Jump to content

geoffrey

Members
  • Posts

    9,251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by geoffrey

  1. Nor does Boehner apparently.
  2. So you believe in the elimination of corporate tax?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. Of course, the economic impacts are substantial across Canada.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. Hey guys, thought I'd drop in for my prediction. Loooooong time without a post, I know. How is everyone doing? WRP - 51 PC - 29 NDP - 5 ABP - 2 (Glenora and West Yellowhead) LPA - 0
  17. The problem is the press just runs whatever is in front of them. They have a duty to research and ensure what they are publishing is factual, which apparently they jumped the gun on here. The February draft is far less damning, in fact, it's harmless.
  18. Ohhh, really SCARRRYY: Sounds like another Bev Oda wanna-be scandal. They had a bad title on the proposal. Whoop-de-do. All projects met the terms and conditions of the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund per the AG, in accordance with government policy. What's the problem here again?
  19. People were criminally convicted for that. No one is going to be convicted for this, there are no legal issues identified by the AG apparently. Shoveling envelopes full of cash for party fundraisers under the table is a bit different then blowing a budget.
  20. Well if Fife is correct and there is no mention of this in later drafts, someone could be facing some very serious consequences for this leak. I can't imagine leaking a document from the Auditor General's office is exactly a minor thing. Nor do I think libel and slander should be taken lightly, accusing a party of criminal offenses is a pretty big step outside the house of commons. Now if only CBC and others had journalists with the balls to investigate things before they get published rather than just being the mouthpeices of paristan hacks, we might actually have a democracy here. The reality is we see all this nonsense because the journalists are too clueless to actually think about something before its published.
  21. Do people generally vote against surplus funds going to their community? That's like Quebec condemning Chretien when all that money was mispent and loaned under questionable pretense in Shawinigan. People know where their bread is buttered. I don't agree with it. But it's hard to really create anger amongst the beneficiaries.
  22. So true. Alberta should pay but we should not. Why? Well, they don't really know. The reality is that in an international marketplace, if you were to impose a tax on oil sands oil, companies cannot pass it through to consumers (as consumers will just buy dirty or bloody oil cheaper from someone else) so it erodes Canadian output in favour of foreign markets (which are mostly Islamic extremists). This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. A real impact on climate change (if it indeed is caused by GHG) would be a tax on gasoline, especially for transportation industry. Reducing consumption of fuel is the way to reduce emissions, not just buying oil from a bloody dictator instead of Suncor because it makes Suzuki smile in the morning. No economic sense, no rational sense. Just bad policy.
  23. I agree blueblood, so you require oil. Now does that oil come from Alberta or Libya? And at what price? Your (intelligent) relucance to be self-reliant just shows that you are the user of that oil, and should be responsible for the costs associated with producing it. In a global marketplace, that means placing any carbon tax squarely on the end user of a resource.
  24. Per MotherCorp: "Fraser said in a statement on Monday afternoon the final report cannot be released until Parliament returns, despite all four parties calling for the final document to be made public before the first televised leaders' debate on Tuesday." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-ag-report-reaction-1244.html# No, it's just that these micro-scandals are actually much-ado about nothing and it's completely turned a large segment of voters off the Liberal message. You keep crying wolf and people will stop caring. Even if this turns out to be a big enough issue to consider, people won't care because of all the other non-scandals that Iggy and co. have raised hell over. Voters are in general idiots though. That is true. Most people don't have the level of understanding necessary to really understand the implications of various proposed policies. Show that he is, in fact, a robot?
  25. It seems that it was an error made by a staffer. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/11/cv-election-day17.html# He did vote in U.K. elections, as he legally was able to.
×
×
  • Create New...