Alta4ever Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 There is a simple solution, tax bonuses at 99.9%. Like hell for those of us that don't get taxpayer hand outs but get bonused based on performace that sucks. I already loose close to half on the current tax structure. I work very hard for that bonus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I'm sure they didn't help, but they're certainly not a main cause in ANY WAY. Tax cuts also help the economy. They always have. Deficits are another matter, but anyways... I never said they were the main cause, because many things contributed to the fall. However, there are a lot of credible Economists, with PhD's, who blame the Bush tax cuts and 'free market' approach. I posted many links and can find them again if you need them.. Or just google 'Bush tax cuts economic crisis', or some variation. Before Bush the difference in wages for execs were $35.00 to every $1.00 earned by the workers. It is now something like $ 450.00 to every $ 1.00 Too much de-regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 However, as for ignatieff accepting the budget, he had little choice. He makes it clear that while there are many things he doesn't like about it, Canadians can't afford to wait for months before it at least appears that someone cares about their future. What exactly can the government really do?' The most immediate are the tax cuts, but really what does a little bit a money do? That $600 Bush stimulus the US had some time ago didn't do anything. The Home Renovation Tax Credit is the most hilarious thing ever. Spend money, to save. HAHAHA! Temperary solution to the thing that help create the problem. Immediate Action to Build Infrastructure is another short temr plan. Yes employ some people, and when that is done, we are in the same situation as before. Anything involving business, communities, and finance will be just throwing money... but who will it go to. Like a bad bank like Northern Rock in the UK. Sigh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 I never said they were the main cause, because many things contributed to the fall. However, there are a lot of credible Economists, with PhD's, who blame the Bush tax cuts and 'free market' approach. I posted many links and can find them again if you need them.. Or just google 'Bush tax cuts economic crisis', or some variation. Before Bush the difference in wages for execs were $35.00 to every $1.00 earned by the workers. It is now something like $ 450.00 to every $ 1.00 Too much de-regulation. What free market and what deregulation. if you take Libertarians like Ron Paul, he was against the deregulations. Bush never made any, Bush made regulations. The unregulated FED helped cause the problem with artificially low interest rates. In a free-market, it would adjusted accordingly to what the market is saying. Interest rates should have been a lot higher. The deregulations started with Carter, then with Reagan, and the major deregulation being the one under Clinton. A free-market advocate like Ron Paul does want regulation. You should catch some of his latest interviews. A free-market is suppose to be regulated so that the market is free, not one filled with speculation, fraud, and mal-practice. The free-market has never existed so long as everything is regulated to the benifet of corporatism and fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in KW Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 The american banks and government were allowing stupid people to get stupid mortgages they couldn't afford which amounted to countless billions of dollar being lost when (big surprise) the mortgages started going bad. Absolutely! The catalyst of this meltdown was ridiculously stupid lending and investment practices (and Canada shouldn't be too proud, we're not much better than the US in this). The amount of money that dissapeared from the economy when that happened was catastrophic and it caused all sorts of ripples. What money disappeared? You mean the falling stock market? Come on now, this is a common misconception. Don't confuse the current price of a stock (or of the stock market on average) with real money. Cause it ain't. When someone says that a share (or a company) is "worth" $50, well... that's kinda true. Because that's what the last person who bought a share in that company was willing to pay. However, if Bell has a million stocks that are all "worth" $50, that doesn't mean that people spent $50 million for those shares, and they in no way reflect real value. Value fluctuates based on one thing: confidence. That has NOTHING to do with how much or little money was actually invested in the company. In fact, it may even have little to do with the financial viability of the company, as we've seen recently. What actually disappeared was not money but confidence in the stock market. Many people who THOUGHT that their stocks were money, were rudely awakened to realize that it's not true. Be careful never to confuse stocks with money! What actually disappeared was easy credit that was based on un-sustainable profits and immoral lending practices. What seemed too easy (making huge "certain" money on the stock market, the housing market, etc) turned out to be just that - too easy. The stock market is (or should be) peripheral to the economy, but somehow we've let it become a monster that seems to dominate. So who's fault is it that the economy is tanking? Well, everyone who invests in the stock market as if it's a magic escalator to wealth, then freaks out when the bubble bursts. Ok, I'll stop ranting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 ....So who's fault is it that the economy is tanking? Well, everyone who invests in the stock market as if it's a magic escalator to wealth, then freaks out when the bubble bursts. Ok, I'll stop ranting. Still, a good rant. It is amazing that "Enron Disease" is still so pervasive, and even more amazing that Canadians choose to worry about what they cannot control. False wealth cannot be lost (or found).....yet Enron employees with company stock gloated all the way up and sobbed all the way down. Fast forward to 2008...and scale up the exercise. If Canada continues to depend on the The Adventures of the American Consumer, then it will experience more surprises. Just sit back and enjoy better beer, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in KW Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 False wealth cannot be lost (or found)..... Well said. If Canada continues to depend on the The Adventures of the American Consumer, then it will experience more surprises. Just sit back and enjoy better beer, eh? Careful -- are we too smug about our superiority to our friends down south? This budget has wiped some of my smugness away.... But by all means enjoy the beer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Absolutely! The catalyst of this meltdown was ridiculously stupid lending and investment practices (and Canada shouldn't be too proud, we're not much better than the US in this).What money disappeared? You mean the falling stock market? Come on now, this is a common misconception. Don't confuse the current price of a stock (or of the stock market on average) with real money. Cause it ain't. Humpty Dumpty buddy. American consumer didn't want to pay their bills say they began getting cut off from the credit cards and home foreclosures soon followed. The American Economy was being fuel by people who were buying with the intent of never ever repaying the money back. If people are not paying their bills and then no one is buying what does that do to the stock Market. Not a mystery. What Bush should have done is create a debtors court or the create laws to force people to pay their debts voluntary or through some form debt prison sweat shop to repay what they spent. Corruption #1 When someone says that a share (or a company) is "worth" $50, well... that's kinda true. Because that's what the last person who bought a share in that company was willing to pay. However, if Bell has a million stocks that are all "worth" $50, that doesn't mean that people spent $50 million for those shares, and they in no way reflect real value. Value fluctuates based on one thing: confidence. That has NOTHING to do with how much or little money was actually invested in the company. In fact, it may even have little to do with the financial viability of the company, as we've seen recently. The stock markets have become corrupt because they were all privatized. Once upon a time there were strict rules for listing and staying listed. The rules today are so lax that the stock market has become a vehicle to legally steal peoples money. Like the American consumer these stocks have no intention of ever returning the investor a return. Corruption #2 What actually disappeared was not money but confidence in the stock market. Many people who THOUGHT that their stocks were money, were rudely awakened to realize that it's not true. Be careful never to confuse stocks with money! Traditionally you were investing in a stock to earn a part of the companies profits and a share of the companies growth. Accounting practices in states have become so slack and abusive that the intent is to lure investors in with real money and then drive the stock down by selling fake shares owned by Company insiders or financial institutions. The cycle continues until I guess there is no more money to be stolen by the corrupt corporations and banks. Corruption #3 What actually disappeared was easy credit that was based on un-sustainable profits and immoral lending practices. What seemed too easy (making huge "certain" money on the stock market, the housing market, etc) turned out to be just that - too easy. The stock market is (or should be) peripheral to the economy, but somehow we've let it become a monster that seems to dominate. Profits were because of purchases made by consumers who bought on credit without the intent of ever paying the money back. So who's fault is it that the economy is tanking? Well, everyone who invests in the stock market as if it's a magic escalator to wealth, then freaks out when the bubble bursts. Ok, I'll stop ranting. Those who borrowed the money and each every one of them ought to be pursued till the end of time until they have paid back their debt in full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Have any of you been listening to how bad the US is? They have 4.8 Million unemployed and everyday we hear others are losing their jobs. I think is safe to say that Bush did a better job of destroying their economy than Obama is gong to be able to fix it, IF he can. Then there is "Buy American" that Obama has come with and if Obama does want to go along with the Free Trade agreements then there's problem between Canada and the US. I think our unemployment is at 6.6 % with 18 mil working, that 's about 350,000 -500,000 because some can't get EI or its ran out. I think this government better plan for the worse and not say in five years we will be out of deficit, I don't think we will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huston Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Have any of you been listening to how bad the US is? They have 4.8 Million unemployed and everyday we hear others are losing their jobs. I think is safe to say that Bush did a better job of destroying their economy than Obama is gong to be able to fix it, IF he can. Then there is "Buy American" that Obama has come with and if Obama does want to go along with the Free Trade agreements then there's problem between Canada and the US. I think our unemployment is at 6.6 % with 18 mil working, that 's about 350,000 -500,000 because some can't get EI or its ran out. I think this government better plan for the worse and not say in five years we will be out of deficit, I don't think we will. Bush did not destroy the economy, he only helped by going to pointles wars. The causes of this occured before Bush and by the private Federal Reserve. The real resession should have happened around 1999-2001, but it was put off. Of course, putting off resessions always make the next one even worse and harder to fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in KW Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Humpty Dumpty buddy. Well Humpty Dumpty to you too! (not sure what that means). What Bush should have done is create a debtors court or the create laws to force people to pay their debts voluntary or through some form debt prison sweat shop to repay what they spent. Hm... the days of debtor's courts were NOT the good old days. Life sucked for a LOT of people back then. The rules today are so lax that the stock market has become a vehicle to legally steal peoples money. No one is forced to invest in the stock market. People's stock market losses are not the fault of some conspiracy of government or corporations or whatever... The stock market may be immoral, and it's certainly a gamble. But it's certainly not theft either. People should blame their stock market losses on their own ignorance of what the stock market is, and what it's not. The cycle continues until I guess there is no more money to be stolen by the corrupt corporations and banks. There will ALWAYS be money invested in the stock market, because (I fear) greed is an eternal part of the human condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 30, 2009 Report Share Posted January 30, 2009 Whose to blame? The answer is simple! All the "greedy fat slobs" in this "greedy fat slob society!" of ours. Eat the fat hmmm...I wonder if they're any tastier than the rich? They're probably still both just as bad for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Well Humpty Dumpty to you too! (not sure what that means). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men Couldn't put Humpty together again Hm... the days of debtor's courts were NOT the good old days. Life sucked for a LOT of people back then. Borrowing money with the intent of never paying it back is stealing. People need to be properely motivated to try in life and pay their way. No one is forced to invest in the stock market. People's stock market losses are not the fault of some conspiracy of government or corporations or whatever... The stock market may be immoral, and it's certainly a gamble. But it's certainly not theft either. Regulation over the stock market has become lacks. Because of this the stockmarkets are corrupt. That's a problem. In fact people's losses on the stock market, is because corporations are able to legally to steal money. They have the right to issue as much shares as they want by way of the Investment Banks and Brokerages. This is a legal mechanism for corporations to print and steal money from unsuspecting investors. A corporation can also dispense of any assets at any time. In this situation you have investors who may get duped into putting money into a company only to have that company sell off those assets which inspired them to invest. Once done, the stock becomes worthless. To me this is fraud. People should blame their stock market losses on their own ignorance of what the stock market is, and what it's not. Yeah, corrupt. There will ALWAYS be money invested in the stock market, because (I fear) greed is an eternal part of the human condition. Stocks is a vehicle to fund retirement and stocks happen to represent employment which puts food on peoples table. If you think that is greed there is something wrong with you. The stock market is a legitimate structure but has become a den of thieves. What you have is the Banks, Brokerages, and Corporation standing ready to flood the market with shares. Doing this only contributes to more outstanding shares and driving down the share prices. When a corporation can't sucker in new money from shareholders they start to borrown against assets until they are crushed by their own debt. The North American Capital markets is Broken and needs to be fixed to restore investor confidence. The stock market needs more regulation and oversight. Corporations and Brokers should have to disclose on their Financial statements as to how many shares they have trying to be sold versus outstanding shares. The higher the percentage, the larger the red flag is to stay away from the stock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Who's to blame? Well the extremely and methodically successful. This took about two generations to peak and now all the wealth is horderd and those holding it dare not part with it - without this huge intergenerational plunder they would be nothing --- the powerful don't have a clue on what they should do now that they own the world....maybe wage war or do some social engineering....all things peak and then they fall. It's really quite simple...success has it's perks and then it's price ---also those that invest who want something for nothing eventually get what they deserve - NOTHING...It's physics...not to mention devine justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Bush did not destroy the economy, he only helped by going to pointles wars. The causes of this occured before Bush and by the private Federal Reserve. The real resession should have happened around 1999-2001, but it was put off. Of course, putting off resessions always make the next one even worse and harder to fix. To suggest that George Bush held off a recession is misguided. Since this economic crisis we have many economists weighing in, with conflicting theories and plans for recovery. Jimmy Carter says: "Deregulation and what he called a withdrawal of supervision of Wall Street had encouraged irresponsible elements in the U.S. financial system, enabling banks to borrow 30 times their value." Do you know that the U.S. now owes China 1 trillion dollars???!!! Bush inherited a surplus. The debt clock in Times Square was taken down during Clinton's administration because there was no debt. It was recently taken down again because it ran out of zeros to tack to the end. I don't have to listen to economists. Common sense tells me that this mess was created by the Bush Administration's policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 ....The debt clock in Times Square was taken down during Clinton's administration because there was no debt. It was recently taken down again because it ran out of zeros to tack to the end. Nonsense.....the US federal debt was not retired during the Clinton Administration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 We all know the only one who really had the power to stop it was Stephen Harper. He could have stuck to his original pre-election promise "I will never allow a deficit. I will not be forced into a deficit'. Keeping his job was more important than keeping his promises.Just because Harper Serves up a dogs breakfast for a budget, doesn't mean the LPC get off the hook for feeding us the budget with a Liberal Amendment for Supper. Iggy and Liberals who vote for this budget will own this budget as much as the Conservatives. If the Liberals are oppossed to this budget, and oppose the CPCs fiscal management, then they should find the courage to oppose the budget or have an amendment with some fiscal responsibility built in. The Budget is SHIITE and the LPC support it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 You would prefer another election before we do anything at all? ('Cause face it, that's what would actually happen.) That would be as irresponsible as that 'fiscal update'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Iggy and Liberals who vote for this budget will own this budget as much as the Conservatives. So does this mean the NDP support will skyrocket since they oppose it? If the Liberals are oppossed to this budget, and oppose the CPCs fiscal management, then they should find the courage to oppose the budget or have an amendment with some fiscal responsibility built in. And then people would complain that they were taking the country into an election or a coalition they were dubious about. Just exactly which do you think should happen? Do you want one or the other? And if you did get your way, who would you be voting for? Would you support the coalition? The Budget is SHIITE and the LPC support it. And the NDP oppose it. Does this mean that the NDP is the government in waiting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) You would prefer another election before we do anything at all? ('Cause face it, that's what would actually happen.) I don't know to whom you speak when you refer to "we"? Who is "we"? Edited February 1, 2009 by madmax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 So does this mean the NDP support will skyrocket since they oppose it?And then people would complain that they were taking the country into an election or a coalition they were dubious about. Just exactly which do you think should happen? Do you want one or the other? And if you did get your way, who would you be voting for? Would you support the coalition? And the NDP oppose it. Does this mean that the NDP is the government in waiting? You would think that the voters opposed to the NDP taking the PMO , would be happy for the coalition were the Libs would lead. IF. both. Tories and Libs screwup, then its Laytons, especially for those voters who are unemployed with no EI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 You would think that the voters opposed to the NDP taking the PMO , would be happy for the coalition were the Libs would lead. IF. both. Tories and Libs screwup, then its Laytons, especially for those voters who are unemployed with no EI. I'm not sure what you are saying here. At the moment, I don't know if Layton can grow his support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 You would think that the voters opposed to the NDP taking the PMO , would be happy for the coalition were the Libs would lead. IF. both. Tories and Libs screwup, then its Laytons, especially for those voters who are unemployed with no EI. I haven't a clue what you are struggling to say..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 What I am saying is the the NDP is the for the social programs which most people need and if the Tories and the LIbs can't deliver that with this budget and future budgets, then when an elections does come all those thousands of people out of work and struggling may just vote for the NDP for the first time in their voting history! They NEED help right now and will this budget give it to them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 So does this mean the NDP support will skyrocket since they oppose it? I do not have a crystal ball that can tell me the future of the NDP. However, historically for 70 years or more, the CCF and NDP have been at 15% to 18% and they had a 6% result when the LPC came into power under the pretense of being fiscally responsible, while under the pressure of the Reform Party. There is no Right Wing populist movement for Fiscal responsibility. Provincially the NDP have been as fiscally responsible as any other Provincal Government, be it good, bad or Ugly. But there is no party that is prepared to do anything but make half measures that will achieve nothing economically except guarrantee we have a large deficit to swallow for years to come. And then people would complain that they were taking the country into an election or a coalition they were dubious about.Just exactly which do you think should happen? Do you want one or the other? And if you did get your way, who would you be voting for? I never favoured the September election. That was a complete waste of the tax payers money for CPC arrogance. A pyrric victory. I certainly do not favour an election today, as it would likely create the same results, another minority parliment and another waste of time and money.The ability to form another government is the right of any party in parliment who can demonstrate that they can govern with the confidence of the house. I have no interest in denying this option that has been used on a number of occasions both provincially and federally. THere is no such option for a coalition government at present and they are rare occurence, yet I support the right for any party to form a coalition, accord or some letter of agreement. I support the right of the Liberals to support the Conservative budget, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. It is the Liberals choice to support the government and its budget. Would you support the coalition? Not with Dion at the helm. He was an idiot and lacked fiscal judgement. I expected Iggy to be more fiscally prudent, and I am shocked that this is not the case. Thus, I cannot say whether or not I would support the coalition with IGGY in charge, because, I expected he might bring a degree of fiscal responsibility to it. If he were leader of a coalition and came up with this piece of shiite budget, I would not support the coalition or its budget either. Again, one might expect the CPC to run a balanced budget with LPC support then what they have given way too. My thoughts were that an IGGY lead coalition could not produce such a shitty budget. The Conservatives as opposition would return to their fiscally responsible origins and the fangs would be out if they saw a coalition present such a piece of garbage as this is. Regardless, non of this hypothesysing is going to change anything. The CPC and LPC are going to have to ride this budget out. And we Canadians are going to pay for it for it. And the NDP oppose it. Does this mean that the NDP is the government in waiting? HUH??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.