630 billion debt? Why, why, why?

[William Ashley]

Looking at this year old article http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/06/02/td-forecast-canada-fiscal.htmlreally had me wonder - how is it that over 200 billion of debt can be added to Canadians plates, when under the 90's liberals the debt was reduced to 460 billion.

How is it that Canadians can accept 10's of billions of public debt, when there was finally a reverse trend, can't we just let the market pursue itself rather than forcing people to give their money to the government to buy houses from banks?

THESE FORCASTS WERE LESS THAN THE ACTUAL DEBT TOO.

(and buying houses from banks isn't inherently wrong if they are being used for low income housing - or as a stop loss for social benefits payments (more so provincial)

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[bjre]

Oh Canada Movie:

http://picasaweb.google.com/ohnocanada/OhCanadaMovie#5452543728926279634

[Shwa]

Looking at this year old article http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/06/02/td-forecast-canada-fiscal.htmlreally had me wonder - how is it that over 200 billion of debt can be added to Canadians plates, when under the 90's liberals the debt was reduced to 460 billion.

How is it that Canadians can accept 10's of billions of public debt, when there was finally a reverse trend, can't we just let the market pursue itself rather than forcing people to give their money to the government to buy houses from banks?

THESE FORCASTS WERE LESS THAN THE ACTUAL DEBT TOO.

(and buying houses from banks isn't inherently wrong if they are being used for low income housing - or as a stop loss for social benefits payments (more so provincial)

Who holds the debt? Do you have the tables on that?

[Wild Bill]

Looking at this year old article http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/06/02/td-forecast-canada-fiscal.htmlreally had me wonder - how is it that over 200 billion of debt can be added to Canadians plates, when under the 90's liberals the debt was reduced to 460 billion.

How is it that Canadians can accept 10's of billions of public debt, when there was finally a reverse trend, can't we just let the market pursue itself rather than forcing people to give their money to the government to buy houses from banks?

THESE FORCASTS WERE LESS THAN THE ACTUAL DEBT TOO.

(and buying houses from banks isn't inherently wrong if they are being used for low income housing - or as a stop loss for social benefits payments (more so provincial)

Where have you been, Mr. Ashley? Were you sleeping when Harper first took power and the recession hit? He and his finance minister made the mistake of saying things weren't that bad and we should stay the course. The Opposition immediately pounced on them, saying that they were just cruel and indifferent to the suffering of Canadians entering a recession. They absolutely DEMANDED that the government spend huge sums of money to 'stimulate' the economy!

What's more, they threatened to bring down Harper's minority if he didn't do what they wanted. So, the money was spent and the deficit went up. Immediately, the Opposition started railing at Harper for spending so much money and running up the deficit!

It was all there if you cared to look. As I said before, were you sleeping?

[lukin]

Where have you been, Mr. Ashley? Were you sleeping when Harper first took power and the recession hit? He and his finance minister made the mistake of saying things weren't that bad and we should stay the course. The Opposition immediately pounced on them, saying that they were just cruel and indifferent to the suffering of Canadians entering a recession. They absolutely DEMANDED that the government spend huge sums of money to 'stimulate' the economy!

What's more, they threatened to bring down Harper's minority if he didn't do what they wanted. So, the money was spent and the deficit went up. Immediately, the Opposition started railing at Harper for spending so much money and running up the deficit!

It was all there if you cared to look. As I said before, were you sleeping?

Exactly right Wild Bill. The opposition forced the Conservatives to spend.

People who believe everything they see on CBC make similar statements as Ashley did.

[Pliny]

This website says our debt is over 800 billion.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/

This one says it will rise to $511 Billion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1151927220090611

This one tells you the differences in the way different agencies calculate it.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/strategy/article.jsp?content=20100315_10010_10010

The debt clock puts the national debt at 533 billion right now.

http://www.debtclock.ca/

Wiki offers a chart here and projects the deficit to be 522 billion in 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Public_Debt

I think for effect and drama the article in the OP uses the national debt figure before the Harper government and the debt to GDP ratio figure after the Harper government took office.

Putting it in perspective Wild Bill makes a good argument about opposition demands to spend and provide stimulus to the economy, Harper has a minority government so has to walk a tight rope, the global economy is in the tank, and the US is demanding we contribute a share to the bailout of corporations such as GM operating in both countries.

[William Ashley]

Where have you been, Mr. Ashley? Were you sleeping when Harper first took power and the recession hit? He and his finance minister made the mistake of saying things weren't that bad and we should stay the course. The Opposition immediately pounced on them, saying that they were just cruel and indifferent to the suffering of Canadians entering a recession. They absolutely DEMANDED that the government spend huge sums of money to 'stimulate' the economy!

What's more, they threatened to bring down Harper's minority if he didn't do what they wanted. So, the money was spent and the deficit went up. Immediately, the Opposition started railing at Harper for spending so much money and running up the deficit!

It was all there if you cared to look. As I said before, were you sleeping?

This is BS in the worst way. Spending isn't bad but it should actually stimulate the economy by creation of income bearing - ROI - projects, such as resource systems, toll roadways, pay for parking lots, rental space, low cost (cost recovery housing)

The places I saw the spending were "liesure facilities improvement" resurfacing of roads and replacing unsafe bridges(not special spending at all), cutting down trees in woodlots, action plan signs, website and marketing costs, etc...

While this spending may have been equal with the amount given to the banks for houses niether of these projects (120 billion 1/2 of the government income for the year) with the other 1/4 being war and security spending - the last part federal service dollars and provincial transfers. This is not good spending BUT WHY .. that 120 billion on "unneeded projects - namely buying houses and improving .... appearance of government - *cough* propaganda and liesure services. The debt could have been put down to 300 Billion --- within 5 years it could have been eliminated - now it is at its HIGHEST EVER point.

Yes some projects can have global efficiency benefits - but the projects I saw other than the expansion of the 401 likely had negligable effect. I don't get how Mulrooney can be hated for doubling the national debt when harper is the biggest spender since mulrooney and has already out spent him as the highest annual spender in canadian history.

The fact this spending is happening and being masked by selling public "earning" companies to private interests only makes it worse. Much worse when they are being sold to foreign comapnies, or creating greater market share for foreign companies. The whole tax aspect is still there, but why sell companies that are profitable? That is sort of a legacy of "debt accumulation" - what is even better for racking up the public debt - removing public revenue streams. It is horrid.

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wild Bill]

This is BS in the worst way. Spending isn't bad but it should actually stimulate the economy by creation of income bearing - ROI - projects, such as resource systems, toll roadways, pay for parking lots, rental space, low cost (cost recovery housing)

You just totally ignored my points in your rebuttal! I pointed out that Harper was forced to increase the deficit under Oppposition pressure, only to then have the Opposition blame him for spending the money!

YOU call this "BS in the worst way" but refer to the QUALITY of the stimulus spending!

So not only were you sleeping when the initial actions were taken but you didn't even wake up to give me a rebuttal pertinent to what I actually said!

Go back to sleep! I'm putting you back on 'ignore'!

[Smallc]

I don't know if some of you get this, but the job of the opposition is to...wait for it...oppose. Now, they're supposed to do it with the best interests of the country at heart, but they're no more guilt of self interest than the governing party...or any other human beings for that matter. Believe it or not, the opposition can call for more spending, and criticize that spending at the same time...and there isn't necessarily a pinch of hypocrisy or contradiction in that.

[William Ashley]

You just totally ignored my points in your rebuttal! I pointed out that Harper was forced to increase the deficit under Oppposition pressure, only to then have the Opposition blame him for spending the money!

YOU call this "BS in the worst way" but refer to the QUALITY of the stimulus spending!

So not only were you sleeping when the initial actions were taken but you didn't even wake up to give me a rebuttal pertinent to what I actually said!

Go back to sleep! I'm putting you back on 'ignore'!

Whether you get this or not, what you arn't getting is that - asking for government spending - and getting the type of spending you are looking for - may be two different things - eg. the 10% greater spending in conservative ridings vs. non conservative ridings. The segments of the economy that received income - eg. all conservative leaning interest groups - sports/construction/resource management/actionplan sign companies - what you may not get is that this money would only be released if the municipal governments paid for the majority of the costs - so while the federal government spent 60 billion - the municipal governments spent 60 billion + 1. Many of them are already horribly fiscally owned due to bad debt spending, that increases local municipal taxes. The result of debt spending in municipalities - is increased municipal taxes - meaning it is more expensive to live meaning - really all this spending is making infrastructure that people have to pay more for, even if they dont use it. For instance where facility fees don't increase only families or individuals who use the facilities get the benefit while everyone pays for them - and I think families that use municipal facilities or can afford to send their children (of a more priveleged background) may be traditionally more conservative - since the conservatives tend to favour higher income groups and earners in their measures. While liberals tend to cater to the professional middle income group. Then you wonder why the conservatives have more money going into their war chest - well because they are paying with federal dollars to those same people. Perhaps we should exlude people or people who have family who receive any benefits, or third party contracting, or supply to third parties, from the government from being able to donate or to be affiliated to the political parties. Basically how about if the government is paying the people, those people can't donate, and if they donate, they arn't eligible to be paid, that is a novel start to stop government corruption and partisan embezzlement that the conservatives are engaged in. We could do the same for government appointments too- that is a wonderful idea, stoping patronage and purchase of government prefered placements to federal positions. Elections Canada requires this (even though the winning party in the last election - and the second place party appoint most positions such as the people who count the votes (issued much))- why not the rest of the federal service? This is why corruption happens - because it is normative, it doesn't make it any more right... it is bound to happen because people follow religious practices that espouse deed for deed, you scratch my back I scratch yours... rather than what is the best for the public interst and is selling office - ethical? NO IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, AN INDICTABLE OFFENCE!!! Something the PM has done many many times to no response from the RCMP.

AND IT CONTINUES. We need to critically look at this because it is illegal.

Also asking for spending and getting long term beneficial spending are TWO totally different things. You can say yes the liberals, NDP and bloc wanted to see keynes at his finest - but what they got was an unofficial imbezzlment of $6+ billion dollars of government money - to conservative party supporters.

The quality of spending and ROI are the important factor for THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Even if by indirect income ROI to the conservative party should not be the prime directive in program delivery.

half a million in marketing by harper himself in 34 trips was spent.

that is about 4 times his income spent on marketing a spending program. sounds like campaigning on the federal dime -why do you need to advertise spending? at the cost of half a million dollars, and that ain't the only marketing expense for the program, it is many millions (how much does parliament cost.. hmm? fact is the program was a marketing stunt, and a form of informal embezzlement.

Half a million dollars would provide for a lot of grants or 10 new doctors.

The PM spent millions on marketing himself under things like northern sovereignty and economic action - what type of junk is this when the money could actually go to economic action or hiring 5 or 10 new northern soilders to actually protect the north, or defence technologies.

50+ million in marketing the federal government (the conservatives) is absurdity - pure embezzlement.

" a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual"

The sponsership scandal was nothing compared to this multibillion dollar partisan ploy.

Then you have things like http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/09/bc-us-signs-canadas-economic-action-plan.html Why exactly is stimulus spending being spent in the US, during the US's buy america - no canada welcome?

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[bjre]

Believe it or not, the opposition can call for more spending, and criticize that spending at the same time...and there isn't necessarily a pinch of hypocrisy or contradiction in that.

Even if the oppsition party will do it worse, that is not the reason to justfy such huge spending include a large portion of debt interest and force Canadians to pay by tax. If China make something cheaper, it is not because the labour price is cheaper there, it is because they has to pay less debt interest to the greedy companies.

It would be better a revolution happen to illegalize all debt from the private bank and make the Bank of Canada the only bank that legal to loan. If private bank want to loan, they need prepare 100% cash to do it. That will save Canada.

[Pliny]

If private bank want to loan, they need prepare 100% cash to do it. That will save Canada.

...and close the banks.

[William Ashley]

...and close the banks.

Personally I think that there should be two banks and a central bank in Canada.

the 1st bank for internal governmental accounts (employees payroll, agency spending and crown corporation transactios with the government - non branches but can transfer to the 2nd bank for some accounts that arn't locked), the 2nd bank a citizens bank that offers banking services where every citizen would have an account - and all government public transactions would be done through it. people who travel to canada would have an account opened for them that would list all fees etc.. handle any travel deposits - (I would require deposits for some travel classes that would be refunded on departure), while residents would be eligible to pay for some programs that only citizens would normally be eligible to - all the service fees and purchases would be done through the bank for pay for public services - government payments to people would be done through here I would require all federal corporations to have an account also. so instead of writing cheques etc.. it would be automated through the banks. Regular commercial banking services would be provided through the bank - as well as the strategic reserve system requests and payments. The central bank would regulate some aspects of banking such as the government lending rate. It would also run the monetary circulation that is authorize new currency into the public that would be done through the second bank - banks as corporations would aquire new cash through the 2nd bank - buying it with assets if necesary or putting it into the 2nd bank accounts.

banks themselves would be regulated through the treasury bill or treasury act that would oversee federal economic crimes otherwise they would be open to operate like any other business - eg. if they wanted to invest money they could, but they would need to contract the services - nothing is illegal about lending the money someone gives to you to someone else. Of course if you don't have it, and the other person doesn't agree to lend it, that could be a problem. Simply put banks can contract as theyd like.. and the government would provide a baseline no fee, safe storage point - such as chequeing - but would still provide the option of investment banking (such as traditional savings accounts) - or by traditional bonds - provided the government has a prudent use for them that would provide the return.

[Topaz]

Just before the last election(i think)there's been so many its get confusing. Anyway, Harper gave the banks millions of $$ towards the mortgages because he said HE KNEW the recession was coming! The oppositions were saying since you are going to put out a stimulus package do it NOW and they weren't saying how much to spend, they were saying time is the enemy, Canada needs it now. The Tories are out of control when he comes to spending and everyone knows it, except maybe THEM! Or maybe they don't care because if they get voted out then the Libs will have an uphill battle again reducing the debt. Maybe Canadians should command that parties like the Tories who have lots of money, start paying some of the debt they rack up. Now, every Canadian owes 15,000+ and I like the Tory party to pay my share! http://www.debtclock.ca/

[William Ashley]

Who holds the debt? Do you have the tables on that?

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/plan/anx3-eng.html

see http://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dms-sgd/index-eng.asp

for previous years.

"The aggregate principal amount of money required to be borrowed by the Government from financial markets in 2010–11 to finance Budget 2010 stimulus measures, meet refinancing needs and meet other financial requirements is projected to be $251 billion."

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[Handsome Rob]

Q: 630 billion debt? Why?

A: We all cry when the raise taxes, and we all scream when they cut services.

Doesn't get any more simple.

[William Ashley]

Q: 630 billion debt? Why?

A: We all cry when the raise taxes, and we all scream when they cut services.

Doesn't get any more simple.

So remove taxes and have people pay for services.

No taxes, no cuts.

-- sure some people can't pay but --- why can't they pay? Well those capable but down and out, can hopefully do services (perhaps lowering the cost of services overall) and get service credit for things they do want. For people that can pay, nuff said.

What is the issue?

Those who can't provide service, or cash - well that is why the government needs income streams -from service devliery - or from corporate taxes - eg. if government raised cost of service delivery corporations would be able to provide for less, so by creating a level of corporate tax on some industries it raises the capital needed to fill the service gap.

Honestly though the federal government has almost no social outlay responsibilities as per its mandate. It is provincial governments that need to make up social gaps on service deliveries from charities.

The main responsibility of federal government is simply to provide order and insure peoples rights - and protect the economic system.

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[Handsome Rob]

So remove taxes and have people pay for services.

No taxes, no cuts.

People can't be trusted to pay for the likes of health care, welfare, retirement planning, rainy day funds, etc. themselves.

Things go badly for a nation when people are allowed to starve, or have to choose between food & shelter. The religion of consumerism demands that we eat ourselves into obesity sitting on the couch watching DVR'd HDTV before paying our mortgages, all the while screaming about how hard our lives are.

[William Ashley]

People can't be trusted to pay for the likes of health care, welfare, retirement planning, rainy day funds, etc. themselves.

Those are provincial issues - of local or individual interest.

Things go badly for a nation when people are allowed to starve, or have to choose between food & shelter. The religion of consumerism demands that we eat ourselves into obesity sitting on the couch watching DVR'd HDTV before paying our mortgages, all the while screaming about how hard our lives are.

whatever your choice.

There is no difference between paying the tax man or the program man - except for the matter of choice in what you pay for and where your money goes.

Just because it's not tax doesn't make it not there - as a provision... so if you arn't responsible enough to nuff said.

What is so bad about people who can't take care of themselves dying on the streets if charities wont care for them. It is nice to have a social safety net but we don't need training wheels forever.

You like to think that if people didn't pay taxes, that they wouldn't get services. The fact is - people collectively can pay for services, by their choice.

You say you can't trust people to.. well they don't get it then, who cares?

If they are so brain dead to not get it, then maybe it can be a wake up call.

If people die due to lack of food - it is because they won't help... that is why government programs to provide for peoples needs should exist eg. volunteerism, social credit.

We don't need freeloaders, we need a working social system that is removed from capitalism and instead provides for a self sufficient society through, charity, volunteerism, and providing social programs that are optional, as well as commercial investment services as an option against public programs such as disability insurance, etc...

Hospitals should need to care for people suffering dehydration or starvation though, and if people choose to starve to death rather than work in a social program that offers food and shelter in exchange for helping out with provision of services then why help them if they arn't willing to help themselves or others, that is ethics.

In the end there are two other streams

1. Mental health - currently if they don't like your life values or way of living you end up in that stream - and it is wrong, it is a violation of the constitution to imprison and drug someone because of how they live their life and what their values are.

2. Prison - and I don't think this should exist either - deport, move to work areas, reinstitute the death penalty - there is no need for prisons. I think that crimes really need to be redefined at a federal level though, but "serious" crimes arn't dealt with as actual threats they are dealt with as social deviance. It would save a lot of money just to kill everyone who is an actual threat to society - on their permission or just ship them out of society to a penal camp - rather than a prison in a populated area. These penal systems should also be self contained. It is seen as barbaric to kill but in the end I think very very few people are actual social threats - the large chunk are just part of social subcultures - criminal culture that is predominant in 10-20% of the population. Fact is the large marjority of Canadians have or do break laws regularly. The issue is that many laws arn't real crimes but counter the established political stance - they are political criminals. Some people are definate issues but there are other resolutions - of a voluntary nature. Monitoring. Law is a harse subject, but in the end the options are various.

The REAL issue is.. they want to spend your money on things they want to spend on.. not what you want.

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[August1991]

How is it that Canadians can accept 10's of billions of public debt, when there was finally a reverse trend...

Ashley, I suggest that you read about the fallacy of composition, and then come back here and post after you understand it well in the context of economics.

In short, it may be a good idea for individual Canadians to pay down their debt and live debt-free but it would not be a good idea for Canada as a whole to do the same.

[Wild Bill]

Whether you get this or not, what you arn't getting is that - asking for government spending - and getting the type of spending you are looking for - may be two different things - eg. the 10% greater spending in conservative ridings vs. non conservative ridings. The segments of the economy that received income - eg. all conservative leaning interest groups - sports/construction/resource management/actionplan sign companies - what you may not get is that this money would only be released if the municipal governments paid for the majority of the costs - so while the federal government spent 60 billion - the municipal governments spent 60 billion + 1. Many of them are already horribly fiscally owned due to bad debt spending, that increases local municipal taxes. The result of debt spending in municipalities - is increased municipal taxes - meaning it is more expensive to live meaning - really all this spending is making infrastructure that people have to pay more for, even if they dont use it. For instance where facility fees don't increase only families or individuals who use the facilities get the benefit while everyone pays for them - and I think families that use municipal facilities or can afford to send their children (of a more priveleged background) may be traditionally more conservative - since the conservatives tend to favour higher income groups and earners in their measures. While liberals tend to cater to the professional middle income group. Then you wonder why the conservatives have more money going into their war chest - well because they are paying with federal dollars to those same people. Perhaps we should exlude people or people who have family who receive any benefits, or third party contracting, or supply to third parties, from the government from being able to donate or to be affiliated to the political parties. Basically how about if the government is paying the people, those people can't donate, and if they donate, they arn't eligible to be paid, that is a novel start to stop government corruption and partisan embezzlement that the conservatives are engaged in. We could do the same for government appointments too- that is a wonderful idea, stoping patronage and purchase of government prefered placements to federal positions. Elections Canada requires this (even though the winning party in the last election - and the second place party appoint most positions such as the people who count the votes (issued much))- why not the rest of the federal service? This is why corruption happens - because it is normative, it doesn't make it any more right... it is bound to happen because people follow religious practices that espouse deed for deed, you scratch my back I scratch yours... rather than what is the best for the public interst and is selling office - ethical? NO IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, AN INDICTABLE OFFENCE!!! Something the PM has done many many times to no response from the RCMP.

AND IT CONTINUES. We need to critically look at this because it is illegal.

Also asking for spending and getting long term beneficial spending are TWO totally different things. You can say yes the liberals, NDP and bloc wanted to see keynes at his finest - but what they got was an unofficial imbezzlment of $6+ billion dollars of government money - to conservative party supporters.

The quality of spending and ROI are the important factor for THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Even if by indirect income ROI to the conservative party should not be the prime directive in program delivery.

half a million in marketing by harper himself in 34 trips was spent.

that is about 4 times his income spent on marketing a spending program. sounds like campaigning on the federal dime -why do you need to advertise spending? at the cost of half a million dollars, and that ain't the only marketing expense for the program, it is many millions (how much does parliament cost.. hmm? fact is the program was a marketing stunt, and a form of informal embezzlement.

Half a million dollars would provide for a lot of grants or 10 new doctors.

The PM spent millions on marketing himself under things like northern sovereignty and economic action - what type of junk is this when the money could actually go to economic action or hiring 5 or 10 new northern soilders to actually protect the north, or defence technologies.

50+ million in marketing the federal government (the conservatives) is absurdity - pure embezzlement.

" a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual"

The sponsership scandal was nothing compared to this multibillion dollar partisan ploy.

Then you have things like http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/09/bc-us-signs-canadas-economic-action-plan.html Why exactly is stimulus spending being spent in the US, during the US's buy america - no canada welcome?

Once again, you give me an answer that has nothing to do with what I stated. You are lecturing me on something that I never asked for. Indeed, something that was not even stated in the thread! You just pulled it out of your butt and dumped it on me!

You do realize that you are NOT talking to one individual, don't you? That there are a number of different people posting here?

It's obvious that you have no interest in debate. You just want a free soapbox so you can preach!

[Moonbox]

I don't know if some of you get this, but the job of the opposition is to...wait for it...oppose.

Okay sure.

Now, they're supposed to do it with the best interests of the country at heart, but they're no more guilt of self interest than the governing party...or any other human beings for that matter.

Correct

Believe it or not, the opposition can call for more spending, and criticize that spending at the same time...and there isn't necessarily a pinch of hypocrisy or contradiction in that.

Absolutely and totally incorrect. You can say whatever you want about what the opposition's job is, but it's left to the voters to decide where they smell hypocrisy and a lack of integrity.

If the opposition threatens to bring down the government for a lack of stimulus, and after the stimulus is spent criticizes the stimulus, the average voter can see there's some pretty clear inconsistency and can reasonably question the opposition's credibility. The Opposition is a useful tool to critique the government where it needs critiquing. Consistent, unreliable and unqualified criticism, simply for the sake of criticism itself, is useless to everyone.

[William Ashley]

Once again, you give me an answer that has nothing to do with what I stated. You are lecturing me on something that I never asked for. Indeed, something that was not even stated in the thread! You just pulled it out of your butt and dumped it on me!

You do realize that you are NOT talking to one individual, don't you? That there are a number of different people posting here?

It's obvious that you have no interest in debate. You just want a free soapbox so you can preach!

talk down much. The difference between me and you is that - you say nothing about something, and try to make someone nothing. I talk about something, and recognize you are talking about nothing meaningful.

Make some points, then maybe I can give you a "rebutal"

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

If the opposition threatens to bring down the government for a lack of stimulus, and after the stimulus is spent criticizes the stimulus,

Not at all. The opposition can criticize the manor in which the money was spent, and the accountability related to it.

[Wild Bill]

talk down much. The difference between me and you is that - you say nothing about something, and try to make someone nothing. I talk about something, and recognize you are talking about nothing meaningful.

Make some points, then maybe I can give you a "rebutal"

Well, one things for sure. After reading some of your points in other threads I won't bother coming to you for your math skills...