this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
104 points (98.1% liked)

Canada

10629 readers
465 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The theme seems to be "reduce operating spending, increase capital spending". We'll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They're cutting 13 billion. 51 billion (over 10 years) is going to local infrastucture; housing, roads, health and sanitation facilities.

Yes, military got more (~82 billion) and I don't love that. Though, one part I do love is that a chunk of that military is also dual use, so climate emergencies like wildfires, floods etc.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Then give it to firefighters, climate scientists and forestry. The military is reactive not preventative.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sure, you can dislike the military spending.

That doesn't mean the budget isn't investing more in the public than it is withdrawing.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I dislike the increase in spending on military because the returns to the public are minimal, the US has proven that, decades running.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Again, that's a fine and valid critique of the budget.

The fundamental flaw is equating corporate efficiency with public effectiveness...

This position however, does not seem valid when the budget is putting in more than it removes from actual public services, 51 billion v 13.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That part wasn't a critique of the budget, it was a critique of your pitch for efficiency. You pivoted the discussion, I followed.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe re-read what you reaponded to?

It's pretty nonsensical to claim that because you're providing a public good you can't do so more effectively.

[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah I'm good dude, don't have the energy, you can have this one.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Phew, I was thinking the same. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Cheers.