Smallc Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 7 minutes ago, blueblood said: i don't buy all the trump stuff. His stance in free trade is proposterous. However cutting taxes to 15% from their high levels is a good start. trump also advocates for budgets to be brought into balance which means he will piss people off and cave to Ryan cutting spending. Trump promised a lot of things. If he doesn't do anything too radical, Obama has actually made the work of balancing the budget far easier. Cutting business taxes to 15% over night is pretty radical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 13 hours ago, Smallc said: Extremely large is certainly a gross exaggeration. This deficit is quite mild actually. I haven't seen a single economist that spoke out against it as a bad thing. CIBC even showed what would happen if Canada ran $100B deficits into forever. You know what happens? Not a lot. Our Debt to GDP would climb for a few years and then stall at around 70%. These deficits of less than $30B for a few years aren't going to do anything to what is now a more than $2T economy. And Alberta already had a carbon tax. It was the first province to have one. Manitoba was going to put a price on carbon even under the PCs. Chretien cut spending and taxes. Martin cut taxes. Harper cut taxes. In fact, up to this point, Trudeau has cut taxes (by over $1B per year). Canada has some of lowest business taxes in the OECD. I still don't understand how any of that divides us like say, a free vote on same sex marriage. Here you go again, talking out of both sides of your month again. Now your defending the liberals position on spending, in fact you saying we can pretty much enjoy unlimited spending forever.....lets knock the clock back a few months ago, when the subject was military spending, where you state There is only so much money to spend, and it is needed else where, other than the military...So what is it can we spend like drunken sailors, or do we need to watch every dollar that is spent as our debt means something in the long run.... And I'm not just talking about the military there is hundreds of Bils in shortfalls when it comes to critical infra structure repairs or replacement projects, Health care, and even Education that could be redone under the federal umbrella, if what you say is true, 100's of bils each and every year for ever...... Would solve a lot of problems would it not....So my only question is why has no one done it yet. If it is the magic pill why have we not swallowed it yet ? Why has 'nt another nation gone this route ? I'm thinking a lot is going to happen, and those in charge have been given advice NOT to go down that road.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 14 hours ago, blueblood said: the Irish since 2012 have the best performing economy in the western world and have low taxes and extreme austerity The Irish economy is doing good, and they have been steadily lowering unemployment as well. Don't be fooled however by the heavily skewed GDP numbers due to corporate inversions. Government debt (total public debt) is roughly equivalent to Canada (%GDP), and their current year deficit will be equivalent to about a $16 billion Canadian deficit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 30, 2016 Report Share Posted December 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Here you go again, talking out of both sides of your month again. Now your defending the liberals position on spending, in fact you saying we can pretty much enjoy unlimited spending forever.....lets knock the clock back a few months ago, when the subject was military spending, where you state There is only so much money to spend, and it is needed else where, other than the military...So what is it can we spend like drunken sailors, or do we need to watch every dollar that is spent as our debt means something in the long run.... Theoretically, we could spend a lot of money for a very long time. Practically, no. We were having an academic discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 A lot of things look good on paper, But the question was why has a government not chosen to go down this route ? Or could it be there is more to going into massive debt than your telling us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 It certainly would create it's own problems. CIBC only did it to show that the current deficits weren't a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 32 minutes ago, Smallc said: It certainly would create it's own problems. CIBC only did it to show that the current deficits weren't a problem. And yet no one has stuck a toe in those waters, to test it out....I may not be a financial guru, but there must be a good reason if politicians have not tried it yet.....a man or women could earn a lot of votes with a steady income of 100 bils of free dollars...shit even I would vote liberal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 Other countries have debt loads like the theoretical scenario that they used as an example. The money isn't free, you pay for it in interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) How did we go from businessmen / politicians to GDP debt ratios? Talk about thread drift... ========= I reckon that Kevin O'Leary is no Donald Trump or Benito Mussolini. He's not even a Barack Obama. Canada has its own Electoral College. And unlike Trump, O'Leary has no path to a majority. === To translate all this to Canada: O'Leary is, uh, Ben Carson. Or Carly Fiorina. Or Péladeau Jnr. Edited December 31, 2016 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 1 hour ago, August1991 said: To translate all this to Canada: O'Leary is, uh, Ben Carson. Or Carly Fiorina. Or Péladeau Jnr. This is not about Canada, this is about the Conservative party having nobody so they will latch their hopes on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ?Impact said: This is not about Canada, this is about the Conservative party having nobody so they will latch their hopes on anything. IMV, this thread is about O'Leary and, as Jean-François Lisée described it: Quebec's "Peladeau moment". Edited December 31, 2016 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 20 hours ago, ?Impact said: The Irish economy is doing good, and they have been steadily lowering unemployment as well. Don't be fooled however by the heavily skewed GDP numbers due to corporate inversions. Government debt (total public debt) is roughly equivalent to Canada (%GDP), and their current year deficit will be equivalent to about a $16 billion Canadian deficit. The difference is that the Irish deficit is shrinking and Canada's is growing. Yet the Irish did it without touching their corporate rate. Canada had its deficit cleared as Harper walked out the door. As to corporate inversions that's thanks to their low tax rate which makes for a competitive environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 10 hours ago, August1991 said: How did we go from businessmen / politicians to GDP debt ratios? Talk about thread drift... ========= I reckon that Kevin O'Leary is no Donald Trump or Benito Mussolini. He's not even a Barack Obama. Canada has its own Electoral College. And unlike Trump, O'Leary has no path to a majority. === To translate all this to Canada: O'Leary is, uh, Ben Carson. Or Carly Fiorina. Or Péladeau Jnr. That depends on the economy. Harper won a majority without Quebec and O'Leary could very well do the same. If the economy keeps being sluggish the NDp will gain votes on the left and the Tories will come up the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 13 minutes ago, blueblood said: The difference is that the Irish deficit is shrinking and Canada's is growing. Yet the Irish did it without touching their corporate rate. Canada had its deficit cleared as Harper walked out the door. As to corporate inversions that's thanks to their low tax rate which makes for a competitive environment. Again, that's revisionist. With $20B in new spending we're running a deficit of almost $30B, so it wasn't cleared. It's also false to say that Canada's deficit is growing. It's not. It will be fine to shrink again going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 37 minutes ago, Smallc said: Again, that's revisionist. With $20B in new spending we're running a deficit of almost $30B, so it wasn't cleared. It's also false to say that Canada's deficit is growing. It's not. It will be fine to shrink again going forward. Haper did clear it. The economy went a bit into deficit because of low commodity prices, however the taps were open wide for un seat buying, the CBC, etc. And the carbon tax won't pay for any of it and will in fact make things worse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 1 hour ago, blueblood said: Haper did clear it. No, far from it. He sold off the furniture to get income, and postponed his child tax credit to a later quarter then spent millions on his bullshit propaganda about balancing the budget. That is not balance, that is a lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 2 hours ago, Smallc said: Again, that's revisionist. With $20B in new spending we're running a deficit of almost $30B, so it wasn't cleared. It's also false to say that Canada's deficit is growing. It's not. It will be fine to shrink again going forward. The Liberals will never balance the budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 34 minutes ago, ?Impact said: No, far from it. He sold off the furniture to get income, and postponed his child tax credit to a later quarter then spent millions on his bullshit propaganda about balancing the budget. That is not balance, that is a lie. It was still balanced. Selling furniture is good as it's in the hands of private business which is far more efficient. The child tax was a waste to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 1 minute ago, blueblood said: It was still balanced. Selling furniture is good as it's in the hands of private business which is far more efficient. The child tax was a waste to begin with. He sold GM shares and robbed the "rainy day fund". Hardly sound fiscal management! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, blueblood said: It was still balanced. Selling furniture is good as it's in the hands of private business which is far more efficient. The child tax was a waste to begin with. Another complete fabrication. Lets take healthcare for instance, it is 29% more inefficient in the US specifically due to private business. The bullshit propaganda that private enterprise is more efficient has been demonstrated many times in the past. Private enterprise is interested in only one thing, raping the people to fill their pocketbooks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Another complete fabrication. Lets take healthcare for instance, it is 29% more inefficient in the US specifically due to private business. The bullshit propaganda that private enterprise is more efficient has been demonstrated many times in the past. Private enterprise is interested in only one thing, raping the people to fill their pocketbooks. It's not completely private in the USA. It's cronyism based on excessive govt regulations. Take laser eye surgery for example, completely private and the costs of obtaining such are dropping like a rock. As for the USA healthcare being inefficient canadas is much worse. How long for a hip surgery, stem cell treatment? Pretty sad when Canadians are heading there to get work done and paying there when they could pay here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 4 minutes ago, blueblood said: As for the USA healthcare being inefficient canadas is much worse. How long for a hip surgery, stem cell treatment? Pretty sad when Canadians are heading there to get work done and paying there when they could pay here. US healthcare is 29% more expensive because of the private insurance. Yes, if you are a rich bastard you can circumvent lines in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 17 minutes ago, blueblood said: Pretty sad when Canadians are heading there to get work done and paying there when they could pay here. That happens in absolutely insignificant numbers. And thanks to the wonders of technology, we can see how long waits are. Some are bad, and some aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 52 minutes ago, Argus said: The Liberals will never balance the budget. Another person with a crystal ball. A lot of people said the same thing about Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted December 31, 2016 Report Share Posted December 31, 2016 25 minutes ago, ?Impact said: US healthcare is 29% more expensive because of the private insurance. Yes, if you are a rich bastard you can circumvent lines in the US. The regulations in regards to private insurance. Many regulations make for pricey care. Sort of like the defence industry with private contractors insulated with govt guarantees. They can charge anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.