geoffrey

Nor does Boehner apparently.

So you believe in the elimination of corporate tax?

It goes beyond that. The money you or I invest has already been taxed when we earned it. Then we put it to work for the broader economy in exchange for a return. You should also note that this return is taxed already at the corporate level... Then its taxed again. The combined tax rate on corporate earnings once they flow back to the taxpayer (in the U.S.... less so in Canada) is actually HIGHER than what any common wage earner pays. Why should wage slaves be taxed less than those that create the jobs for the wage slaves? It makes no sense. You talk about disincentives, which are important, but it's already a very unjust system. Those that tend to suggest higher capital gains or dividend tax rates (or claiming that they should be taxed at marginal rates) are those with a defined benefit pension or haven't put their personal capital at risk in a substantial way. It's not the same as employment income at all. You can LOSE. You take risk. You create jobs and wealth. It's not like cashing your biweekly stipend. And it shouldn't be taxed as such.

High dollar hurts Alberta companies exporting oil as much as it hurts Ontario. In fact, it can make energy relatively cheaper for Ontario and Eastern companies that import oil from the Middle East. Ontario needs to stop blaming others and start looking at their recent track record of public policy.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, this isn't a real fix... this is a delay until the debt ceiling debate. The GOP didn't have a great deal of leverage here, Obama knew the fiscal cliff wasn't the 'end of the world.' He could have delayed, and then played it as though the GOP was responsible for the tax increases. Now, this all comes back in a few weeks, and in this case, the GOP has the bargaining chips to extract their pound of flesh. Does Obama want to be the first President to default on debt? Nope. Way more power rests with the Tea Party/right wing of the GOP than did just a few days ago. They'll get what they want now.

That would certainly be quite the constitutional crisis. Anyway, this was tried before. Lougheed turned off the taps and the rest of Canada quickly bowed to the reality that they need Alberta's energy exports. In either case, I'm advocating more provincial input into the decisions around natural resource ownership (though Nexen - nor China - owns any resources... they have leases and pay royalties to the people of Alberta).

Of course, the economic impacts are substantial across Canada.

That, I give you. The point I was addressing, however, was the selling out of "our" resources. They don't belong to Canadians in general, just Albertans.

Ben is walking a tightrope of confidence right now. The U.S. hitting a major economic recession right now could really hurt his monetary policy strategy, no confidence in the U.S. economy = mighty hard to keep bond yields from rising. Anything to prolong the time until a recession is critical to the Fed right now.

Just to clarify, the resources (oilsands) belong to Alberta, not Canada, under the constitution. Maybe Albertans should have more influence in the process surrounding the ownership of their resources, rather than allowing those in Ontario or Quebec set the agenda?

True, I should have not said surplus budgets, but rather a country can build fiscal capacity by running deficits as a lower percent of GDP than the GDP growth rate. Doesn't need to necessarily be a surplus.

True. However now the mentality in the U.S. is that future recessions must be prevented at all costs. You see that through monetary policy. You see that in the absolute all out effort to avoid a plunge off the cliff, even though the Dec 31 deadline wasn't that critical. Any effort is spared to avoid recession. That's foolish, especially when it costs you your long term viability. You can postpone a recession for a long time by printing money and paying out thousands of dollars in cash per family (essentially what monetized deficits do). However, along the way you're building up a bigger and bigger problem. The recession, when it does happen, will be much worse and the U.S. will be much more fragile fiscally in dealing with it. I mean if you're burning a trillion a year at 2 percent economic growth, what is that going to look like in a recession? $2 trillion? $3 trillion a year? During economic growth (which is occurring in Canada and the U.S.), governments should be focused on delivering surplus budgets and building fiscal capacity to handle the next recession. The LPC and CPC had a tradition of that here, a tradition I'd like to see restored. In the U.S., they are so far beyond returning to sound fiscal policy that I'm really concerned about how they will cope with the next recession, when it occurs.

If the middle class wants a Northern European socialist state, then they're going to have to start paying Northern European type taxes. Obama's constituency is essentially looking for all he benefits of a welfare state, but having a few select rich guys pay for it. The reality is everyone is going to pay more. You can't fund extravagant benefits for all through the pockets of a couple guys. But yes, recessions are concerning mostly due to media hype. 2 or 3 percent of the people lose their jobs, worst case. I know it sounds bad and its bad for the few that suffer, but the other 97 percent will be much better off long term. The 2 or 3 percent will eventually get their jobs back.

I honestly believe that the Democrats think they can postpone a recession forever. What's important to remember is that recessions are a normal, healthy part of economic progress. Creative destruction if you will. That reality seems to escape most politicians in the U.S. and around the world, and now we're on a perpetual course of additional debt and money printing to keep above that magical 0% economic growth. For most people, they don't feel a 2% recession* over a quarter or two (likely the outcome of a plunge off the cliff). But for whatever reason, the politics of allowing a recession to happen have become bigger than the problem itself. * refering to the slowdown, not the tax increases, which people do feel. No one wants to wear a recession. It's more political than economic.

Northern Alberta has lots of Indians, and the Wildrose's chief backroom guy wrote a few books that probably aren't viewed so positively in those communities.