Only a decade ago former Presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, ignorantly called Canada "Soviet Canuckistan." The comment played into the false stereotype of Canada as a command-and-control welfare state. We Canadians knew it was wrong then. Americans across the political spectrum know it is wrong now.
U.S. commentators no longer ridicule Canada. In fact, many are looking to us for answers to their own economic crises. I discovered this after I gave a speech in Parliament, which contrasted the success of free enterprise in Canada, with the failure of the welfare state in America and Europe. I assumed my mother and I would be its only YouTube viewers, as usual.
It was with shock that I watched it go viral in the U.S., with almost 100,000 views there at www.pierremp.ca/budget.
Comments on the YouTube page show Americans are looking north for answers as Washington finishes 2012 in a debt crisis. In a few days the "fiscal cliff" deadline will arrive and potentially bring massive automatic spending cuts and tax increases. Even if Congress and the President agree to avoid the cliff, the next crisis awaits. Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, wrote the Senate this week to report that the "statutory debt limit will be reached on December 31, 2012," which will require extraordinary measures to prevent a mass default. These measures will give the government 60 days before it runs out of money and Uncle Sam's head smashes into the so-called "debt ceiling."
It has long been said that when the U.S. sneezes, Canada catches a cold. So why have these debt-related ailments in the U.S. not afflicted the Canadian government?
The answer is that Canada has been practicing what the U.S. always preached: free markets, low taxes and minimal state interference. And it is working.
For example, Canada avoided the interventionist policies that led the U.S. to the sub-prime crisis.
In an attempt to expand home ownership, administrations from Carter to Bush Jr. forced banks to offer mortgages to people who would otherwise not qualify for them. Washington then ordered government-sponsored enterprises such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to insure these "sub-prime" mortgages.
According to a 2010 Report on the U.S. Financial Crisis by the World Bank's Development Research Group, Freddie and Fannie bought an estimated 47 per cent of these toxic mortgages. Harvard financial historian Niall Ferguson indicates that the amount of mortgage debt backed by these government-sponsored enterprises grew from $200-million in 1980 to $4-trillion in 2007.(1) The government pumped so much air into the housing bubble that it burst in 2008. The resulting financial crisis led to government bailouts of the banking sector.
Big government caused the economic crisis. So we are told the solution is more big government. Funny how the problem becomes the solution.
Because the Canadian government did not impose sub-prime mortgages on the country's charter banks, we avoided the crisis and did not bailout a single financial institution. To keep it that way, Canada's Finance Minister has ended all government-backed insurance of low-down payment and long-amortization mortgages. In other words, if you want to take on risky debt, taxpayers will not insure you.
Governments must lead by example when managing their own debt and spending. Low debt is the result of low spending. Federal government spending as a share of the overall economy is 15 per cent in Canada (2) and 24 per cent in the U.S. (3). The numbers are not merely the result of prodigious U.S. military spending, though that is certainly a factor. Non-military federal government spending is 14 per cent of Canada's economy (4), and 18 per cent of America's (5).
Just as cause equals effect, spending equals debt. Net government debt as a share of the Canadian economy is 36 per cent. In the U.S., it is 83 per cent. America's gross government debt is now bigger than the entire U.S. economy. According to the U.S. Treasury Department website, Mainland China holds $1.1 trillion of it. To quote Mark Steyn: "If the People's Republic carries on buying American debt at the rate it has in recent times, then within a few years U.S. interest payments on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese armed forces."
Imagine: through debt interest, soon American taxpayers will be funding 100 per cent of the Chinese military.
Steyn points out that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020 the United States government will be spending more annually on debt interest than the total combined military budgets of China, Britain, France, Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, Italy, South Korea, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Spain, Turkey, and Israel.
These policy decisions have led the Wall Street Journal and Heritage Foundation to rank Canada sixth in the world on the economic freedom index. The U.S. now ranks 10th.
That is why we Canucks are not jumping off cliffs or smashing into ceilings.
To keep it that way, governments at all levels must quickly balance their budgets, while keeping taxes low. We need only look south to see the alternative.
Loading Slideshow
Military Health Care - $16 Billion
In his last offer to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), President Barack Obama lobbied for $16 billion in cuts from the military's health care program, TRICARE. In 2012, the president also proposed hiking fees for military personnel and veterans who receive benefits under the program in an effort to help cut the defense budget. His proposal drew significant fire from Republican lawmakers and veterans' groups.
Military Retirement Program - $11 Billion
Both sides agreed to cuts from the military retirement program. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) claimed during July 2011 talks that lawmakers had reached a tentative deal to slash <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$11 billion</a>. Under the current system, military personnel receive immediate retirement benefits after serving for 20 years. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, the appropriation cost per active military service member has <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43574" target="_hplink">increased at a higher rate</a> than either inflation or the total pay package of private-sector employees. Given the budget constraints looming before the Defense Department, the CBO floated the idea of transitioning the military retirement program to a matching-payment model.
Federal Employee Retirement Program - $33 -$36 Billion
Cantor claimed that Republicans and Democrats had agreed to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$36 billion in savings</a> over 10 years from civilian retirement programs. The president proposed a marginally more modest figure of <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">$33 billion</a> in his final offer to House Speaker John Boehner. Just this year, Republicans in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also looked to find savings from the Federal Employee Retirement System by <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/house-committee-approves-measure-upping-federal-employee-contributions-to-retirement-plan/2012/04/26/gIQAuoW6iT_blog.html" target="_hplink">requiring employees to pay more of their salary</a> into their pensions, which Democrats opposed as a pay cut that would make civil service less attractive for top talent.
In September 2011, the federal government employed <a href="http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/cognos/cgi-bin/ppdscgi.exe?DC=Q&E=/FSe%20-%20Status/Employment%20-%20September%202012&LA=en&LO=en-us&BACK=/cognos/cgi-bin/ppdscgi.exe?toc=%2FFSe%20-%20Status&LA=en&LO=en-us" target="_hplink">over two million individuals</a>, either through the cabinets or independent agencies. Many Republicans have complained that the federal workforce has ballooned during the Obama administration, and while the raw number of employees has risen by <a href="http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/" target="_hplink">14.4 percent</a> between Sept. 2007 and Sept. 2011, the percentage of public employees out of the total civilian workforce has <a href="http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/" target="_hplink">remained fairly constant</a> around 1.2 percent since 2001. Much of the raw growth has been concentrated in the Department of Defense, Veteran's Affairs and Homeland Security.
Agricultural Subsidies - $30 - $33 Billion
Democrats and Republicans agreed to cut as much as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/fiscal-cliff-barack-obama-_n_2118739.html" target="_hplink">$30 billion</a> from agricultural subsidies; the main opposition fell along geographical lines rather than partisan ones. Hailing from an agriculture-heavy state, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) threatened to pull out of talks entirely if a deal included that much in subsidy reduction. The president ended up pushing for <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$33 billion in cuts</a>, but that figure also included reductions in conservation programs. Baucus now tells HuffPost any cuts should be made through the farm bill, not fiscal cliff talks.
Food Stamps - $2 to $20 Billion
Cantor pushed hard for significant cuts to food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. He charged that the federal government could save as much as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$20 billion over ten years</a> by eliminating waste and fraud, but the White House countered that the real number was closer to $2 billion. Instead, those cuts would force the program to scale back on the number of enrollees and the level of benefits it could offer.
Flood Assistance - $4 Billion
Obama proposed cutting <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/fiscal-cliff-barack-obama-_n_2118739.html" target="_hplink">$4 billion from flood assistance</a> funding in his final offer to Boehner in July 2011. But Hurricane Sandy straining the National Flood Insurance Program; The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/nyregion/federal-flood-insurance-program-faces-new-stress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_hplink">reports</a> that thousands of claims are being submitted daily, which could send the overall cost upwards of $7 billion for a program that suffers from a ballooning debt problem. And with climate change promising <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climate-change-predictions-foresaw-hurricane-sandy-scenario-for-new-york-city/2012/10/31/b78de428-2374-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html" target="_hplink">future flooding disasters</a> along the eastern seaboard, cutting the program looks unwise.
Home Health Care - $50 Billion
The president offered to cut <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">$110 billion over the next decade</a> from the government's health care spending, excluding Medicare. Among the programs that could lose crucial funding is home health care, where Democrats and Republicans agreed to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">$50 billion in reductions</a> over ten years. Cantor pushed for closer to $300 billion in spending cuts to health care, but Democrats appeared to stand firm.
Higher Education - $10 Billion
The president proposed cutting <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/fiscal-cliff-barack-obama-_n_2118739.html" target="_hplink">$10 billion from higher education</a> over the next decade, mostly from Pell grants. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/pell-grants-college-costs_n_1835081.html" target="_hplink">Over nine million students</a> relied on federal subsidized loans to afford college during the 2010-2011 school year, and the skyrocketing costs have continued to diminish the purchasing power of the Pell grant program. Obama has actively worked to make college more affordable for lower-income students. Key Republican lawmakers have attempted to cut funding for student loans; most notably, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) slashed the maximum award from $5,550 per student per year down to <a href="http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/07/dems_students_fight_to_save_pell_grants_amidst_debt_ceiling_talks.html" target="_hplink">just $3,040</a>.
Medicaid And Other Health- $110 Billion
The original funding levels proposed by Cantor and the GOP leadership would turn the entitlement program for America's poor into little more than a block grant program, Democrats claimed during the 2011 debt ceiling talks. Under such a program, they argued that states would then <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/medicaid-to-lose-1-26-trillion-under-romney-block-grant.html" target="_hplink">drop more people from enrollment</a> and scale back on health benefits. In fiscal year 2009, <a href="http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0151.pdf" target="_hplink">over 62 million Americans</a> -- many of them children -- depended on Medicaid for their health care. But the president did agree to <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">$110 billion</a> in cuts from Medicaid and other health programs.
Medicare - $250 Billion +
Republicans pushed for a drastic overhaul to the entitlement program for America's seniors. Ryan infamously proposed turning Medicare into little more than a voucher system in which seniors would receive checks to purchase their own health care on the open market -- a plan that would ultimately <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kennethdavis/medicare-vouchers_b_1947804.html" target="_hplink">force individuals to shoulder more of the burden</a> for their health care costs.
Democrats refused to accept changes similar to those in Ryan's plan. The president, however, was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">more open to other GOP suggestions</a> on Medicare. In his final offer to Boehner, he agreed cut $250 billion over the next ten years -- in part by increasing premiums for higher-income seniors and by raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 (although over a longer time frame).
Tax Reform - $800 Billion - $1.6 Trillion
Republicans have again and again <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0511/Boehner_Medicare_Medicaid__everything_should_be_on_the_table_except_raising_taxes.html" target="_hplink">decried any attempt</a> to raise taxes, either on the highest earners or on corporations. (A Democracy Corps/Campaign for America's Future survey shows that <a href="http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2012114508/cafdemocracy-corps-election-poll-2012" target="_hplink">70 percent of voters</a> support raising taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans.) Instead, Boehner has pushed for a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">comprehensive tax reform bill</a> that would lower the marginal tax rates while closing loopholes and eliminating deductions in order to raise around $800 billion in additional revenues. For many Democrats, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578117152861144968.html" target="_hplink">that figure simply isn't enough</a>. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced Tuesday that the president was aiming for as much as <a href="http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/showing-backbone-on-the-debt/" target="_hplink">$1.6 trillion in new revenues</a>, and the president told reporters on Wednesday that it would be <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/obama-tax-cuts_n_2131256.html" target="_hplink">practically impossible</a> to raise the amount of revenue he wanted simply from closing loopholes and lowering rates.
Social Security - $112 Billion
Social Security <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/14/fiscal-cliff-social-security_n_2130762.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular" target="_hplink">isn't driving the deficit</a>, yet Republicans have <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">pursued drastic changes</a> to the program. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised that Social Security would be <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/reid-no-messing-with-social-security" target="_hplink">off the table</a> in the on-going negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff, but Obama did concede to tying the benefits to a <a href="http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward#.UKCJftkTtS8.twitter" target="_hplink">recalculated Consumer Price Index</a> that would ultimately provide less money to retirees. Sen. Bernie Sanders claims that, under such a measure, seniors who are currently 65 years-old would see their benefits drop by <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267079-reid-assures-sanders-he-wont-agree-to-social-security-cuts-in-debt-deal" target="_hplink">$560 a month in 10 years</a> and by as much as <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/267079-reid-assures-sanders-he-wont-agree-to-social-security-cuts-in-debt-deal" target="_hplink">$1,000 in 20 years</a>. The Moment of Truth project (led by the two former co-chairs of the president's deficit reduction commission, former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles) claims that the recalculated CPI could save as much as <a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/11767/the_social_security_cut_washington_does_not_want_you_to_understand/" target="_hplink">$112 billion</a> from Social Security over the next ten years.
Tax Loopholes And Deductions - Up To $180 Billion
Although Cantor and other GOP House members demanded that any deficit-reduction deal brokered in 2011 be classified as <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/fiscal-cliff-talks-medicare-social-security_n_2113259.html" target="_hplink">revenue-neutral</a>, they were open to closing particular loopholes in the corporate tax code and limiting itemized deductions for individuals -- given that they were offset by other tax cuts. Out of the $50 billion in savings to be found over the next decade from closing loopholes, Cantor proposed getting $3 billion from eliminating the break for corporate-jet owners and another $20 billion from voiding the subsidies for the oil and gas industries.
On the individual earner side, he proposed eliminating the second-home mortgage deduction for $20 billion, as well as limiting the mortgage deduction for higher-income households to rake in another $20 billion. He also offered to tighten the tax treatment of retirement accounts.
But Democrats wanted to see even greater action taken on itemized deductions. In June 2011, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) proposed raising $130 billion in new revenues by capping itemized deductions at 35 percent for the highest income brackets. The GOP response to his proposal at the time was a resounding "no."
Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy - $950 Billion
Set to expire on Dec. 31, 2012, the Bush tax cuts represent one of the most controversial elements of the so-called fiscal cliff. They added over <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2/24editorial_graph2-popup.gif" target="_hplink">$1.8 trillion to the deficit</a> between 2002 and 2009. Yet Republicans argue that an extension is necessary to create jobs and spur economic growth. But a <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf" target="_hplink">study</a> from the Congressional Research Service found that tax cuts for the wealthiest earners had little economic effect.
The White House is pushing for a renewal only of those tax breaks for the lower- and middle-class Americans in order to save the average middle-class family <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/pf/taxes/fiscal-cliff-tax/index.html" target="_hplink">between $2,000 and $3,500</a> next year. Letting the cuts expire for those earning over $250,000 a year -- or the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- would haul in <a href="http://www.offthechartsblog.org/cbo-ending-high-income-tax-cuts-would-save-almost-1-trillion/" target="_hplink">$950 billion</a> in savings over the next decade, according to the CBO. Obama stressed how much the country stood to gain from such an approach Wednesday during a press conference.
"If we right away say 98 percent of Americans are not going to see their taxes go up — 97 percent of small businesses are not going to see their taxes go up," he said. "If we get that in place, we're actually <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/49821777" target="_hplink">removing half of the fiscal cliff</a>."
Only a decade ago former Presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, ignorantly called Canada "Soviet Canuckistan." The comment played into the false stereotype of Canada as a command-and-control welfare st...
Only a decade ago former Presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, ignorantly called Canada "Soviet Canuckistan." The comment played into the false stereotype of Canada as a command-and-control welfare st...
The reasons behind the economic crisis are much more complicated than simply stating that 'big government caused the economic crisis'. That Fanny Mae was sponsored by the government does not mean that the government was also the cause of the unacceptable practices in the financial sector. We actually do need more government involvement to check whether the financial sector is behaving properly. We need watchdogs and the government can and should play a major role in this. Having said that, we also need to lower the influence lobbyists have on government policy making.
MBTJS: The reasons behind the economic crisis are much more complicated
Didn't the United States grow at 3.1% while Canada grew at 0.8%? Or didn't the United States have massive energy and manufacturing booms and we have nothing?
The USA was looking to Canada maybe back in 2011, but realistically it has a much better future. Sure the fiscal cliff was an example of the US avoiding a deadly bullet, but Canada is no shining light especially when American growth.
Canada hasn't much of a future other than steady oil and household debt.
DarPower: Didn't the United States grow at 3.1% while Canada grew
With increasing pressure on the dollar as the world's currency it's future looks very grim. And if the dollar loses, the US loses. The only reason for the US still standing is because of the world wide use of the dollar in combination with the oil standard. Some say the main reasons for war and conflict with Iran, Iraq and Libia is because their leaders were actively pursuing a change in currency and the creation of a new currency (african/arabian), which would be a disaster for the US. No other democratic country could have a massive debt like this (it's even worse than they say) and not be bankrupt. The US does not have much of a future in my opinion. It needs some serious austerity measures and closer cooperation with other economies such as Canada, China and the EU
MBTJS: With increasing pressure on the dollar as the world's currency
Thats insane. According to World Bank estimates, the United States has the least substantial debt out of any other 1st world large in-debt nation. The size compared to GDP ratio proves this. Only the United States could be power enough to have a 16 trillion dollar debt with a 15 trillion dollar GDP ratio debt. In percentages that's what? 110%? How about Japan's 230%? Or Britain 200% debt?
"The only reason for the US still standing is because of the world wide use of the dollar"
That's insane. You ignore the manufacturing uptick, huge investments leaving Europe, the growing popularity of "Made in the USA" brand, Energy Boom, and a Housing rebound?
A country like the United States is primarily in debt to itself, which makes it way more stable than one reliant on foreign banks, like most of the European Union. And its debt is in dollars, not a foreign currency. Realistically, the US could quickly devalue the dollar pay it off, and work to re-value it. Its risky but thats the options America has with many more.
The United States is already working with a similar economy like it, but its too unreliable (China), and Europe is utterly done with, will take about two years to repair. Canada is of no economic importance, and is heavily reliant on the US economy.
America's economy stands because its stimulus's and investments were in vital areas which kept it from collapse. Now we're talking about the fastest growing developed economy. I
DarPower: Thats insane. According to World Bank estimates, the United States
Also the Middle East combined couldn't scratch the economic power of the
United States. And Ironically, its a Americanized-Iraq with growing
economic force in all the Middle East.
We invaded so that we wouldn't have to deal with a rogue freedom/terrorist group in the future.
And the LAST thing anyone needs is austerity. Unless you're trying to blow up your own economy. The United States out-shined both Europe and Canada in 2012, economic productivity was through the roof, Median incomes rose, so on, so forth.
DarPower: Also the Middle East combined couldn't scratch the economic power
I might mention that I have been an IT guy in the financial sector for about 21 years for banks, mutual fund companies and retail traders. When this meltdown happened the top brass got called us together and their analysis was pretty much that the stupid American banks who don't run a very tight ship had over leveraged themselves and sunk their money into crap securities they made themselves but had forgotten they were crap.
This is not from some wild eyed socialist but from thr top executives of a rather old and established trading company. Said company was later bought out by one of Canadas big banks, who had a meeting and pretty much said the same thing.
So when the captains of the financial world disagree with their fans, what does that tell you?
I would rather listen to the people actually running businesses than some guy who writes about how great they are, no offense.
djelimon17: I might mention that I have been an IT guy
Thank you, Pierre, for the informative lesson in recent history. I had literally NO IDEA that evil gubmint regulators FORCED the banks to bundle mortgages they knew were worthless and trade them like 17th century Dutchmen trading tulip bulbs. I had assumed that was down to sheer greed and the repeal of Glass-Steagal. But then, I am a cynical old git.
jimbo57: Thank you, Pierre, for the informative lesson in recent history.
What Canada's Conservatives never talk about is the fact that the previous Liberal government, through a program of higher taxes and cuts to spending, left the Conservatives with a surplus and a very small debt.
The Conservatives, like all neo-conservative governments world wide, cut taxes, and started running a deficit. The only reason Canada is not in the same shape as the U.S. is that the Conservatives have not been in office long enough to ruin our economy.
It is my hope that before too much longer it will dawn on more Canadians that the Conservatives are not only poor fiscal managers, but are really so bound up in ideology, they have no concept of how to manage our economy.
Mel Brundige
Mel_Brundige: What Canada's Conservatives never talk about is the fact that
The GST? ........ Yea! ...... Anyway, Canada has avoided nothing. Carney, on his way out, painted a bleak CDN future. Once Harper's out in two years and the books are opened the future will play out just has the USA's is today. ..... CDN's are just better at denial.
rmac88: The GST? ........ Yea! ...... Anyway, Canada has avoided nothing.
Come on now. The American Government 'forcing' banks to lend to people creating sub prime mortgages. Give me a break. The lobbyists control the government they write the bills. This it what the banks wanted and huge profits were made from it. Then the American government bailed out the plutocrats. It was the biggest Con job in the history of mankind. What anti government bull, when the real issue is money in politics. American corporate tax rate of 39%, again, no one ever pays that rate, maybe half. What has undermined the American economy is Conservative economic policy, the myth of free markets, deregulation and privatization that has concentrated wealth in a few hands. Canada has laws about money in politics and has regulated the banks effectively.
laymancanuck: Come on now. The American Government 'forcing' banks to lend
"We don’t want the party to end, the “free” trips, expense accounts…perks, gold plated pensions, free this, free that…Yes indeed, see we in government, are all entitled to our entitlements folks and we can’t stop that, at least not until we retire. Our unions say so, it’s ours and we want it now...$$” Nice eh? See what working for government has become? Go look at all the debt mounting. Governments all across Canada, the US… have been on a hiring binge, a spending spree for decades now. Government = police, fire, hospitals, teachers, lawyers…= high salaries, bonuses, pensions, perks… all out of control for decades now = More and more debt…making the connection yet?
The real Fiscal cliff 101 –
US - $16.5 trillion in debt
Ontario debt as of today - $268 billion, 968 million and
change...what a mess.
Ottawa - Canada debt as of today - $602 billion, 666 million and change...what a
mess.
Record personal debt…something has to give.
Record low interest rates…
When and how does it end? Greece, Ireland, Californian, Wisconsin, Detroit, Kebec…all technically bankrupt…a real mess in the making and no one is dealing with it.
James_Wolfe666: "We don’t want the party to end, the “free” trips,
How is California bankrupt again? California grew faster than Canada did, and is even building high rises with the fastest job growth, and constructing a darn bullet train.
Canada couldn't do any these minus job growth in the energy sector. As a person who moved to California, with all the economic activity going around here, its not remotely bankrupt.
DarPower: How is California bankrupt again? California grew faster than Canada
It was Big Government coupled with rampant de-regulation that allowed their banks and Wall Street corporations to run wild, creating strange exotics that hardly anyone understands and that are, thank God, illegal up here.
You cant blame this entirely on Washington. The Big Money people certainly played their part in all this to the hilt.
SeanMartin: >> "Big government caused the economic crisis." Not entirely true,
You and your party are about as responsible for Canada avoiding the Fiscal Cliff as the stork is for delivering babies: People say it often enough, but you have to be a child or a imbecile to believe it.
Canada avoided the Fiscal Cliff by running surpluses and paying down debt during a period of economic growth. The then-government was widely praised by independent observers for its economic management - Canada's economy was a front cover story in the Economist in 2003... it's a good magazine, read it sometime.
When Canada's New Government (still calling yourselves that?), took over, you and your party made the populist but economically-illiterate decision to cut the GST. Not only did this deprive the government of $15bn/year with no appreciable economic benefit, cutting the recession-resistant GST was the equivalent of preparing for a fire by dousing your house in gasoline.
So when the recession came and Canada was ALREADY running deficits, Canada's New Government was able to borrow so much money so cheaply precisely because the previous government had paid down Canada's debt from 65% to 35% of GDP. Your government has even borrowed enough money to finance the pointless "Economic Action Plan" ads that started in January 2009 and WILL NOT END.
Here's the kicker. Your party fought against the previous government's decision to pay down debt (as well as their policies on banking regulation). So, how did Canada avoid the Fiscal Cliff? By, not listening to you.
Calvin_Coolio: You and your party are about as responsible for Canada
You have to admit: it's not every day you see an Op-Ed piece with it's own footnote section: how did Twain put it? "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics?"
Sooner or later, the Huff-Post has got to invest in some anti-fib software before running these things, or better yet, subject the author to serious fines, payable to charity, for every lie, fraud, willful misrepresentation, and act of mendacity found in their deplorable screeds.
Just too many whoppers to choose from.
One of my favourites: that the US is not really a free market economy. Uhh...the birthplace of Ronald Reagan, all the Bushes, both Koch brothers, and that big town where you find Wall Street...is not a free market economy. Okay...
And chokes with intervention!.
Well...maybe Pierre is right there--if you're a little third world country, just minding your own business, it's only a matter of time before you-know-who starts landing on your beaches--but that's foreign policy, not domestic.
Here Pierre seems to have confused the US government with Wall Street--an easy mistake to make, to be sure.
If, on the other hand, you want to argue that Wall Street directly intervened with the government, gutting regulations to protect the citizens, awarding themselves contracts and bailouts, starting bloody wars and destroying economies around the world in the name of Pierre's beloved 'free market'--yes, intervention is dragging it down.
relic57: You have to admit: it's not every day you see
Funny first line. Mr. Pollievre is Mr. Show-and-Tell. I've never seen an interview with him where he doesn't pull out some piece of paper and say "Look... the Facts!"
johnnyonenote: Funny first line. Mr. Pollievre is Mr. Show-and-Tell. I've never
Pierre Poutine - he is the one who bailed out our banks and stopped subprime mortgages. Pierre Poutine is the head of the CPC and we must always bow to him and thank him for selling bits and pieces of Canada to the highest bidder (China) and using the money raised that way to stop us from running the our debt up to a trillion which would mean we couldn't buy those F35's which won't work in the north. Thanks Pierre Poutine and thanks Pierre Poilevre.
pinkibus: Pierre Poutine - he is the one who bailed out
We don't have a big government? We aren't a welfare state? BAHAHAHAHA! FAIL!
It's only a matter of time for us. Our government *is* too big (proof: the CBC) we *are* a welfare state (proof: the CBC, and any other arts funding).
Andy_Doerksen: We don't have a big government? We aren't a welfare
So 'arts' funding makes us a welfare state? Only an un cultured boor would think that a country that doesn't support arts and culture could ever be great. Having a national television network featuring Canadian content is only a small part of this. Do you know how much money arts and culture generates for the economy? Do you think millions of tourists go to cities like Paris every year to appreciate the city's efficiency and low tax rate? Every dollar the government spends on arts and culture generates many more dollars. Besides being a necessary part of any great country, arts and culture are profitable. Do we study great civilizations like ancient Egypt or Rome because of their admirable fiscal management and the austerity of their government?
TOkidd: So 'arts' funding makes us a welfare state? Only an
Take a look at mass market paperbacks on bookshelves across Canada. They are, roughly, 95% American or foreign authors. Canada simply does not have the population to support its writers. If it weren't heavily subsidized, you'd find no more than five writers: Maggie, Alice, Michael, Peter,.......there must be a fifth. Is Bieber going to write an autobiography?
Lou_on_Vancouver_Island: Take a look at mass market paperbacks on bookshelves across
Oh Andy, deal with it. There's nothing wrong with either the CBC or arts funding — unless you prefer spending all your discretionary income on military things we have no use for.
SeanMartin: Oh Andy, deal with it. There's nothing wrong with either
No offense to any of you, but none of you appears to get the point. A government simply has no natural right to force citizens to support cultural expression, which by its very nature is (a) subjective and (b) not universally agreed-upon. Other items are permissable because they're objective and agreed-upon. E.g.: we all use the roads, so tax-funding of roadways (even if differentiated for regions or localities) makes sense; and we all depend on the military for national defense, so that likewise makes sense to be tax-funded.
What I find from proponents of big government (either right *or* left) is the raw, unfounded assumption that governments have some "right" to take and spend tax dollars for subjective, non-agreed purposes. Rarely do I hear political debate at this level; usually the assumption is made without any awareness or discussion, and then policy debates are waged on that basis.
Andy_Doerksen: No offense to any of you, but none of you
The USA was looking to Canada maybe back in 2011, but realistically it has a much better future. Sure the fiscal cliff was an example of the US avoiding a deadly bullet, but Canada is no shining light especially when American growth.
Canada hasn't much of a future other than steady oil and household debt.
"The only reason for the US still standing is because of the world wide use of the dollar"
That's insane. You ignore the manufacturing uptick, huge investments leaving Europe, the growing popularity of "Made in the USA" brand, Energy Boom, and a Housing rebound?
A country like the United States is primarily in debt to itself, which makes it way more stable than one reliant on foreign banks, like most of the European Union. And its debt is in dollars, not a foreign currency. Realistically, the US could quickly devalue the dollar pay it off, and work to re-value it. Its risky but thats the options America has with many more.
The United States is already working with a similar economy like it, but its too unreliable (China), and Europe is utterly done with, will take about two years to repair. Canada is of no economic importance, and is heavily reliant on the US economy.
America's economy stands because its stimulus's and investments were in vital areas which kept it from collapse. Now we're talking about the fastest growing developed economy. I
United States. And Ironically, its a Americanized-Iraq with growing
economic force in all the Middle East.
We invaded so that we wouldn't have to deal with a rogue freedom/terrorist group in the future.
And the LAST thing anyone needs is austerity. Unless you're trying to blow up your own economy. The United States out-shined both Europe and Canada in 2012, economic productivity was through the roof, Median incomes rose, so on, so forth.
This is not from some wild eyed socialist but from thr top executives of a rather old and established trading company. Said company was later bought out by one of Canadas big banks, who had a meeting and pretty much said the same thing.
So when the captains of the financial world disagree with their fans, what does that tell you?
I would rather listen to the people actually running businesses than some guy who writes about how great they are, no offense.
The Conservatives, like all neo-conservative governments world wide, cut taxes, and started running a deficit. The only reason Canada is not in the same shape as the U.S. is that the Conservatives have not been in office long enough to ruin our economy.
It is my hope that before too much longer it will dawn on more Canadians that the Conservatives are not only poor fiscal managers, but are really so bound up in ideology, they have no concept of how to manage our economy.
Mel Brundige
The real Fiscal cliff 101 –
US - $16.5 trillion in debt
Ontario debt as of today - $268 billion, 968 million and
change...what a mess.
Ottawa - Canada debt as of today - $602 billion, 666 million and change...what a
mess.
Record personal debt…something has to give.
Record low interest rates…
When and how does it end? Greece, Ireland, Californian, Wisconsin, Detroit, Kebec…all technically bankrupt…a real mess in the making and no one is dealing with it.
Canada couldn't do any these minus job growth in the energy sector. As a person who moved to California, with all the economic activity going around here, its not remotely bankrupt.
Not entirely true, sorry.
It was Big Government coupled with rampant de-regulation that allowed their banks and Wall Street corporations to run wild, creating strange exotics that hardly anyone understands and that are, thank God, illegal up here.
You cant blame this entirely on Washington. The Big Money people certainly played their part in all this to the hilt.
Canada avoided the Fiscal Cliff by running surpluses and paying down debt during a period of economic growth. The then-government was widely praised by independent observers for its economic management - Canada's economy was a front cover story in the Economist in 2003... it's a good magazine, read it sometime.
When Canada's New Government (still calling yourselves that?), took over, you and your party made the populist but economically-illiterate decision to cut the GST. Not only did this deprive the government of $15bn/year with no appreciable economic benefit, cutting the recession-resistant GST was the equivalent of preparing for a fire by dousing your house in gasoline.
So when the recession came and Canada was ALREADY running deficits, Canada's New Government was able to borrow so much money so cheaply precisely because the previous government had paid down Canada's debt from 65% to 35% of GDP. Your government has even borrowed enough money to finance the pointless "Economic Action Plan" ads that started in January 2009 and WILL NOT END.
Here's the kicker. Your party fought against the previous government's decision to pay down debt (as well as their policies on banking regulation). So, how did Canada avoid the Fiscal Cliff? By, not listening to you.
If only the middle and left would get itself together. Sigh.
Sooner or later, the Huff-Post has got to invest in some anti-fib software before running these things, or better yet, subject the author to serious fines, payable to charity, for every lie, fraud, willful misrepresentation, and act of mendacity found in their deplorable screeds.
Just too many whoppers to choose from.
One of my favourites: that the US is not really a free market economy. Uhh...the birthplace of Ronald Reagan, all the Bushes, both Koch brothers, and that big town where you find Wall Street...is not a free market economy. Okay...
And chokes with intervention!.
Well...maybe Pierre is right there--if you're a little third world country, just minding your own business, it's only a matter of time before you-know-who starts landing on your beaches--but that's foreign policy, not domestic.
Here Pierre seems to have confused the US government with Wall Street--an easy mistake to make, to be sure.
If, on the other hand, you want to argue that Wall Street directly intervened with the government, gutting regulations to protect the citizens, awarding themselves contracts and bailouts, starting bloody wars and destroying economies around the world in the name of Pierre's beloved 'free market'--yes, intervention is dragging it down.
It's only a matter of time for us. Our government *is* too big (proof: the CBC) we *are* a welfare state (proof: the CBC, and any other arts funding).
What I find from proponents of big government (either right *or* left) is the raw, unfounded assumption that governments have some "right" to take and spend tax dollars for subjective, non-agreed purposes. Rarely do I hear political debate at this level; usually the assumption is made without any awareness or discussion, and then policy debates are waged on that basis.