfall in the daycare program could be made up by increasing the daily rate by 1 dollar.

Acajack · #**508** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

Agreed, but then on the other hand, these discussions seldom change anyone's mind because people are too opinionated and won't consider the facts of the matter.

kool maudit · #**509** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:30 PM**

the facts are that canada is the best thing that ever happened to us!

the facts are shut up!

(i'm a federalist and this is where these debates put me.... i can only imagine...)

Waterlooson · #**510** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

This means that without equalization there would be a 10% shortfall for overall provincial government expenses in Quebec.

That makes sense.

Acajack · #**511** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

That makes sense.

Merci.

Acajack · #**512** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by niwell

Indeed. Pretty sure separation movements don't really take economics into account - or at least it something that's on the backburner. I'd hazard a guess that from a purely economic standpoint most new nations are worse off than prior to separation, at least initially.

Indeed. Few separatist movements based on financial considerations (we are rich, they are poor, so we're gonna separate to keep more of our cash for us) have been successful in history. There are movements based on money (Padania in northern Italy for example) but they usually don't get much traction.

Usually, parts of countries that separate from a larger entity are not as rich as the entity they are separating from.

Waterlooson · #**513** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

The problem is that unless people are willing to consider the facts and be objective, it's pretty hard to have a reasonable discussion on any matter.

Based on the foregoing discussion, I have concluded that to stymie a separatist movement, you just have to sneak a little valium in the water of the separatists and everything will be fine.

Centropolis · #**514** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 4:10 PM**

I just thought I'd interject some stereotypical American comment to help out the rhythm of this conversation, it seems to be sputtering. Something about guns, or god, or that the rest of Canada should blow up Quebec to teach the Frenchies a good lesson, or whatever. There's not really enough of that in the Canada room. It could be there is an asbestos floor tiled room where these kinds of comments are immediately vaporized (vapourized).

I should probably go away.

Xelebes · #**515** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centropolis

I just thought I'd interject some stereotypical American comment to help out the rhythm of this conversation, it seems to be sputtering. Something about guns, or god, or that the rest of Canada should blow up Quebec to teach the Frenchies a good lesson, or whatever. There's not really enough of that in the Canada room. It could be there is an asbestos floor tiled room where these kinds of comments are immediately vaporized (vapourized).

I should probably go away.

No, your posts make about as much sense as the posts in the last five pages.

Waterlooson, equalisation payments mean ditsquat when it comes to separation. That is a fact. Equalisation payments are a paper matter and have nothing to do with nationhood. So I kindly ask you to move away from this tangent because you are not helping this conversation one bit.

Waterlooson · #**516** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 7:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelebes

No, your posts make about as much sense as the posts in the last five pages.

Waterlooson, equalisation payments mean ditsquat when it comes to separation. That is a fact. Equalisation payments are a paper matter and have nothing to do with nationhood. So I kindly ask you to move away from this tangent because you are not helping this conversation one bit.

Point of clarification.... I'm not the one who took the conversation off on the equalization tangent in the first place... that started on post #500.... so it's a bit unfair to single me out..

And to declare that equalization meant nothing, when the vote on the last referendum was within a few fractions of a percentage of passing, isn't rational... nor is taking about it yourself then telling me not to.

Acajack · #**517** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

Point of clarification.... I'm not the one who took the conversation of on the equalization tangent in the first place... that started on post #500.... so it's a bit unfair to single me out..

Actually it was post 493.

Xelebes · #**518** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

Point of clarification.... I'm not the one who took the conversation off on the equalization tangent in the first place... that started on post #500.... so it's a bit unfair to single me out..

And to declare that equalization meant nothing, when the vote on the last referendum was within a few fractions of a percentage of passing, isn't rational... nor is taking about yourself then telling me not to.

Ok, connect the two. Shit or get off the pot.

Why was the vote even close? If the vote is close, you address the issues on both sides, not completely neglect one for the other.

Waterlooson · #**519** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 8:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Ok, connect the two. Shit or get off the pot.

Why was the vote even close? If the vote is close, you address the issues on both sides, not completely neglect one for the other.

At your request:

While I agree that financial matters (and equalization is one portion of that) were/are not the primary raison d'être for, or the motivation behind the separatist movement in Quebec, it was a factor in the minds of separatist leaders because they often stated how worse off (and hard done by) they were financially by being in the Federation. They used that angle to try to garner support for their cause. Where financial considerations really mattered however were in the motivations of some Quebec federalist leaders. For example, I refer back to Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa, and his statements about "profitable federalism":

http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=...ralism&f=false

In other words, Bourassa thought it was better to be a federalist because it brought home the bacon by way of financial benefits, of which equalization was a significant part of.

I was around for both referendums, having graduated from university before the 1st one in 1980... that gives me personal knowledge of those political times in Canada. I recall Bourassa talking about "profitable federalism" in the National Assembly. Financial considerations and benefits did figure into where politicians in Quebec stood on the issue of Quebec's future in Confederation... and I submit to you, that had Quebec not been receiving equalization in 1995, the vote (referendum) would have gone the other way.

If a lot of people share an opinion, that doesn't make it a fact, that just makes it a popular opinion.

Robertpuant · #**520** Posted **Dec 22, 2011, 10:08 PM**

The funny thing is, transfer payments to Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and, up until very recently to Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan never get mentioned in these discussions. It's like Quebec is the only recipient. We should accept that from the beginning of time to the end of time, there is always going to be a 50% who gives more than it receives and a 50% who receives more than it gives. No matter how rich/poor we get, this is going to be the reality under the current system.