Visionseeker

The short answer is no. But I leave some latitude for fiscal maneuvers designed to avoid a greater harm. On the whole though, government debt should not exceed annual revenue unless the debt accrued demonstrably invests for a significant return. It is not a sin. I submit that deficit financing is sometimes necessary but should otherwise be avoided. Nope. The old man died my first year of CEGEP and I paid the mortgage and delayed going to university until the house was sold. Ah, debt is some kind of original sin I see. Parents owe an obligation to nurture those they bring into the world. As much as they would like it to be, the relationship is not necessarily reciprocal. Yes, I cared for my mother when she was dying (my father died suddenly). But I did not do so because she was simply my mother, I did so because she was an excellent mother. She was also a good person whom if I'd been aquinted by though some other connection, would've received the same care and attention. The role of love and affection is precisely what undermines the behavior of the state from that of members of a family. It is not a parent's financial commitment but their emotional commitment that produces reciprocity and, even so, the commodity exchanged is not monetary, it's love. I think you are confusing debt with obligation. Debts are obligations, but there are also obligations that are not born from indebtedness.

It's interesting that you bring up the Fallacy of Composition, because I've often considered that your position on fiscal matters may suffer from it. The children won't notice the difference as they will not have the benefit of experiencing the consequences of both scenarios. They will only know the reality that follows from the choice that the parents made. There are indeed some elderly Canadians who will oblige and die before they've spent the bulk of their life savings, but these are the exception. The reality is that most existing retirees are living much longer than they thought they would and are spending greater and greater shares of what they thought they were leaving for their kids to inherit. They are also placing greater demands on the healthcare system in presenting repeated life-threatening and non-life-threatening ailments requiring care and attention well beyond that which is demanded by their earlier dying peers. Furthermore, a huge proportion of the soon to reach retirement age haven't put away enough to sustain their present standard of living for more than 3 years. In this context, the country faces two daunting challenges in the coming decades: 1- the affordability of universal public health care in the context of consumption supporting increasing longevity 2- how to address increasing levels of poverty among the nation's senior citizens? Both of these challenges demand that we rationalize government expenditures and reduce present debt to create fiscal robustness in anticipation of the coming storm.

Well, that's what they want you to believe even though they know it isn't true. The massive expenditure in a single year approach is simply a facile exercise in appearing to do something about a problem at the expense of effectively accomplishing something. If the purpose is to press a reset button to get the economy moving, I wouldn't "cut" taxes. I'd increase them while providing handsome tax incentives for specific behaviors which benefit re-investment (carrot AND stick). The increase in government spending would be phased over 3 to four years with the first year addressing "shovel ready" projects and re-tooling dormant plants, the second year for building the institutions needed for "tomorrow" - not prisons, but long-term care facilities to meet the needs of our aging population; year three would incompass massive investments in the fruits of successful labours born-out of the tax incentives mentioned above, and year four would address the infrastructure needs deriving from year three's endeavours.

Yes, wealth is redistributed by the state all the time. But redistribution among the present electorate is markedly different than redistributing by taking from tomorrow's electorate. The former can politically mobilize if they're opposed to the redistribution and defeat the government (i.e. hold it to account); the latter has no power to consent or reject the approach and therefore represents exploitation of the vulnerable... theft. When governments forgo raising taxes to counter revenue shortfalls and opt instead to absorb the gap with debt, they are explicitly relieving current taxpayers from paying for that which they consumed. Using this approach for small sums or to occasionally absorb a massive shock is a legitimate. But both the federal and provincial governments were addicted to debt in the 70s and 80s because the provinces exploited the 50-50 funding formula for the nation's social programs. For 20 years, all levels of government spent more than they earned and debt servicing payments became an ever increasing expenditure in government budgets. The cumulative debt they left to those who came of voting age in the 90's meant that 1 of every 4 dollars they paid in taxes went to paying-off 20 years of tax avoidance. The country effectively stole from Generation X and the others that follow. Inherited knowledge? I think understand what you are trying to say, but knowledge isn't inherited; it is gain primarily through formal education. I don't know about you but I paid handsomely for mine (and was still paying for it up to 5 years ago). Nevertheless, preceding generations do make discoveries and advances the ultimately benefit the generations that follow. But that holds true for each and every generation so it's a fool’s errand to suggest that this can legitimize a crippling fiscal legacy.

Wealth is redistributed through progressive taxation. But deficits and debt represent a lean against future earnings. In the context of government finiances, if a deficit is resolved in short order, no one gets hurt. But when deficits and cumulative debt are allowed to mount (as they did in the 70s and 80s), they defer responsibility for servicing and repayment on subsequent generations. As these subsequent generations cannot consent to the arrangement, the liabilities are imposed without consent and the outcome represents theft.

You should add some commentary to your quotes to stay in keeping with fair use. But there seems to be some hornets nest brewing in the RCMP. First, the open revolt against the Comissioner, the removal of the Gun Registry head, and now a story about how the RCMP hired former Reform MPs company to produce junk science to counter overwhelming evidence supporting insite and attempts by senior RCMP to correct the damage being halted by political forces. Tony Clement recently gave aid to someone who was drowning. He probably now hopes for someone to do the same for his political career. The worst on this story is yet to come.

Situational deficits are arguably a reasonable fiscal mechanism when the times call for one, but structural deficits are nothing more than theft by one generation from those that follow. I agree with the notion of active fiscal policy but cannot fathom why governments insist on "blow-a-load in a year" approaches. It is much better to spread larger commitments over a longer horizon (3 to 4 years) than to cram a near overdose of stimuli inside a single year. In fact, I hate the "stimulus" moniker because it minimizes the objective to an act of spending as opposed to investing. It's as if the goal is to spend with little to no expectations of enduring results. Like building gazebos off county roads in Huntsville!!! Harper's GST cut is meaningless to 80% of consumers while significant in terms of bringing the federal government into a structural deficit situation. It was, is, and shall always remain a stupid fiscal policy decision.

If moving the playing field is the intention, I don't think they've conducted a proper risk analysis. The removals, resignations and non-renewal of terms all feed into a narrative of what Harper is against: he's against people and institutions who rely on census data, he's against social science, he's against fair treatment for veterans, he's against the troops, he's against the RCMP, he's against nuclear safety, he's against gun control (though we knew that already), he's against the arts, he's against... As the list grows, he raises the possibility of voter defections and, more importantly, creating the conditions where some Green, NDP and Bloc voters come to the conclusion that only a vote for the Liberals can end the "misery" that is Harper. Governments defeat themselves. And in shooting messengers, Harper is sending many messages for people to disagree with.

I understand. I'm not a dinosaur, therefore I don't think like one. Ergo, I can't reach you. Hum, you begin your post by claiming that as I haven't lived the times in question, yet I must implicitly defer to your (anecdotal) experience. Pot, meet kettle. OK, some common ground here. Hum, are you familiar with the Residential Schools question and the Common Experience Payments? The individuals who committed such harm are mostly long dead (thus, impunity). No individual has ever been charged for any of those acts, let alone convicted. Then consider the Catholic Church. Their dark history of concealing physical and sexual abuse for decades has meant that today's courts are presiding over offenses alleged to have occurred 10, 20 and 30 years ago. And these cases only deal with the few alleged offenders who are still alive, the others enjoyed impunity. And what of the legacy of domestic violence? Women living in poverty, without access to birth control, who were regularly subjected to assaults from their sober or drunken spouse, sought solace from alcohol oblivious to the harm it would have on the child growing inside them (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - FAS); essentially spawning about 70% of today's inmates in federal penitentiaries. Finally, if you're ever in Vancouver, I invite you to visit the archives of the coroner's office. Take a look at the deaths reported in the 50s and 60s and then ask yourself why young men and women with aboriginal names are COD "unknown" in spite of recorded trauma, stab or GS wounds. Ah yes, frontier justice. Ever the perfect substitute for a court of law. While we're on the subject of helpful cops, why not look into Milgard, Marshall and the Cornwall Police Force circa 1960-70. Am I supposed to be awe struck by those firemen and hold them in deep admiration? The notion that, out of a quest for self-serving vengeance, a group of men can in concert to design such a brutal plan means that they distance themselves from their victim not in kind, but by degree. You accuse me of waxing anecdotal and then close with this weak supposition! The anger is strong in you. That's your opinion, one you are free to express unblemished by facts.

The fiscal situation in Ottawa is worse than currently reported. The anemic performance of the TSX is a strong indicator that losses were either being cut in order to reset portfolios or that losses were being realized to satisfy immediate capital needs. We sold some under-performing stocks and paid-off our mortgage with the proceeds. Our claim for capital-loss carry back has yet to be settled because of a "glitch in the calculation algorithm" as per CRA. So assessments will only be issued "sometime after September". Then I discovered this: CRA fixing carry-back loss glitch If you understand how the government's current accounts are calculated, then you recognize that the existing balance sheet is wholly inaccurate. Traditionally, about 90% of carry-back losses are recorded by the end of June, but the "glitch" has delayed the reporting of any such liabilities until the fall. We're small fish. Our Capital Loss carry back will come in around $12,000. But analysis of market activity has given rise to estimates on capital depreciation that will add anywhere between $7 and $10 billion in additional refund liabilities. Simply put, either an unfortunate and unprecedented glitch (in a system that has worked flawlessly since implemented in 1991), or a deliberate order to hold back carry back loss claims will necessitate a substantial correction of the nation's balance sheet sometime in the fall. Further, this will only account for loss realization in 2009; losses recorded in 2010 will necessarily dampen government revenues even further. In fairness to the government, predicting investor behavior is difficult in the best of times let alone the turbulent market we have today. But I can’t shake the idea that this “glitch” wasn’t a designed maneuver intended to defer fiscal bad news to a later and maybe more politically convenient date.

Long thread... Wasn't able to check-out all posts, so my apologies if any of this was addressed previously. The Lorrie Goldstein's of this world are a wonderful bunch to behold. Statistics which don't match their preconceived notion of reality are flawed, but others that might give them a slight opening for their own cause are to be magnified, amplified and manipulated to ridiculous proportions. The comparability of data from the 1960's to today is difficult. The questions asked today simply weren't asked back then and some of today's crimes weren't even illegal in the 60s. Case in point: until the reform of the Criminal Code undertaken by Trudeau as Justice Minister, a man could not be charged with raping his wife (estranged or otherwise). Similarly, domestic abuse was prosecuted only in extreme cases involving serious injuries for the victim. Even parental abuse of children is more stridently defined and prosecuted today than it was 50 years ago. Illegal abortions were common place in the 50s and 60s, yet charges and particularly convictions for the offense were rare. Priests and vicars were diddling and beating with impunity and girls from impoverished families were sold as they had been for generations; except the diminishing demand for domestic servants meant that prostitution was their most likely assignment. Aboriginals were often killed at the hands (or weapons) of whites who were rarely prosecuted and the victims cause of death frequently recorded as unknown in spite of the presence of obvious knife, axe or gunshot wounds. Gun crimes were not only common; they were often the object of popular public sympathy in the case of bank hold-ups. As the descendent of 3 medical practitioners, I can tell you that corpses were commonly dropped-off at hospitals or brought into the ER and left there. In such cases the police were called and when the victim was identified as a "known criminal", the body was transferred to the morgue and the coroner was instructed to report the death as "unknown origin" or, especially when the deceased was a Catholic, as a suicide. If you doubt this, I invite you to consult the coroner's records in either Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal for the period. The country wasn't a safer place 40 or 50 years ago. It was a brutal society were many victims were forced to suffer in silence and denied any semblance of justice.

Have you seen or borne witness to these stories? Of course not because these scenarios derive from your own imagination. We don't need TV to create intolerance when you're already in the house to represent.

Did you make that figure up? Yes, you did! But beyond that, please explain how BQ MPs have a determining influence on transfer payments or equalization? I'll save you the bother, they have none. Equalization payments are based on a formula that calculates the difference between the per capita revenue that a province would obtain using average tax rates and the national average per capita revenue at average tax rates. MPs have ZERO influence on this calculation.

Me thinks you over-estimate the relative influence of an MP with respect to spending. For instance, when the Government of Canada has funds available for upgrading airports, they spend the money on eligible airports as determined by specific criterion. MPs have little to no influence should the airport in their riding not make the cut. The money bags scenario does occur in Canada, but only when the MP in questions is a member of the governing party and either highly influential or occupying a highly important and competitive riding. It occurs in the form of the placing of a federal office in the riding (see Veterans Affairs in Elliot Lake Ontario as well as Veterans Affairs and Canada Revenue Agency in PEI. Or Public Works Superannuation, HRDC's Social Insurance Registry and the Firearms Centre in New Brunswick) Québec has its examples (Taxation Centre Shawinigan, Cheques cutting in Matane), but none have spawned in BQ ridings since the BQ came to be. Probably the biggest political weakness for the BQ is the fact that their presence all but rules out federal largess in the region.

Ah, now it all becomes clear... My labeling of Québec as collectivist addresses the current state of affairs with respect to the current state engaged in affairs. It does not deny that French history in North America is replete with examples of daring individualism (or that examples of such daring cannot be found in Québec today). I'm not the type to suggest that we French don't have a word for entrepreneur. But then as much as now, equivalent feats of daring are rare in every culture.

The terminology I'm using is obviously ill-defined or certainly open to misinterpretation. The distinction I wished to make was that Québec's distinctive political culture is derived not from its "leftist" orientation (though it is arguably the most leftist/progressive province on the whole), but rather its openness to state intervention beyond a socialist/capitalist axis. Restrictive language laws and commissions on "reasonable accommodation" are not entirely compatible with liberal democratic principles. There are less inflammatory examples I could refer too, but as these don't get much coverage in media outside Québec so I'd have to offer some lengthy explanations for the benefit of the forum's wider audience (assuming anyone else cares about our little exchange). There are a host of reasons why Québec is "different": language, religion, history (especially the Quiet Revolution), geography and, most importantly (in my opinion), legal tradition. Civil code and common law traditions can (and mostly do) accomplish equivalent results, but the way each institution achieves its ends creates differing impulses among legal practitioners which consequently influences how the polity at large views both the law and the state. I'm tempted to go on at length on this point, but I'll pull my comment back to your point above. Québec is neither irrelevant to, nor incompatible with Canada. My offered corrections and challenges to the original poster should not be construed as my agreeing with him or his ideas, but rather an attempt to secure some agreement on the variables in play to have an intelligent discussion. Namely, that Québec's legal institutions necessarily favour collective rights and that while this isn't the predominant influence in common law, it too makes allowance for collective aims (e.g. affirmative action) as does our Constitution in its federalist composition and the rights enshrined under the Charter for religions, women, aboriginals and linguistic minorities. Québec is not only compatible with and relevant to Canada, it is a strong and enduring influence on who were are and what we are to become. Lastly, I'd like to express my utter frustration with your comparison of the BQ to the Italian Communist Party during the cold war as I now have to acquaint myself with the subject in order to understand/agree/disagree with the analogy. Where the HELL am I going to find the time? Cheers

So partisan entrenchment is an across the country phenomenon, not just in Québec? Maybe the Liberals and NDP should give up on Alberta since 90% of their seats have gone Tory/Reform for what, 50 years now? Québec has shown much more electoral volatility than any other province over the last 50 years. La belle province is where a good campaign harvests some ripe fruit. Hum, so you are saying that Québec is distinct? There is no way to please the electorate, Period. But politics is the art of either trying to, or fooling it. Québec is historically a cynical beast in federal politics so you either try harder to please, or fool them and hope that the injury heels in time for the next poll. Roughly 65% of the population has seemed disinclined to ever vote Tory, so your claim of popularity is rather dubious. So the key to winning support in Québec is to speak French competently and understand them. My God! What a herculean undertaking! See above And if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle.

Obviously, I hit a nerve. Though I don't rightly know how. Crois-tu que je n'ai rien à offrir sur le sujet? Restez assurer qu'il n'y a pas d'ésprit puritain ici. Are you contesting that Québec is collectivist? St-Louis, Baton-Rouge and Portage... You forgot Detroit and Batoche among many others. But I don't see a relation to my post. And where does the Cree figure the equation? I'm a little baffled.

Ah, but can they safely make their way to Columbo to make that case? As for contacting them via cell phone or Internet... I'm going to guess that you've never been to Sri Lanka. I fear this too. How many lives will be lost on derilict ships? The solution to me is to go after ship owners.

Um, it is one thing to recognize the status quo, it is another thing all together to capitulate to it. Québec is not more leftist, it is statist; meaning that it is much more apt to have the state intervene in various domains regardless of left-right dynamics. Québec is the anathema of libertarianism because collectivist leanings undermine individualism. This explains why Alberta (having a heavy libertarian lean) is often at odds with Québec's aims. Ontario is almost a state within a state and its ever entrenching pluralism makes it much more receptive to some of Québec's statist aims. They (the Tories) threw bones with no meat on them to Québec. Further, the young offenders approach was not supported by key constituencies across the country. Explain Mulroney then. Explain Dion I don't think there are that many votes to be gained elsewhere. Excluding Québec, only one in five seats are truly contested in a federal election. Mulroney stabbed the nerve of the "Québec problem" and we've been living with it ever since. The country and our government cannot become whole until we treat and cover that nerve and thereby put more seats into play.

A bit simplistic in your analysis but yes, the sure fire way to eventually stop the boats is to return their occupants on a 747. Hell, lets just turn away all who claim protection at all ports of entry and send them back. Problem solved except... What if a hundred of the 500 are legitimate refugee claimants? Or even 10? They need to be screened by the Immigration and Refugee Board like any other claimant. But the boat should be seized and the company of record that was the penultimate owner fined $1,000,000 for selling the boat to smugglers. Kill the profit margine at the source.

The vast majority yes, but a significant minority (including Conservatives) does. The Census stupidity panders to the self-described libertarians at the expense of those within or sympathetic to the party who see empiricism as critical in developing sound policy. 1%, 2%, 3%, 4 and then it's time to show them the door. That's the game right now. And Harper is playing it badly.

The infrastructure portfolio is a problematic matter, but one that they can easily correct if they choose to. It won't be one single issue that brings the Conservatives to their knees, it will be their wider record. Governments defeat themselves by making decisions. A decision haunts to varying degree. Multiple decisions carry mulitiple varying hauntings. Harper has always had a problem with trustworthiness. Try as he might, he's never been able to shake the impression and now his record opens him to assults on competence. He's painted into a corner. Proroguing is no longer a viable option and he has done enough "harm" that a trip to the polls will net him fewer MPs. But as I pointed out elsewhere, Harper's losing doesn't necessarily translate into Ignatieff's winning. The latter has to build a solid tent if he wants to stick around.

While I agree with the premise that Harper is toast if there's any back sliding, Ignatieff can't go into an election with such a simplistic goal. Yes, reducing Con representation in the House would turn Harper into a loser, but it doesn't turn Ignatieff into a winner. Ignatieff and the Liberals are struggling to find and be the legitimate standard barer for a momentum coalition - a stream of issues and concerns that sufficiently resonate with the national constituency that will place them in the mid to upper 30s at the polls. Governments do defeat themselves and I believe that Harper has made enough mistakes to bring him down. But I don’t think the Liberals have as yet figured out how to secure the advantage. I could tell them how, but they couldn’t afford my fees. ;-)

Ah yes, the old canard "hey, the Liberals didn't fix it, why should [we] the Conservatives?" My kids use that logic all the time. They’re 6, 5 and 2 years old. As their intellectual equal, perhaps you'd like to come over for a play date sometime?