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

Canada

10678 readers
557 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 5 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
[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Most of the money got reallocated to the military though.

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

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

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

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

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

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

Cheers.