Canada's Federal Deficit

[Craig Read]

Minister Manleyness announces a $6 billion surplus ie. over - taxation. CBC applauds, Canadians snigger that they are better than the Deficit eating Americans. Ho hum.

Okay let's normalise the numbers. The US spends approximately USD$400 Billion on defence and security or about $1428 per capita. Let's assume Canada, as an adult modern serious nation [ok bad assumption], should spend at least 70 % of the US level or about $920US per capita.

This equates to a military budget of U$29 Bn or about C$36 Bn. This is more than TRIPLE the current military spend.

Result: Federal Deficit of about $30 Bn or GASP 3 % of GDP.

Normalise the numbers you fantasists and recognise that you FREE RIDE. Free riding has costs - military, trade, and political.

Canada if it had any semblance of pride and military effectiveness would be running deficits.

Instead it channels the free riding $ into post modern babble and programs.

[daniel]

Which is why we have a surplus (if it's really true). Our spending priorities are that we don't like to keep throwing money at money losing ventures such as world domination.

[Greg]

Daniel, your last post (and some before it) are borderline troll behaviour. If you're going to make a statement like,

Our spending priorities are that we don't like to keep throwing money at money losing ventures such as world domination.

then you'd better back it up with some evidence. Start contributing to the discussion or I'll be forced to deleted your otherwise distracting posts.

Greg

Admin

[Craig Read]

thanks Greg. I don't believe the US wants or needs world domination. Security and military concerns are not necessarily tied to land, resource or people exploitation. Military conflicts in past history were instigated in major part by the control of trade routes and primary resources as well as land [population pressures]. Today given trade patterns, cheap communications, and financial globalisation such desires are not rationale.

Historically countries have needed a military to defend their self interests. One Canadian wrote to the Economist and asked the Economist to name countries that would attack Canada if Canada did not have US protection.

This is disingenuous when Canada is bordered by 3 Oceans. Canada can be attacked in many ways numbering from an attack on its way of life; to terrorist plots in its cities; to its citizens being murdered abroad; to rogue regimes and fascists disrupting trade, society and alliance patterns.

Not having an accountable and prepared military and to willingly free ride off the US is reprehensible. At the very least those who offer that Canada is better than the US need to normalise both their numbers and their opinions for this very large fact.

[SirRiff]

then you'd better back it up with some evidence. Start contributing to the discussion or I'll be forced to deleted your otherwise distracting posts.

greg what are you talkign about???

you think

Our spending priorities are that we don't like to keep throwing money at money losing ventures such as world domination.

is any less arbitrary then

Let's assume Canada, as an adult modern serious nation [ok bad assumption], should spend at least 70 % of the US level

or

Canada if it had any semblance of pride and military effectiveness would be running deficits.

Instead it channels the free riding $ into post modern babble and programs.

ok first, as anybody with a tv news, the US spends HUGE amounts of money peddling its influence around the world. alot of this has to do with projection of military power ie desert storm, 37,000 troops in s.korea, sending 3Billion to afganistan in the 80s and so on. so its obvious its a loosing venture considering it didnt save the 3000 people on 9/11 (ie it didnt make them safer at that moment) and all their expensive technology cant quell the resistance rebels in iraq.

then craig says we should "assume" canada should match the US at 70% military spending levels, that canada has no 'pride", that we instead money on "post modern babble". he accuses us "fantasists" of "free riding" {huh?}

did i just wake up in communist china or that that entire rant not make any sense or have any justification as to why it "should" be that way?

its just his opinion, its vauge and ranting, but let him have it.

similiarly, daniel actually did respond to his point

Which is why we have a surplus (if it's really true). Our spending priorities are that we don't like to keep throwing money at money losing ventures such as world domination.

"which is why" here he addressed the fact that our military spending is lower, we dont waste money projection our influence to buy cheap oil and fight communism, "we have a surplus" which addresses craigs point that the result is our suplus. cause and effect. then he addresses the 70% number that craig says we "should" spend by pointing out correctly i would sya that Canada "dont like to" spend our money (unsuccessfully) at world domination.

as far as i see it, there is nothing more legitimate in craigs post then daniels. as he addresses the main points of craigs post without referring to vauge unsubstanciated assumptions about Canada "should" or excuses for big words "post modern" or accusing some unnamed bizarre group of "fantasists "

should we submit our posts for prior approval or something? it seems a very reasonable post to me. maybe he did some pointless posts before (but who hasnt) but i dont recognize anything wrong on this one especially considering the thread starting post was just as arbitrary an opinion.

SirRiff

[KrustyKidd]

Which is why we have a surplus (if it's really true). Our spending priorities are that we don't like to keep throwing money at money losing ventures such as world domination.

Take the anti US remarks out of this thread and you will realise that if this country had been run properly with the same level of military expenditures we should have done a lot better. The US spends 400 billion and we spend 10. Where is the remaining thirty billion dollars?

[SirRiff]

Take the anti US remarks out of this thread and you will realise that if this country had been run properly with the same level of military expenditures we should have done a lot better. The US spends 400 billion and we spend 10. Where is the remaining thirty billion dollars?

i can agree with that. but is it sane to blame a particular particular party or philosophy? no, no conservative or liberal person, party or philosohpy is to blame.

in truth, the hardships of running a compex country like canada, where citizens demand a high standard of living, maintaining a constitutional democracy, employing a large bureaucracy to support large public policies, and policys are undertaken in responsible ways, means that we will never approach near 100% efficiency in spending.

the overhead to run a miliary or health care system must be massive, in time and money, and THAT is why you can always point to waste in government.

to achieve consensus and transparent social feedback you need a huge public service sector. thus all that 'extra' lost money doesnt go to the end product, but it goes to achieving the end product in a certain way.

not perfect, but required to maintain a 1st world nation i think. same thing with the US, they spend what, $400B on defense? there was a story on CNN few days ago that the latest generation kevlar vests the 'interceptors' were not available to most american troops in iraq. they are expanding thier manufacturing base to increase production.

so if you can spend $400B and still not have the best kevlar vests IN TIME OF WAR, then its not too hard to rationalize Canadian military problems. though i do agree we are even worse off then we should be, lets not pretend its easy to fix.

SirRiff

[KrustyKidd]

Thanks for seeing my point. I also agree with you in that the Liberals are not soley to blame. However, taking the US as an example, why are we not doing a lot better scince we have no big Military to worry about? You say it is simply a matter of the complexities of running a large and varied country whereas I say it is mismanagement and apathy. A quiick qualification for my point is that the government is never afraid to hire consultents to study problems. Never too afraid to spend money or hire people to fix things. They are the ones that need fixing Riff.

[Craig Read]

What a sad answer 'varied and difficult country to manage'. Oh like the US has no variances, no differing degrees, no ethnic mix, and no time sizes and is the size of a Duchy in Europe.

Please.

Canada can't patrol its oceans, defend its rights in the arctic, or ensure its border security. It can send a few hundred men internationally to hand out parking tickets with no equipment and no transportation [with hysterical CBC docs telling you that it is the most dangerous mission since Dieppe. Ok if u insist]. It can't even pay war Vets pensions or other costs associated with army services. Its military budget is 10 % of health care and there are more CCRA people than military personnel.

UNO and soft power is an illusion. As you might gather from the homicides against the Red Cross in Baghdad, many people in the world no comprende las reglas para la fuerza suave.

It is the coward's and free loaders way out. The whole concept is 'listen to me since i am moral and better than you...' Yeah whatever.

Normalise the #'s - Canada - if it was mature - would be running now a 2.2 % of GDP deficit.

[daniel]

The US spends $1.1billion a day on defence. Four percent of that alone can elimate world hunger.

And you want Canada to normalize it's defence spending to that amount??

I think it is the US who ought to normalize so that we can focus on the other world problems.

But like I said, our two countries have different priorities and no other country can or should lecture another about internal policy issues.

[KrustyKidd]

The US spends $1.1billion a day on defence. Four percent of that alone can elimate world hunger.

And how would you get this food to where it needs to be Daniel? Considering that that was why the US went to Somalia (because UN food was not getting to the people because of armed Warlords) I would imagine that this reason alone would dictate that the US would need to keep part of it's military capability.

Also, without a military I wuld imagine that Communism or Militent Islam or some form of Dictatorship would quickly take advantage of the situation. And as we all know, these forms of government are not the most Liberal thinking group of brutes around. Lines of supply and communication would quickly be severed leaving vast areas of the world starving in a way that pales in comparisson with what we have today.

And if you think that people produce more at the end of a doctrine book, Koran or gun then we can start a thread about it because that isn't so. In essence though, keep the military and let's get together, settle the world's problems and then shove aid up their butt until they are self sufficient. Then cut back.

Cumbyah brother. Won't work.

[daniel]

Nothing has changed except technology.

[Craig Read]

Incredible. You actually believe that the US would have been better off to do the following:

-Not fight in WW1 and WW2

-Not fight the Cold War [the Russians loved their children too according to that great political analyst Mr. Sting]

-Not fight to liberate Kuwait

-Not fight to liberate Kosovo

-Not fight the war on terror

-Allow fascist regimes to terrorise their citizens and the world community at large

-Allow China to dominate the Asian world militarily

You state that the US should cut back its military spend, when every analyst and general says they are overstretched right now.

Wonderful insights you possess. So you and the do- nothing school would be happy with fascism, civilian torture and death, mercantilist trade, lower incomes, poor technology, and more ignorance [ok that might be hard to increase for many people].

There is something a little sick with the paralytic invocation of anti-Americanism and the supposition that the US is the REAL evil empire and that the US is inimical to mankind's better health and wealth.

I would say simply that you should grow up.

[daniel]

Exactly, where did I state that? Please provide proof. (Not implied but the actual smoking gun.)

[Hugo]

The US spends $1.1billion a day on defence. Four percent of that alone can elimate world hunger.

Of course, during the Cold War, America could have drastically cut its military spending. Then Soviet Communism could have marched over the earth, and we would have far more hunger, due to the incompetent and evil nature of that government.

The same thing applies now. America could cut back her defence spending dramatically, and run the risk of Islamo-Fascists or Chinese Communists coming to be a dominant power. Then hunger and poverty would run rampant, far more than they do now.

[SirRiff]

Of course, during the Cold War, America could have drastically cut its military spending. Then Soviet Communism could have marched over the earth,

the example of the cold war cannot serve to justify wars for ever. how did killing a million peope in vietnam help anybody ? that same system of american government that won this great victory over russia slaughted untold countless innocents in vietnam over some vauge philosophy that even the president didnt belive. america just lied to its people and couldnt bring itself to stop the killing untill it was pointless.

there is no morality that comes from war, you need to decide first if its right to go start killing people. else you are just as bad as the communists and faciasts and girl scouts.

sirRiff

[Hugo]

the example of the cold war cannot serve to justify wars for ever.

No, and that's why I gave you another example, which you ignored because it disproves your point.

that same system of american government that won this great victory over russia slaughted untold countless innocents in vietnam over some vauge philosophy that even the president didnt belive.

Vietnam was a just war, badly fought. If it had been fought properly, with political will, it would have been won, much sooner, with far less loss of life.

The "vague philosophy" was opposing the evils of communism, and if you are still in any doubt, I invite you to read "The Fall of Saigon" by David Butler. It's really quite insightful. The North Vietnamese were receiving backing from the Soviet Union and Maoist China, and if you think that the "slaughted [sic] untold countless innocents" of Vietnam were bad, just wait until you read about theirs.

there is no morality that comes from war, you need to decide first if its right to go start killing people.

Hey, John Lennon's back! I thought they shot you?

[daniel]

Don't you wish every nation on Earth had a military budget like the United States' ?

I wonder if that would be the answer to all the world's problems.

[SirRiff]

No, and that's why I gave you another example, which you ignored because it disproves your point.

The same thing applies now. America could cut back her defence spending dramatically, and run the risk of Islamo-Fascists or Chinese Communists coming to be a dominant power. Then hunger and poverty would run rampant, far more than they do now.

thats not an example its a justification.

its an immoral justification, because inevitably, the US uses the same means to fight its enemies that it accusses it enemies of using in the first place. so that justification cannot be considered moral or ethical and invalidates all the actions that come from it.

most americans have NO clue about he world around this. this is refected by any one of a number of polls or surveys or testing done. most americans are also clueless about thier own history. this in itself is not unique as most of us are generally ignorant, however when its the wars and deaths your nation has caused, it cannot be dismissed the same as not knowing your MPs name. additionally, considering the propaganda of moral supremacy that penetrates the public justification of obviously immoral actions like shaking hands with murderers, this sort of ignorance cannot be ignored.

every american is just as responsible for the secret violence of its own country as any middle east thug, and has neither the insight or credability to claim to be concerned with selflessly making the world better.

SirRiff

[Craig Read]

What violence ?

Oh you mean defending liberal and democratic elements in the world against communism and fascism.

Who do you think you are ? You come across as a complete untutored savage, straight from Mel Hurtig's or Noam Chomsky's teat.

Hey Riff Raff, name me one communist government elected by its people. Name me one example of a population willingly subjecting itself to terror and communist tyranny.

Your viewpoints are shockingly vapid. You sound like Dan Blather who apologised for Soviet Russia and Cuba or Jane Hanoi Fonda who laughed when asked in Hanoi about US POWs being tortured to death.

You have no morality, no perspective and no evidence, just a visceral hatred of the US and a Noam Chomsky megaphone to spout your racism.

Disgusting.

The US if defiance of freedom haters and soft headed lie-berals like yourself did the following:

-Gave the Soviets the critical supplies, hardware and money needed to help stave off a defeat by the Nazis

-Liberated Western Europe and allowed Europeans to choose their own governments

-Won the Cold War and freed Eastern Europe

-Restored democracy in Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Chile while the Lie-beras howled that the communists attempting to butcher populations of said countries were 'reformers' and that we should 'let the people decide' ignoring the thousands of Cuban troops, Russian made military hardware, Russian observers and Russian money and food flooding said countries.

-Fought for South Korea and South Vietnam after Russia and China armed and sent into battle their Northern proxies.

-Are now fighting against Islamofascism and terror while nitwits like yourself, who have no common sense, no honor, no sense of fighting for freedom heap scorn and opprobrium on the only nation, along with Britain and the Aussies, with the courage to see reality for what it is.

You are beyong the pale, beyond contempt.

[Cameron]

Speaking on the topic of screwed up budgets and bad politics, here is a recent poll from G&M. From the choices there and the information that I've read, I chose Mulroney...sorry to venture off-topic...

As Jean Chretien prepares to leave office, there is an opportunity to assess the performance of Canada's recent Prime Ministers. Who on this list was the best PM?

John Turner 

  1326 votes   (10 %)

Brian Mulroney 

  2349 votes   (18 %)

Kim Campbell 

  404 votes   (3 %)

Jean Chretien  

  8696 votes   (68 %)

[Morgan]

Chretien's high approval rate may have just taken a nose dive this morning when Manley gave his fiscal update.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...ront/TopStories

Surplus vanishes on Martin

-Paul Martin will inherit a government that has almost no money in the bank...Mr. Manley announced that the surplus this year will be about $2.3-billion, the lowest amount since the federal Liberals started recording surpluses in 1997.

-Up to $2-billion of that money will be given to the provinces for health care, but only if Ottawa decides next fall, when the final figures are in, that it can hand over the money without going into deficit.

-That leaves no room for error or economic catastrophe, not to mention Mr. Martin's priorities of spending on cities, defence and early childhood education.

-He said the spending of the safety cushion was a one-time change of policy made necessary by the slow economic growth this year, coupled with the costs associated with the soaring Canadian dollar and a string of shocks that have touched almost every region of the country: SARS, the ban on most beef exports due to the discovery of a case of mad-cow disease, fires, floods, hurricanes and blackouts. The surplus would have been $1.2-billion larger had it not been for SARS, mad-cow and missions to the Middle East, Mr. Manley said.

***Don't you love it when the Liberals and Chretien make all sorts of excuses for why the country is running on empty[sARS, Mad cow, fires, blackouts, Middle East Missions? huh?]yet they do not give the same consideration to Bush?

Wasn't it just a few months ago that Chretien was preening in front of CBC cameras about his sound fiscal policies and how[tsk, tsk] Bush should take tips from his example?

Maybe Chretien would have more money in the budget to throw at the hallowed socialized medical care system if he stopped sending foreign aid to the Commie criminal in Cuba, stopped the bi-lingual language grants to Africa, deep sixed the idea for a museum in Shawinigan, to name a few items of wasteful spending.

But what am I saying...the hole in universal health care is a bottomless pit for spending...my suggestions are like putting a finger in a dyke riddled with holes.

[Cameron]

So many complaints about the current government on policies, lies and corruption. One major sollution:

[X] - Conservative Party of Canada

Done!

[Craig Read]

Chretien is beyond the pale. The Cdn economy lived off of:

-Ontario and AB

-Cheap currency [it is still cheap at 76 cents]

-Surplus is almost entirely due to EI fraud or overtaxation whatever you want to call it

-Due to the above, no real tax, welfare reforms or spend reforms were necessary.

Now we have collectively higher taxes, higher spend [42% of GDP], NO military, Bad relations with the US, a withered Parliament, PMO centralisation and Corruption all over the place.

Chretien is such an arrogant little twit, that someone needs to investigate the abuses of his gov't and its corruption and nail him.

Chretien's legacy is the above - the centralisation of power, and the entrenchment of socialism.

[Morgan]

I'd like to add to your comments about Chretien's legacy of "bad relations with the USA."

Chretien and his cabinet lackeys just can't resist poking the USA in the eye, even when their comments make themselves look like asses.

Here's Reuters take on Manley's fiscal report from yesterday, wherein he announced the nasty news about how the country is running on empty and how the "surplus" she is gone. But, no worries, eh?

However, are the Liberals contrite and humbled by the state of Canada's economy which has been their responsibility for the past 8 years? No way...Manley takes this opportunity to criticize Bush for running up a deficit!This is too precious. I'm sure Manley's ill-advised criticisms will be remembered by the White House come trade negotiations time.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...udget_usa_col_1

Canada Says U.S. Budget Deficit Needs to Be Curbed

Mon Nov 3,11:27 AM ET

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The United States must rein in its budget deficit, or rising debt levels will boost interest rates around the world, Finance Minister John Manley said on Monday.

In a fiscal update presented to Parliament's finance committee, Manley singled out the sustainability of the U.S. economic recovery as a threat to Canada's own growth forecasts -- 1.9 percent growth this year and 3 percent next year.