Our duty to bail out europe

[PIK]

Mulcair in the commons demands that we borrow billions of dollars and give it, not loan ,but give it to the private rich euro bankers, because it is our duty. And at the same time give kadr a mil or 2 while we are at it.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Mulcair in the commons demands that we borrow billions of dollars and give it, not loan ,but give it to the private rich euro bankers, because it is our duty. And at the same time give kadr a mil or 2 while we are at it.

Source?

[PIK]

Source?

It was on the radio, so I can't link anything yet MCC, if true ,his french citizenship might come into play now more then ever.

[eyeball]

It was on the radio, so I can't link anything yet MCC, if true ,his french citizenship might come into play now more then ever.

You actually heard him demand, verbatim, that we borrow billions of dollars and give it, not loan ,but give it to the private rich euro bankers?

Are you sure about which appliance you were tuned into?

[capricorn]

Harper’s refusal to help bail out Europe draws Germany’s ire

Germany is expressing its irritation with Canada for refusing to contribute to an international bailout fund as Prime Minister Stephen Harper faces increased pressure from the G20 to show “solidarity” with countries tackling Europe’s financial crisis.

---

Ottawa insists the IMF exists to help the world’s developing countries, not Europe, and Canada takes the position that it is standing up for non-G20 countries that are uncomfortable with IMF funds going to the euro zone.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-refusal-to-help-bail-out-europe-draws-germanys-ire/article4240996/

Visiting France, Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the 17-country eurozone a "half-done project" that lacks the tools to contain Europe's spiralling debt crisis.

"The problem here is we have a monetary union, but the European Union and the eurozone lack the strong institutional structures that normally go with a monetary union," he said.

On Wednesday, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair castigated Harper for lecturing Europeans about their festering financial crisis while not participating with G20 nations on possible solutions.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/06/should-canada-contribute-to-a-european-bailout.html

Canada is under pressure -- even more so than the United States, where presidential politics and congressional gridlock render the question moot -- to add its weight to the International Monetary Fund initiative, but Flaherty has so far refused.

"What we do know is that Mr. Mulcair criticizes our government for not participating with Canadian taxpayers' money in bailing out European banks," Flaherty said.

"Quite frankly, these are among the wealthiest countries in the world and they can manage their own issue before looking to other countries to bail them out."

Flaherty said the IMF is there to help out poor countries, not rich ones.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/tories-blast-sumptuous-europe--deny-bailout-158045925.html

Why should Canada fork over billions in taxpayers' money, not a repayable loan but an outright gift, to countries who have mismanaged their economy? Harper's right about IMF funding. It was never intended to help first world countries whose economies are teetering. Let the European Union look after their own financial problems in the Eurozone. We have our own challenges right here at home.

I am at a loss to understand Mulcair's thinking on this matter and hope he clarifies what he means by "possible solutions" to bail out those countries.

Edited June 8, 2012 by capricorn

[mentalfloss]

As far as I can tell, he only mentioned that Harper should participate with G20 nations on possible solutions. This could mean as much as just talking to them and providing suggestions.

No mention at all so far about us "bailing out Europe."

Edited June 8, 2012 by mentalfloss

[scribblet]

I'd like to see Mulcair clarify that position.

Just saw this, I suppose Hansard would have the actual quotes...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/06/08/19853256.html

Flaherty unleashed after Mulcair - who holds French citizenship - said he would use tax dollars to bail out European banks from the debt hole that deepens by the day and is causing global economic turbulence.

Canada, the United States and other countries have refused to contribute to the International Monetary Fund to help the eurozone, saying it has the means, but not the political will to implement tough austerity measures.

Edited June 8, 2012 by scribblet

[mentalfloss]

Here's the answer..

Mulcair did not meet with reporters Thursday, but in response to claims he wants Canadian taxpayers to pony up money for Europe, he told the House: "That is the type of pure fabulation one resorts to when one does not have any arguments."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/06/08/harper-europe-socialism.html

Edited June 8, 2012 by mentalfloss

[eyeball]

Why should Canada fork over billions in taxpayers' money, not a repayable loan but an outright gift, to countries who have mismanaged their economy? Harper's right about IMF funding. It was never intended to help first world countries whose economies are teetering. Let the European Union look after their own financial problems in the Eurozone. We have our own challenges right here at home.

Isn't what Harper's quoted as saying; "The problem here is we have a monetary union, but the European Union and the eurozone lack the strong institutional structures that normally go with a monetary union," also true in a sense of the so-called global economy we're all supposed to be part of? Maybe what we really need to match our one global economy is one global currency.

I am at a loss to understand Mulcair's thinking on this matter and hope he clarifies what he means by "possible solutions" to bail out those countries.

I don't know either but I'd have to say I have as little faith in simply bailing out countries in the conventional manner that's been alluded to as anyone.

I think what Harper said about running out of runways would have been more brilliant if it had been applied to our species attempt to establish a truly global civilization.

At the risk of sounding like I've been listening to my toaster, I think we should be all facing the reality that what we really need to do is effectively 'bail-out' our whole species. I'd go with a gigantic jubilee - a forgiving of all debts everywhere and establish an entirely new currency (I've always had a fondness for Michael Hardener's idea of a digital time-stamped currency) based on a full cost accounting of things like environmental degradation and in-kind contributions of charitable acts that contribute or restore something to society or the environment.

Edited June 8, 2012 by eyeball

[Moonbox]

At the risk of sounding like I've been listening to my toaster, I think we should be all facing the reality that what we really need to do is effectively 'bail-out' our whole species. I'd go with a gigantic jubilee - a forgiving of all debts everywhere and establish an entirely new currency (I've always had a fondness for Michael Hardener's idea of a digital time-stamped currency) based on a full cost accounting of things like environmental degradation and in-kind contributions of charitable acts that contribute or restore something to society or the environment.

You do sound like you've been listening to your toaster. If you're serious, and you actually think that this is possible right now...I'm sorry I don't even have a good suggestion for you...just good luck

[madmax]

Mulcair in the commons demands that we borrow billions of dollars and give it, not loan ,but give it to the private rich euro bankers, because it is our duty. And at the same time give kadr a mil or 2 while we are at it.

I have yet to see a source that supports this comment that we give billions to europe, to rich private euro bankers.

[eyeball]

You do sound like you've been listening to your toaster. If you're serious, and you actually think that this is possible right now...I'm sorry I don't even have a good suggestion for you...just good luck

I know it sounds flaky as all get go to certain people but surely you realize that's a two-way street. I mean c'mon, does anyone seriously imagine we can simply grow ourselves out of our present global difficulties in the conventional manner anymore?

I don't know what you're smoking if you do, must be some new innovative designer drug. There'll probably be an even newer one out next week.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/tories-blast-sumptuous-europe--deny-bailout-158045925.html

Why should Canada fork over billions in taxpayers' money, not a repayable loan but an outright gift, to countries who have mismanaged their economy? Harper's right about IMF funding. It was never intended to help first world countries whose economies are teetering. Let the European Union look after their own financial problems in the Eurozone. We have our own challenges right here at home.

I am at a loss to understand Mulcair's thinking on this matter and hope he clarifies what he means by "possible solutions" to bail out those countries.

I agree with the conservatives on this one.

The money poor money management was that of investors who took risks, they knew the risk.

Let it if fall.

[Boges]

I agree with the conservatives on this one.

The money poor money management was that of investors who took risks, they knew the risk.

Let it if fall.

A country that has the least stat holidays of any G8 nation; A country that has a retirement of 65+; A country that actually has an unemployment rate under 8%; Should fork over money to countries that have stat holidays a plenty, retirement for people under 60 and huge unemployment.

I don't think so.

I haven't seen the Mulclair quote but I can't see anyone outside of Quebec that would support measures bailing out Europe. Well unless they adopted some of the policies that have kept Canada off the ledge.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Boges

[MiddleClassCentrist]

It was on the radio, so I can't link anything yet MCC, if true ,his french citizenship might come into play now more then ever.

If true, I think he'll tank in the polls.

I'm a bit offended by it.

We are already making cuts to avoid it in Canada... now those cuts would go to assist countries overseas?

I am a fan of letting everything tank and sorting it out rather than just artificially proping up our failed system. Let the rich lose all of their money, hit the restart button.

Edited June 8, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Canuckistani]

I am a fan of letting everything tank and sorting it out rather than just artificially proping up our failed system. Let the rich lose all of their money, hit the restart button.

Except that never seems to happen. It's the poor and middle class that seems to get hammered.

[eyeball]

Except that never seems to happen. It's the poor and middle class that seems to get hammered.

It's when the poor and former middle class hammer back that it happens.

[capricorn]

Well unless they adopted some of the policies that have kept Canada off the ledge.

Mulcair has already declared he likes France's new policy of lowering the age of retirement to age 60.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair's musings that Canada should adopt the socialist French model on pensions was met with ridicule and charges of economic incompetence Thursday by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in and outside the House of Commons.

---

Mulcair used the timing of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's trip to France on Thursday to champion that country's decision to lower to 60 from 62 the age to receive a pension. He was mocking the Harper government's decision to raise the age to collect Old Age Security in Canada to 67 from 65.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/08/flaherty-mocks-mulcairs-idea-to-adopt-european-social-model

Age of retirement set too low has been one aggravating factor in the suffering economy of some countries.

[Canuckistani]

It's when the poor and former middle class hammer back that it happens.

Example?

[eyeball]

Example?

France, Russia and China come to mind.

[Canuckistani]

France, Russia and China come to mind.

Wouldn't want to go thru what they went thru. And if I look, all three still have rich and poor, and did have even during their communist periods. The poor and middle class have the tools to change things without revolution in many countries - called the vote, yet they never seem to do so.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Canuckistani

[eyeball]

Wouldn't want to go thru what they went thru. And if I look, all three still have rich and poor, and did have even during their communist periods.

Just goes to show money is only the half of it - power is even more unequally distributed throughout society than wealth.

Digitally time-stamped currency that gives everyone the ability to follow the money might be enough to protect society from the more mundane abuses of power, but I'm betting we're still going to have to monitor things like the PMO to an extent that would make Orwell himself blush - to be sure the books aren't being cooked, the field isn't being tilted, the game isn't being rigged etc etc.

I subscribe to a trickle-down theory of honesty and decency. Concentrate these at the very top of society and it will trickle down throughout the rest.

The revolutions in France, Russia and China never had a chance.

[Canuckistani]

I subscribe to a trickle-down theory of honesty and decency. Concentrate these at the very top of society and it will trickle down throughout the rest.

How? People can't handle the truth - they'll always vote for somebody who promises them something for nothing. Doesn't matter if that's left or right.

[eyeball]

The poor and middle class have the tools to change things without revolution in many countries - called the vote, yet they never seem to do so.

That's a pretty lame excuse, simply paying them to vote with a tax break or penalizing them with a fine for not voting would make a huge difference.

I'd still monitor whoever they vote for though.

As far as I'm concerned exposing people to wealth and power without total oversight is like exposing nuclear workers to radiation without lead shielding. You're guaranteed to have problems.

[eyeball]

How? People can't handle the truth - they'll always vote for somebody who promises them something for nothing. Doesn't matter if that's left or right.

You're never going to get them to learn if you don't force them to face the consequences of their own mistakes. That's just basic 101 evolution stuff.