Amazing the things that one can come up with when one doesnt do the math.

I agree! The correct number is 21 billion, not trillion. Don't worry, you were only off by a factor of 1000!

$21B is about 1/8th of what Carney is proposing to spend annually on defence.

Absolutely doable.

Appreciate the update, thanks

You're right, we should nationalise their operations instead

Perhaps cities, provinces, and/or the federal government could buy up those properties instead of corporate landlords. Then they could charge geared-to-income rent instead of whatever the market will bear.

Amazing the things that one can come up with when one stops thinking only in terms of housing as a commodity

@otter@otter@lemmy.ca the above (removed) reply calls out the comment above it for taking a single sentence out of context in a way that doesn't just distort its meaning, but actually reverses it.

That constitutes deliberate misinformation.

If this community allows misinfo, then please remove the rule against it to avoid confusion. Otherwise, it should not be an issue of "civility" for someone to call out deliberate distortion of facts.

@otter@lemmy.ca if it is "uncivil" to call out deliberate attempts at misinformation, then why have a rule against misinformation?

and yet I'm getting comments removed for calling out people for disinfo who are deliberately muddying the waters around these cuts. Shameful moderation

This was great, although I definitely already agreed with much of what was said!

My main takeaway is that neither 'degrowth' nor 'communism' are sufficient on their own to address planetary crisis in a just way.

A large obstacle to change is described quite well, I think, by Quinn Slobodian in various recent podcast interviews (This Machine Kills, The Dig, and others) where he talks about how workers in different sectors are pitted against each other in order to maintain the capitalist/growth status quo.

So, personally I feel like the only viable route to a degrowth communist or 'ecommunist' society is a concerted effort among union leaders and membership to take a vigorously internationalist approach.

If you are actually trying to understand my argument here:

I am not saying the article is outdated, I am saying that the article itself has the PBO saying that the main estimates became outdated when Carney announced the defense spending increases. This is why the sentence you picked actually means the exact opposite of what you were trying to claim it means.

That is textbook mis-/dis-information on your part.

Uh huh, and here's what he meant by that, in case anyone else is inclined to trust your framing of the article:

Giroux said he expected that the main estimates, which are a breakdown of what the government expects to spend this fiscal year, would be different. The estimates were more in line with the level of spending by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau than expected, he said.

“Given that we were told that it would be a different set of priorities for the government, it’s not reflected in the main estimates,” he said.

You're not arguing I'm good faith here, or frankly anywhere else I have seen in this community. What makes you want to defend this government so badly that you're willing to continually distort reality to do so? See rule 2.

Yeah, that was in June, they hadn't updated things yet and the 15% cuts hadn't been announced either

Again, not saying you're a bad faith actor, but

Here's a direct quote from the PBO on June 5th when asked about the Carney Liberals' planned tripling of the defense budget and simultaneous tax cuts:

“To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/carney-spending-public-service-cuts-pbo

The Liberals' platform explicitly talked about capping the size of the public service, not cutting it. It's frankly ridiculous to pretend they never said this.

Notice the language: "without significant cuts". The PBO did not say "without cuts". This implies that cuts are assumed, it's just a matter of degree.

Anyway you also still refuse to address the contradiction inherent to your claim about "personal benefit" to unions raising the alarm.

Not saying you're a bad faith actor whose entire purpose on these forums is to sow doubt and muddy the waters, but I am saying that your actions are virtually indistinguishable from someone who is.

Edit: huh, so another thing about the sentence you quoted is that it's not even a direct quote from the PBO. Here's a direct quote:

“To balance or to pay for these types of additional spending there would need to be severe cuts to the public service, significant cuts,” Giroux said.

https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/carney-spending-public-service-cuts-pbo

Read the article.

Um no, you claimed that people were "fear mongering" because it is to their "personal benefit" to do so.

I asked what the benefit would be to the critics if they were just inventing a narrative rather than pointing to a genuine problem.

In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that Carney's government is not going to cut personnel, then what is the benefit to the union to say the opposite? Wouldn't they simply end up looking foolish and untrustworthy?

On the other hand, if it is reasonable to assume that the PBO and the federal workforce are being genuine, then yes, there would he a benefit to them to not lose their jobs.

But it's only in the latter case - where the PBO and unions are the ones telling the truth here - that there's a material benefit to them for speaking out.

Thus, your assertion contains a contradiction. I asked you to explain that contradiction. It seems you've declined to do so. Take care.

I asked you to back up your assertion, did you have anything to back it up with? If not then yes, we're done here

Hold on - what is the benefit to the PBO here?

And if, as you say, there's no reason to expect job cuts, then what benefit are the unions getting from "fear mongering"?

OK so you're saying the quotes from the unions and PBO are fake news?

I ask because some people seem to think that "media literacy" means uncritically discarding all information from a particular outlet, rather than recognising the ways in which bias can affect what, and how, events are portrayed in media, and using that as a lens with which to interpret the mix of fact and framing that all reporting invariably has

Well, the ministers aren't talking, but the unions and the PBO are.

Also the fact that departments were not asked to find only non-personnel cuts is another good indication that the warnings are correct.

Do you have anything concrete to back up the idea that all these indicators are wrong, or shall we go ahead and use Occam's razor here?

You should read my questions then, because this doesn't answer them