Is the Media Fix in? Cont.

Just for your information, every media link/feed is being kept and recorded. The world is watching Canada's election for major reasons, namely to observe whether or not its a fair election and for this election to be fair, media has to do its job. A large number of nations including some of our major friends and allies in the U.S. are watching this.

As you read these words alone, remind yourselves that there are now likely a half a million hits a week here or more from media, jounalists world wide, professors, and those who defend the principle of democracy itself.

So what created the narrowing of the gap we saw cavernous divisions 4 weeks ago with Canadas polls between Strategic Council/Angus Reid and Nano's and now numbers where there isn't much difference... where Nanos numbers has the Libs tanking at 25 - 26% this last week? False polls and the propaganda that follows such poll numbers with opinion pieces further leading to the more accurate numbers we see today.

And it worked.

So far.

Daily news favoring the Cons/NDP coming from MSN/CTV/Can West/Globe & Mail have been steady since a week before the election. None of these main stream media outlets have begun to cover the Green Elizabeth train campaign tour. But the real tell here in all this is the dramatic change in most polls initially except for one, Nanos resistant in showing a dramatic shift of voter support going Lib to Con in Ontario roughly 4 weeks back. I argue that these numbers were initially cooked and combined with propaganda to create the poll number effect we see today.

Folks, you all need to understand just how big the media giants Reuters Thompson and Can West are in order to get the scope of what kind of influence they have over public opinion AND what they stand to gain with a Conservative majority. Imagine for one moment the huge media void that will be left behind with the CBC gone and who will capture that market share and BINGO! You have your media motive for major bias towards a Con majority and a push for NDP support to divide and hopefully destroy the Liberal party.

Oh, and by the way... did Jack Layton cut a deal with Harper to become the leading opposing party in all this? Prop up the NDP in the media to split the NDP Lib vote towards a Conservative majority? It could very well be that Jack Layton did cut a deal with Harper to get favorable media propaganda his way at the expense of our democracy and the expense of every Canadian. He's cut deals with Harper before.

The hot air bill that has emissions targets that have yet to be passed into law. The bid to see Elizabeth May gone from the debates. You all think about that because it very well could be true and when one looks at how CTV Globemedia/MSN/Can West has been surprisingly favorable to the NDP, never mind unashamedly supportive of the Cons...

The brain

What evidence is there of this? There are very few positive stories about the NDP out there.

You mean every Liberal. NDPers and Conservatives are Canadians too Lorne.

Such as?

I'm just saying...

Times the Liberals supported Harper's policies this last parliament : 46

Which includes telling the Taliban to shoot at our soldiers for 3 more years before we surrender.

You make some points, Frank

What evidence is there of this? There are very few positive stories about the NDP out there. - Frank

Well, here was yesterday's main headliners from MSN/CTV as an example. Frank, unless you watched the headliners coming from MSN/CTV/Can West on a daily basis over this last month looking for it, you wouldn't see it. I did. Others did too. Its all being saved as we speak. Its run down Libs and prop up the NDP to spit the vote strategy all the way. This is just yesterday and folks... it does rub off on us.

"Dion gears up for rally in TO"

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080925%2felection2008_election_sunday_080928

When one reads it, its like an ad for the NDP. The headline below has been running for 3 weeks now. Every single day... Ontario battlegrounds leaning Tory: poll. Interestingly, they never say which ones.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080925%2felection2008_ont_080927

Other MSN stories from yesterday.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/abc/Election_08/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CP_EN_ELECTION&showbyline=True&newsitemid=137646061

http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/abc/Election_08/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CP_EN_ELECTION&showbyline=True&newsitemid=116595044

Now I will admit that there is more to it. Negative ads are flying. Leaders, campaigns, platforms, candidates, record, its not just one thing. But can the media throw elections? Ask yourselves what happened with Rhuwanda. Germany. Italy. The U.S.A.! You won't find the states who spends more on advertizing than any other nation in the world saying media doesn't work. There are master manipulators at play here, Frank. Lets not be naive.

And as for Jack cutting a deal... thats pure speculation, you've called me on it. But.. (there's always that but) the NDP has been getting a free ride from those who would benefit from a privatized CBC. Don't think that it hasn't already happened and is happening now.

The brain

The NDP just released their platform. Of course they'll get some coverage on that. But what about before yesterday?

Your first link is Dion criticising the NDP, how is that an "ad" for the NDP?

The second link doesn't mention the NDP.

The third link is about the release of the NDP platform but gives coverage to Dion's criticisms of it.

The fourth link is simply about the Libs and NDP fighting over Emerson's old seat. No NDP bias at all.

As for the CBC, I saw the hatchet job Mansbridge did on Layton, and heard the attacks launched against him on the CBC Radio interview (The Current) but then I consider the CBC to be very pro-Liberal and so wasn't surprised.

Jeffrey Simpson

By the way, J.Simpson wrote an appalling attack on the NDP in the Globe yesterday. If there's media out there helping the NDP I have yet to see any evidence of it.

Some things never change...

Thompson is a Canadian success. Would you rather break them up and sell them off to US interests? - realisticman

I would rather the CRTC did its friggin job and set regulations that didn't favor a ballpark 70% of our mainstream media being run by two families, Woodbridge and Asper, thank you very much.

Canadian's have to understand that success is not a bad trait. - realisticman

And you need to understand that privately owned monopolies/oligarchies don't often act in the interests of us ordinary folk. Do you have any clue as to how much power Asper/Woobridge will have if they take over market share of the titan CBC? We'll have only the Star, Macleans and most of the Suns that will not have Canada's message controlled by these two families. To say that that this would be a success for Canada, maybe you should think about switching drinks.

"As for the big boys slurping up the CBC audience, don't imagine for a minute that any media exec is salivating over this. Look at the ratings and tell me that this is an envied prize?" - realisticman

[INFLAMMATORY COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.] No corporation wants greater market share? Uh huh...

"Harper is also quite aware that in Québec, Radio Canada is doing very well. Any crushing of Radio Canada would not be well received there at all. The only possible arrangement I can imagine, taking the Québec situation into account, is that the network could be offered to the provinces. Québec would probably bite and maybe Ontario would be too, rolling it into TVO." - Realisticman

Or try the sale of CBC to Woodbridge/Asper. Once that happens, over 90% of the mainstream media message is controlled just like that. Safe to say, they would be the kingmakers of all Canadian governments from there and if Quebec doesn't like it, well, Harper did give them their "national status". Been paying attention to what Ed Deak has to say lately?

Oh yeah, Frank, one last thing :-)

I'm not always right. I don't know if Layton cut a deal for favorable reviews from two families that have a great deal to gain from it. I can't say the Woodbridges aren't good people, I've never met them. Thats pure speculation (of which we are all allowed).

But I do know that at this point, there are just two families that control a ball parked 70% of all of Canada's mainstream media and that is a major concern. And if the CBC is privatized, that market share of Canada's mainstream media will jump to over 90%. We are talking virtually all of Canada's TV programming and at least 80% of our daily papers run by just two families. I repeat, all that will be free of their control will be most of the Suns, the Star and Macleans. And the weekly's. And radio? Asper/Woodbridge controls most of the radio too!

This should be cause for concern, folks. To say that Asper/Woodbridge is controlling the Canadian message with politics for political gain... I can't prove that. Even with historical links all saved and documented and interviews with disgruntled Can West/Woodbridge controlled journalists and editors, I can't prove it. And with politics, it still comes down to leader, brand, candidates, record and all news has to provide some kind of balance to their reporting or they get caught as easily as one turns on Mike Duffy and recognizes it as the Tory channel.

But what I can prove is that the conditions are extremely ripe for such a possiblility to occur, not to mention motive and other possibilities, like say, a U.S. media giant buys out Can West or Reuters/Thompson, or both. Such things can occur and the question I have for you is... where are our regulations that prevent media concentration? This is a dangerous media environment we already have as it is...

And must I spell out the obvious? Whoever controls the media controls the message. Whoever thinks this shouldn't become a major election issue, should think again because it should and if we don't do it now, it will become one of those, "we should have done this 10, 20 years ago" things where its too late. Its within human nature for us to blow it, y'know? Even with those highly successful ones...

And

And of course the reason they allowed it to happen was because daddy Asper was a Liberal so they thought it would benefit them.

LOL! Frank, I gotta go, but heres one more

The thing is Lorne, it doesn't matter to me if the Libs see themselves as being in the centre between the NDP and Conservatives. What matters is their policies and they give me nothing to vote for. The NDP does. - Frank

Prove it. And back up all that spending while your at it. You show me yours... and I'll show you mine. :-)

I know I'd rather vote for a party that says we can eliminate child poverty than one that says Paul Martin was too left-wing and corporate taxes have to be cut even more than he cut them. - Frank

LOL!!! You will find my excellent rebuttal at www.garth.ca and click onto the calander for this piece By brain on 09.24.08 9:40 am. You'll find it scrolling down the "Stand Up" thread on Sept 23rd. Everything will be explained there, Frank. Happy reading! (and just to give you a poke to do so... :-) Those NDP'ers.... they just don't fiscally get it!

As for the CBC being worried that they will look like a propaganda tool if they aren't pro-Liberal, well that ship has sailed. Everyone knows they are pro-Liberal and they already look like a propaganda tool. Just as much as the National Post and the Globe and the Sun and Can-West chains are tools of the Right. - Frank

And what do you think will happen with the CBC gone, Frank. Thought about that one yet? And as for the CBC being a propaganda tool for the government... who's in government now?

And who's jobs are on the line and what organization is it that defends those jobs? Why would the CBC ever support the Liberal party of Canada, as you say, its the NDP that is the labor party, at least, so the brand claims. And correct me if I'm mistaken, but it sounds like you are implying that this nation will be better off without the CBC?

Perhaps you have some bias, some generalities that should, if I'm not mistaken, not be taken as golden rules?

The brain

Prove what? That I like their policies?

As for spending, the Libs have 15 billion in spending and 40 billion in tax cuts. Where are they getting that money?

Just like Paul Martin?

My bias is clear to all, you should be more honest about yours.

The brain

You linked to Garth Turner's website. A Mulroney Conservative.

I don't wish to go hunting for a post from 5 days ago, I have no idea where to even look.

As for the CBC, why would I care? They aren't that different from the Aspers.

For realisticman

Oops! You called me a friend! I'd better watch my tone here, try to curb my otherwise surly, abrasive conduct! :-)

"Québec will never let that happen my friend. Ever read anything about federal control of communications and Québec? Google it." - realisticman

Your right. It'll spark a wave of Quebec nationalism... which is exactly what Harper wants! I've come to mellow on that question quite frankly, the question of Quebec sovreignty. I believe that in a way, they already have it.

I think about Europe as an example, with a united currency and easy flow of goods and people across borders... I believe that Quebec could have an opportunity for sovreignty where the arrangement won't hurt Quebec or Canada but it has to be done right or both entities separate will weaken, especially in the area of trade, environment, currencies and corporate takeovers.

If the sovreigntist movement is racist or anti-immigrant in any way, I'd say their ambition to become a nation is over before it began. The same goes with the economy and currency. Even the Bloc should understand that the best way to bargain trade agreements and to preserve its nation within a nation is to keep its mother nation strong against their real threat to any kind of long term sovreignty and that is the U.S.

So things have become very sophisticated and have changed in terms of what kind of sovreignty they are after or what is the most that can be achieved on both sides and my feeling on it is that as long as certain things are off the table, the things that make Canada stronger with them inside it, rather than outside... then its a win win because Quebecs chance for sovreignty for any duration depends specifically on a strong Canada and that includes, by the way, that big long look into the future, not mere years or decades, but centuries. Canada and Quebec needs to be united as a block on many fronts but there is room for them to take a different governmental model or approach than Canada. But when one really thinks about it, as a province... they have that already. Its the distinction of being recognized as a nation and the liberties all nations have over the course of their future... But I'm a loyalist and strong federalist and I believe that all Canadians including Quebecers have the best chance of facing the challenges that lie ahead under one banner and that banner is the Maple Leaf.

Sifting through the fear-mongering

Canadians must consider strategic voting if we are to make any headway in defeating this national media vortex Harper has created or at least perpetuated.

www.bcandbeyond.wordpress.com

You should care, Frank

You linked to Garth Turner's website. A Mulroney Conservative. - Frank

What that means Frank, is that you are living in the past. Is Bob Rae still an NDP'er too?

I don't wish to go hunting for a post from 5 days ago, I have no idea where to even look. - Frank

Thats unfortunate. It would take you alot less time to look than for me to post a repeat cut and paste here. Is this so hard for you?

"As for the CBC, why would I care? They aren't that different from the Aspers." - Frank

Why are you here on this site commenting on a story that has everything to do with media concentration if you don't care? Just to here your own voice? Don't care about the CBC, or don't care about the big fat huge impact to the wide open door of media control/propaganda, don't care about what happens next? Anything that is negative or bad that is said about the NDP is all you care about? Doesn't matter if its true or not, or flawed, defend defend defend... Or is it you only care about what happens to you... and your party preference.... and your goal whether its shared or not, the motive is still all about you...

Sorry, Frank. But you should care. You should be asking why the CBC came into existence in the first place, never mind what will happen if its privatized. And for that matter, the origins and direction of Can West and Thompson and everything else. Every crown corp, every government provided public service, every board, every system including the markets that provides essential services that are inclusive, Frank. You start asking those questions and quit shunning my own answers due to dated labels and predjudice against anything that isn't orange and you'll start caring soon enough. Otherwise, all I percieve at this point of "I don't care" is someone who shapes their beliefs on bias and assumption, hardly the things that forge choices that should guide our daily lives never mind our voices and votes for leaders elect.

The brain

Yes

Because I do care when someone puts out their "vote Liberal" bias in the cloak of "media concentration".

You've somehow connected "media concentration" to your Liberal talking points. The fact is, it was the Liberals that are responsible for much of that concentration. Yet you're putting them forward as the saviour. Why? How? Where should I look in the Liberal platform to see how they're going to break up Can-West?

Now who's living in the past?

The fact is Lorne, I don't think you care about the CBC or media concentration you just want to elect Liberals regardless of their recent history.

And...

You're the one claiming there's a great conspiracy, albeint an unsubstantiated one, against the Liberals between Harper and Layton and the media, not me.

The brain

I think Ed would say the left, the right...and the centrist position are all equally corruptible.....and that each can be equally oppressive and tyrannical. Therefore the centrist position is not any more of a benign choice.

That's why Ed often says it is not a horizontal scale but a vertical one - The oppressor on top.... the oppressed below feeling the weight of that in varying degrees, according to their position on the vertical scale.

At least that is how I understood it. I could be wrong.

In the end the whole ground becomes muddied by bad and corrupt behavior - all definitions of left, right and center become meaningless.... and all positions become indistinguishable from each other... all actions indistinguishable from each other as well.

What one says versus what one actually does.

I don't think you can write that phrase above without realizing the personal level of integrity that is central to this question. The real truth of how we live our lives....and how that translates into our present political zoo, the fine mess we now find ourselves in. It's telling us who we actually are... a pretty hard truth to swallow..

We need to design a new system that protects us from the weaknesses we all have as human beings when it comes to power.

Probably an impossible task but we could at least attempt to re-design a new representative system where accountability, transparency and responsibility at least have a chance to survive at some decent level.

Maybe then, we, as human beings, will have the chance to survive at some decent level, too.

Try this:

http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2008/09/23/stand-up-2/#comments

Every comment is dated. Scroll down to By brain on 09.24.08 9:40 am and you'll get a teaser of how I view the Liberal fiscal record. Come back to me after digesting something as simple as this:

http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/antweiler/edutainment/debt.pdf

And tell me why you believe spend free policies on healthcare would have helped our nation at its own time of fiscal crisis, or why you believe corporate and personal taxes haven't gone down dramatically since that crisis or why spending hasn't gone up, because it has.

I'll be more than glad to talk to you about policies if you like, we'll have all the time in the world, but one thing is certain. The issue of the day is "media concentration" and we both be monumentous fools to believe it won't be there tomarrow or pose a huge threat to Canada's democracy. I'm suggesting that it already has!

brain

If that was what Harper wants then why has he done so much to give Québecers pride and attempted (successfully) to reduce the desire for sovereignty?

Don't forget that Gesca publishes over 200,000 newspapers per day in Canada. The Saturday La Presse sells over 300,000. They probably publish 25% of all newspapers in Canada. Not owned by Thompson or CanWest.

Liberal math

I read your post. You believe in cutting spending to the bone, reducing corporate taxes as low as possible and screw the resulting poverty numbers.

We've had 25 years of your economics and all its done is increase poverty and income disparity and reduce the effectiveness of our shared institutions. Yet you keep promising otherwise.

No thanks

Promises, promises

Did you hear that Child Care one?

Liberal Promise:

We promised Canadians a national Child Care programme for thirteen years. Vote Liberal and we will continue to promise you a Child Care programme!

realisticman

Yep, I heard it. I also heard Dion say (in regards to income trusts) that the Conservatives couldn't be trusted to keep their promises. It was a wonder the whole country didn't fall off their chairs laughing.

Right you are, Lynn

I think Ed would say the left, the right...and the centrist position are all equally corruptible.....and that each can be equally oppressive and tyrannical. Therefore the centrist position is not any more of a benign choice. - Lynn

Depends how one defines centrist. If all centrist is, is a combination of left right extremes, then I'd completely agree with you. If, however, its a hybrid of environmental/socialist/capitalist/humanitarian systems that are integrated and functional at least without the flawed human component within that system, then I'd say that is not the case.

And for what its worth, we are in a hybrid system in Canada and I believe its an excellent system, it truly is, at least for now but the environmental question hasn't been taken into account as it should. Nevertheless, it has brilliance written all over it and didn't come from the whims of just one man (but a few ghosts everyone likes to ditz had alot to do with it)

My point is that we shouldn't make the mistake of believing that a Paragon, "a perfect system" will solve all our problems. We will still be flawed humans and humans will be needed to run this system.

I believe the problem goes far beyond the system, Lynn, beyond the human trappings of being caught in our own individualism/bubble. Its environmental.

I fully agree with everything you've said by the way. Its brilliant, actually in terms of how you've put it because, as it is with any political discussion, we are talking about the system that effects us all. And the only way a system can be designed to serve everyone is if the people that make up the system give something back.

Take the system of democracy for example. If the candidates/incumbants don't serve those who elected them, if the voters don't participate or don't care... then what kind of system will it be then? Hardly a functional one and the system removed from the human component, even if it is paragon, stands at great risk to changes that are far from perfect.

A wise man once said, "we are all born in sin". (not of sin, but in it, a major distinction) We are all born in a common environment full of those who put their wants and needs before all all others and there is an obvious feedback causal effect created by that environment from generation to generation.

cont.

Somewhere along the way, the we must take command of our own purpose for being and break this dangerous cycle... break the chains and I submit to you that there is no Holy law that chains... but break it, and it will chain you.

Until we collectively take control of our environments that we do have control of and it all starts from "within", until we do whats best for everyone including ourselves for individuality and free will must be allowed to flourish without the double standards... there will be no peace. And its tough to restore peace in environments full of conflict for we truly are a product of our environments.

Its not the systems that are half so flawed... its us! Look again, at the system of democracy. If leaders serve themselves before others, if followers and supporters only think of themselves and vote solely for their own self interests over the interests of the community, territory, province or nation... or are apathetic and disengaged that they don't vote at all, democracy will fail.

So what must change? What will it take for humanity to unite under one banner, one cause? Sometimes in order to learn how to fix something, one must break it. But know that the smart ones... the really smart ones know how fix things without ever breaking them to begin with and why? Because they connect to the needs and wants of others. Its the only way to break out of our individual bubble paradigm.

Nevertheless, we will all be tested for thats what life is... a test. And the big one coming that is coming head on to us all?

Try survival. Global warming, overpopulations, ecological collapses, its all coming to a living room theatre near you within 20 years. Barring a spanish flue or nukes, this world will hit 8 billion in the face of peak oil, global corruption and a fizzled agricultural green revolution and as generally follows but is still highly preventable, we'll be fighting over the crumbs.

And we are either going to unite then after whatever happens... or we won't. And if it doesn't happen at that point, lets just say that there are instances where failure is univsersal and shared by us all.

The answer, I think, lies in the four masses. Mass education, mass media, mass production and mass beliefs and right now we are failing on all four, trying to catch up desperately before it avalanches and buries us and its too late. And its worth fighting to prevent what I believe is inevitable because it defines who we are. The experiment is living and real.

Those who are connected to the needs of others get it. Those who aren't connected, will not. Whatever scale, macro or micro, all or one, the laws of the holies know no double standards and motive will determine our final judgement. At least, thats what I believe... and I'm probably preaching to converted, lol! Pleasure as

I'm gonna have to break after this, Frank ;-)

Because I do care when someone puts out their "vote Liberal" bias in the cloak of "media concentration".

You've somehow connected "media concentration" to your Liberal talking points. The fact is, it was the Liberals that are responsible for much of that concentration. Yet you're putting them forward as the saviour. Why? How? Where should I look in the Liberal platform to see how they're going to break up Can-West? - Frank

Frank... the threat of a Harper majority created by a split Lib/NDP vote is very real. I ain't making it up. If it goes down that way, we will all suffer. And please, don't compare every brand of a government to all others and come out with the bland answer that they are the same. It doesn't fly.

As for Liberal bias, you already know what I believe. Said it in the last thread. Libs to me have the best candidates overall, the best plan (brand, well... maybe in Ontario but its not here and federally, lets face it, governing parties don't look like shiny new cars).

Ask me if I think the NDP should win 100 seats? Frank, they don't have that kind of talent running in the ridings. If they did, democracy would not be served. Candidates matter to me huge and if a candidate, any candidate doens't have it within them to make a stand for their constituents against their brand/leader/platform when it must be so, to me, they shouldn't even be elected as far as I'm concerned.

Far too often, we put waaay to much emphasis on brands and leaders even. Elected candidates have a way of becoming leaders too! The control unelected party officials have over democratically elected MP's... that has to end and end fast.

There is no way I will say to anyone "lets get 308 libs in there! A one party state is what we need, whoowhoo!!"

Again. Leader/brand/candidate/record. Thats what I go by. Do you expect me to not vote or Liz May or Dion or Layton even if I was living in those ridings? Brand trumps common sense? Harper would. He wants a one party state. But please... don't accuse me of supporting a brand like I'm a converted cult member of a snake pit. Geesh!!!

Cont

"You should be asking why the CBC came into existence in the first place, never mind what will happen if its privatized." - brain

"Now who's living in the past?

The fact is Lorne, I don't think you care about the CBC or media concentration you just want to elect Liberals regardless of their recent history." - Frank

Past? Did I say past is present? I simply asked you to look at the historical and ask what was in the minds of our forefathers. You think media concentration, I think access to news and entertainment, the very equality based, socialist, inclusiveness you claim the party represents, you know, "for the average ordinary working family". We wouldn't have had it without a national media crown corp to be truthful, unless you wanted an american corp to be your voice because that was the choice in those days. Hmmm... one of two choices... american or Canadian.... national identity, does that matter? Remember? Remember when we all watched just one channel on the days of analog?

"I read your post. You believe in cutting spending to the bone, reducing corporate taxes as low as possible and screw the resulting poverty numbers.

We've had 25 years of your economics and all its done is increase poverty and income disparity and reduce the effectiveness of our shared institutions. Yet you keep promising otherwise." - Frank

No, Frank. I believe in doing what is necessary to keep a nation from going bankrupt and if that involves tax increases, massive cuts in spending, growing GDP and luck for the time, then thats what I believe. National bankrupcy means losing everything. And noting this chart:

http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/antweiler/edutainment/debt.pdf

It worked. People might not have lived affluently, but it worked. Christ, it worked enough to cut corporate taxes from 30%... and income taxes by 25%... and spending increases and transfers to the provinces over time.

Its just too bad that some of us to this day haven't caught the severity or risk to our national economy in the 90's. If they did, they wouldn't believe positions like your own and I'm totally right with everything I'm saying concerning intergovernmental debt to GDP ratios. Ignore those ratios and spend free back in the 90's, add higher interest rates on debt service to government revenue ratios, and 100% intergovernmental debt to GDP ratios continue to skyrocket.

Cont

Frank... we were close to losing fiscal control. The U.S. is now at a 94% debt to GDP ratio where we were at 100% in '96. They are now where we were at in the early 90's and the problem is extreme as they have the largest economy in the world. To not recognize where Canada was at or where the U.S. is now... is to not see whats coming in the future for the U.S. in terms of their choices going forward and by the way, I spent 8 hrs researching that one and why? Because I needed to know for my own peace of mind just how bad the U.S. is right now fiscally... and its bad but its not past the point of no return. If you understand intergovernmental debt to GDP ratios and debt service to government revenue ratios, you'd know why that is.

And for what its worth, one doesn't raise corporate/income taxes unless one has no choice when an economy slows down. Pay attention (sorry if I'm "telling you", don't mean to ;-) ) to what McCain and Obama are saying here. I mean, they are watering it down, dumbing it down so the average Joe will get it, but Mccain is saying "cut spending", "cut taxes", lets spend on Afghanistan! Obama is saying, "cut spending", raise taxes on individuals/corps making over $250,000, lets go green and also spend on Afghanistan!

What did I say? Cut spending (except to essentials, U.S. post, education and greening the economy) raise taxes, cut dramatically, spending on the military and internalize their economy. They need to grow their real GDP because their nominal GDP is going to take a currency hit. Real is what counts most with them down the road and it won't be easy because a large chunk of their nominal GDP is GNP.

Yep, I heard it. I also

Yep, I heard it. I also heard Dion say (in regards to income trusts) that the Conservatives couldn't be trusted to keep their promises. It was a wonder the whole country didn't fall off their chairs laughing. - Frank

Whats so funny? IT's flourished under Chretien/Martin. To be truthful, Mulroney gave it birth in his first term. Keep in mind that these are Canadian corporations that we are talking about here that Harper weakened with dramatic unnecessary market cap losses that left the entire sector ripe to foreign M & A's... which occured in a major way.

But don't take my word for it. Its all right here:

http://www.caiti.info/

The Martin government left IT's alone, so unless one believes the standard NDP line that the Liberals did away with income trusts when they didn't... and Harper said he wouldn't and then did... I fail to see whats so funny unless one was actually gullible enough to believe that line as actually true.

Oh wait, I get it now. All corporations are bad including Canadian ones. Still not laughing.

A couple more links for you Frank

http://www.caiti.info/ndp.php

http://www.caiti.info/resources/BTUs_or_ATMs.pdf

It all speaks for itself.

The brain

How? Specifically, what will Harper do to destroy Canada? What policy will he enact that the Liberals won't?

In regards to media concentration you haven't refuted my charge that it was the Liberals that allowed it to happen. Why should I now believe they are the solution?

That's not a platform I support. So I won't be voting Liberal. And neither will 75% of the rest of the country.

Poor and average people didn't benefit from the increase in the debt but they did get hurt by fighting the deficit. Canada does not exist so that corporations don't have to pay taxes. Is that what Canada means to you? Low corporate taxes?

As for the 1990's the Liberals chose to inflict pain on the little guy so as to later give huge benefits to the big guys. A generation of kids grew up in poverty, that was the outcome of Liberal policies.

The 1990's are long past but the poverty and crumbling social programs are still with us.

As for the USA, their problems didn't come
from spending on poor people. What I'm sure they're doing now is rethinking some of those huge tax breaks they handed out like Hallowe'en candy.

That a Liberal would complain about someone else not keeping their promises. it would be like Dion complaining about other parties going negative. Then again, he does complain about that.

Income trusts

I don't trust many politicians...but, I think it can fairly be said that Flaherty is ths last guy who'd have banned income trusts if he didn't have to.

It wasn't just the fact that tax revenue was spewing out of the country for nothing more than withholding rates...the fact that income trusts eviscerate the corporate shell is also notable. Because they play firesale with retained earnings there's never enough left over for capital acquisitions and new plant.

They should have kiboshed foreign sales of more than just McDonald Detweiler too of course, but the fact that Dion hasn't got the beans to tell his Bay Street backers to back off has to say a lot about who is pulling the Liberal strings.

And furthermore, as Budd notes on another thread, the Liberal electoral tema is full of the ostensibly corrupt folks who brought us Gordon Campbell and company.

Not that the Con men are any better...'fraid I'm with Frank on this one.

However, as I told Budd, I think getting rid of Gary Lunn is an exception to the rule...since the Liberal has the best chance (despite the absolutely despicable way Brad Zubyk and company have behaved) of beating Lunn...Penn will have to be the option in that case. Sadly.

From a farming perspective I can imagine there might be ridings where something similar is happening - and God knows the Liberals are better - relative to the Wheat Board and its future - that Harper and Ritz.

realisticman response, re:cuts

realisticman, I used the analysis and numbers provided by Garry Neil concerning the arts cuts:
http://election.rabble.ca/post/51578362/arts-cuts-setting-the-record-straight

I think Gary has the right approach. I think the orientation the conservatives have towards the arts (what they fund and cut, control etc..) is probably more important than the number though.

Lynn "re-design a new

Lynn

"re-design a new representative system where accountability, transparency and responsibility at least have a chance to survive at some decent level."

at the Campaign for Democratic Media (http://democraticmedia.ca) we have asked the parties where they stand on how CRTC appointments are made - if they support a more accountable process. Answers will be out soon, and we'll be encouraging citizens use this survey to get their local candidates on record as well.

media system

The Brain, thanks for all that info

and "Democracy can only come with a media that isn't corrupt for self gain and won't destroy our democracy with propaganda."

couldn't agree more

Got sore eyes and a stiff neck yet Frank?

I DO!! But I got a second wind, so here goes. :^P

"Frank... the threat of a Harper majority created by a split Lib/NDP vote is very real. I ain't making it up. If it goes down that way, we will all suffer." - Frank

"How? Specifically, what will Harper do to destroy Canada? What policy will he enact that the Liberals won't?" - Frank

This one is easy, its all AD Hominem cut and pastes for me. You yourself commented on this link a couple days ago.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/09/18/the-crossroads-of-international-trade/

This link scared the hell out of me. (along with how little if anything Andrew Coyne knows about consumer protection and price fixing by large corporate monopolies, not to mention who would benefit if Canada lost the constant assault on Canada’s protected economic sectors from foreign corporations)

Be very careful what you all wish for.

Essentially, if I’m not mistaken, as this wording is what it implies “which has completely open borders between its members but imposes steep trade and investment barriers on outsiders” is the U.S. an “outsider”?

And lets say the U.S. gets “inside”. Lets think about this: “the free movement of skilled people and an open market in government services and procurement – which would require that Canadian governments allow European companies to bid as equals on government contracts for both goods and services and end the favouring of local or national providers of public-sector services.”

Do you know what that means Andrew Coyne and the rest? It means that all government spending will be privatized for “for profit” services.

I don’t know about you all, but that means the entire public sector will be up for tender. It effectively means the privatization of all government services. It means, if you all don’t get it yet, the end of all government crowns, boards, medicare, public spending on education, the works.

Unless I’m mistaken, it would mean all government spending would be turned over to the “for profit” private sector that goes to the highest “international bidder”. It also means the end of the need to train people in trades and that means lost Canadian jobs and a huge blow the strength of unions. Some of you might cheer this on… you know, those who believe that all ESSENTIAL SERVICES should be “pay as you go” and if you can’t, you go without. That life saving operation you can’t afford means you die. Can’t afford to put your children through grade school? Thats too darn bad. Guess you should have worked harder. Got hurt or diseased and lost your job? To bad, you shouldn’t have gotten sick.

Cont.

Its the difference between exclusion/inclusion of services that people rely on to survive. I’m sorry, but… I believe in the american dream. Y’all remember what that was/is? It means the equal opportunity for anyone born in america to be whatever they want to be if they have the will and potential to do so regardless of race, creed, gender and physicality. Sadly, if we go this route, my fear is that equal opportunity will only come to those born with silver spoons in their mouths.

Not my cup of tea, folks. Give me the removal of trade tariffs without the need to privatize and deregulate everything under the sun and I might be interested. Until then, it smacks of just another National Citizens Coalition/Frasier institute spun Harper nutter plan to let corporations do whatever the hell they want Saw enough of that one with the deregulation of the U.S. banking morgage industry that is now spinning the entire world into a recession because of a belief that greedy corporations will self regulate and know whats best. Bush/Harpers same old same O… count me out.

And one last thing. In case you missed a major part of this story, its not Canadian corporations who want it. Most government contracts given to Canadians would automatically be up for international tender. Think hard about what that would mean to a great many Canadian jobs. The so called evil Thomas D’Aquino and the economic council of Canada doesn’t want it. Unions sure won’t unless they like to have hundreds of thousands of their workers displaced and a run on their union existence. Anyone in the public sector sure won’t as their wages would likely drop if they actually somehow weren’t replaced permanently by workers and professionals overseas… Anyone relying on public sector services because they can’t afford private sure won’t.

Quite the contrary, they want this “Harper agenda” out in the open before election day.

What private interests would want this? Who does Harper, once again work for? Again, Steve Harper is a U.S. puppet plant corporate lobbyist that never gave up his old job. Time to connect the dots on who Harper is… time is running out. This is what the feds have to sell. Its all on the auction block if this goes through.

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

Some more reasons, Frank

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

This one is interesting. Harper must think Canadians have a 6 year old mentality now. Harper says Canadian banks are fine because… Canadian banks are fine!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/19/harper-quebec.html

But Canadian banks won’t be fine once Harper is finished with them. His plan is to deregulate the entire banking industry. He plans to open the door wide to M & A’s and relax all the banking regs that make our banking institutions strong.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/12/harper-ownership.html

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/06/26/tech-competition.html

The bottom link says it best. If Harper gets a majority, we’ll lose our airlines, banks and telecoms and whatever else that is privately protected to large degree’s to M & A’s.

A clip:
“The report called for the easing of foreign-ownership restrictions in a number of sectors. In telecommunications and broadcasting, foreign firms are currently limited to owning 20 per cent of voting shares of an operating company and 33.3 per cent of a holding company.”

Currently, foreign ownership of Canada’s chartered bank shares is at a peak of 10%. This will also be removed paving the way for M & A buyouts of our protected institutions. Once that happens, we can kiss our economic sovreignty goodbye.

Another clip:
“The report cited Canada’s woeful record when it comes to cellphone usage, where it ranks at the bottom of the developed world in terms of subscribers per capita. That situation resulted in the government having to entice new entrants into the market with special rules for an auction of wireless airwaves, currently underway.”

Cont.

Yes, whats currently underway and its recieved very little airtime, is the deregulation of the telecom sector and anyone paying attention to it has to be shaking their heads.

Maxime Bernier, the guy who reeks of incompetance? Harper told Max to find some corporate lobbyists that could come up with the proposal to speed up the sale of Canada. There isn’t one member of the 5 who won’t benefit majorly from running off with major commissions and the intial share value pop (with the shorts to follow) on the sale of Canada through foreign M & A’s. The fix is in.

Scott Brison missed the broad implications of such proposals, by the way… but a Brent Fullard, Garth Turner or a Ralph Goodale wouldn’t. The reason why M & A’s have been allowed to flow through the Canadian liberal governments all these years seemingly unabated is because specific sectors:

- banking
- telecoms
- airlines

not to mention all of the public sector spending that virtually shuts out foreign investment and competition of any kind has been mostly if not totally off limits to foreign corporate ownership/control:

- primary education
- public healthcare
- penal system
- RCMP/CSIS
- courts of law
- wardens/border guards
- military
- CWB/agricultural boards
- Crown corps (CBC, atomic energy)
- government administration
- and others (just look at all the government agency services provided from parks and recreation to public works, oh god, its huge)

The Harper agenda is to privatize all government public services and remove all barriers and restrictions to foreign ownership of Canada’s economic sectors. If he can’t do it within the federal system, Harper will try with a FTA with Europe that is really targeted for the U.S..

Essentially, folks, its the sale of Canada. It was Harpers job at the National Citizens Coaltion as president there for 5 years from late ‘97 to ‘01 to do whatever could be done on the behalf of U.S. corporations to penatrate economic sectors that couldn’t be accessed by any means possible and nothing has changed in terms of his agenda in being the PM of this nation. If anyone thought this isn’t Harper’s agenda, they’d best think again.

Liberal malefaction

The brain,

Without getting into a long and involved discussion - which I don't have time tonight - I was wondering why you've ignored the fact that Chretien/Martin successes in balancing the budget were possible because of cut-backs in shared cost programs to the provinces and other program cuts.

Is it really such a great achievement to just transfer debt to provincial taxpayers?

I don't think so - and I don't think the Liberal ties to business can be ignored either - Harper managed to do two or three things which actually pleased me:
Income Trust tax changes;
Keeping McDonald Detweiler in Canada...

Would a Martin Government have done the same?

I think it's a fair question - and I also think that Liberal tactics are every bit as sleazy as Conservative ones...

Final conclusions, Frank:

This isn't an election that is about voting "for" something as much as it is voting against. There is a greater number of Canadians that will do what they can to stop Harper than there is willing to support him.

Why is that? Its the combination of everything he's done from his hatchet job to IT's, to his assault on arts and culture, to his stance on immigration and that one alone should make anyone swallow when they look at the devil locked in those details.

Its the tone. Who can forget that Harper was a PM that labelled all opposition as Taliban supporters, and then he called the opposition (not Libs directly but threw it out there ) as anti "semite", called PM Martin a Pediphile, smeared MP's of cronyism and crooked... is this the behavior of a good person? Cadman... the in and out scheme that might have cost the NDP the balance of power, Frank. And some would say that there's no difference between the Libs and Cons?

There's a difference. Who crack coked the Canadian dollar through the destruction of IT's and the blind eye to foreign M & A's that juiced our GDP by 7.75% last year? That fresh money pumped up our dollar and decimated our manufacturing.

Who crack coked the real estate industry with Canada's version of 40/0 mortgages, flooding the market with new buyers that had nothing to lose (but their homes) but fear and common sense, with housing valuations that jacked up rent for the poor and middle class, priced new homebuyers out of the bubble market, and set us all up for the real estate fall thats taking place now? Do you have any idea how poised real estate is to fall and what damage that will do?

The higher the bubble inflates, the harder it crashes and its going to leave more than a few marks when its all over. By the time it winds its course, millions of families will have become broken from the stress with very little in the way of social programs to look after them in the wake of what follows.

Who did this, Frank? The ugly seeds have sprouted and were about to reap what Harper has sown and he's just getting started. Sorry Frank, but it wasn't the Libs who have gone this direction, and when one thinks hard about it, it would never be. People who don't understand the economy won't get it. Harpers policies don't pass the smell test straight across the board.

And I know... the Libs passed these budgets and such. If the Libs took Harper to an election and Harper won a majority, who would blame then? The Libs for calling an election? They have to know they can win is what it comes down to and a torn party in need of rebuilds and fresh personel can't do it. As for the rest, I don't know about you, but status quo compared to this new Canada looks pretty good to me. I want our Canada back if you know what I'm sayin'.

No worries, G:

Its another cut and paste, I gave Frank a hard time with access, but its not that big of a deal. (I get pissy sometimes)

http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/antweiler/edutainment/debt.pdf

The above link is a graph of the combined federal/provincial/municipal debt to GDP ratio from 1977 to 2006. It is very detailed graph that has in three colors, the federal/provincial/municipal debt isolated by color and combined year by year. The graph illustrates what I was previously saying yesterday in terms of how serious our debt to GDP ratio really was, and how we got out of it when one compares this graph to the growth of Canada’s GDP over the last 30 years in the link below:

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/canadagdp.htm

Both links contrasted together spell out how bad Canada’s economy really was in the 90’s and how Canada turned it around. Yesterday, even though I had a few shaky numbers (of which I wasn’t really all that far off) in terms of fed debt to GDP, I felt bad about it and I’m making up for it now and the points I made yesterday I feel so compelled to reiterate again for a platitude of reasons of extraordinary importance in the wake of whats happening to the U.S. economy and my main points are:

- no nation should allow itself to go over 100% of combined intergovernmental debt to GDP or it risks a currency collapse which could further spiral intergovernmental debt to the brink of bankrupcy which I believe the “tipping point of no return” to be 150% intergovernmental debt to GDP.

- We need to know where the U.S. is right now with their combined intergovernmental federal debt is to get a handle on just how serious their economic crisis and financial meltdown truly is and it too, is for a platitude of reasons, the most important of which is due to the reality that we have over 76% of our international trade with the U.S. and if their currency collapses, Canadians must be prepared for it and defend Canada economically.

Cont

- The Chretien government with Paul Martin as the then finance minister had very limited choices as to how to turn it around and it worked. Everyone felt taxed to death but did we have a choice? We need to go back to see if Martin could have done it any differently as modern day Conservatives claim. The arguement has always been by them that the Cretien/Martin Liberal governments downloaded federal spending onto the provinces by cutting provincial transfers and that this was not necessary.

Is this true or false? And if it is a fallacy or lie/smear of the truth, can the U.S. use the Paul Martin model to keep their own economy from a currency collapse/bankrupcy? This is thee question, fellow Canadians because its not us that is in trouble now… its the U.S. . They really are the elephant in the room. If they go down, we could go down with them because our governments truly are that intertwined.

- Finally, GDP growth (fueled higher commodity/real estate valuations) is what saved our butts in Canada. Its all about growing the size of the economy, the size of the pie. But is that all there is to it? Lets consider once more the government revenue to GDP ratio and the debt service to government revenue ratio. Again, lets take one more look at just how serious our own national debt/currency crisis really was because right now, the U.S. economy is so huge, it is unlikely to double in a decade and bring back high times.

Considering the size of the pie (nominal GDP) they have to work with… can they generate enough government revenue within their economic pie to balance their budget buying them enough time to grow their GDP out of a currency crisis and/or national bankrupcy? Can they increase their taxes and cut spending enough to turn it around?

Canadians need to know these answers and we need to give them those answers because if they don’t heed the danger to their own economy, the world will be in a recession that will last for several years or more, Canada will go down in its wake and the possibility of an unstable federal government sitting on the worlds greatest nuclear arsenal is not something that helps people sleep at night.

As it is, consumer confidence is severely shaken. People are left in the dark with how bad it is, whether or not they can survive and what must be done before confidence is shaken to the point of city riots, a possible depression or worse… a destablized government that is sitting on more nuclear weapons and military air tactical weaponry than any and likely all other nations combined. If you have all lost sleep as I have (didn’t sleep last night, way too much on my mind…) over this, by all means, read on…

Cont.

Yesterday in a post here at garth.ca, I put out this information concerning the U.S. economy.

The Clinton administration ran up the U.S. treasury fed deficit from 4.45 trillion to 5.662 trillion on Jan/’01, or just over 1.2 trillion bucks over 8 years. (link below is for U.S. intergovernmental debt calculations)

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

And this link below is a U.S. real/nominal GDP chart

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=353

Combining the data from both links, GBW/Cheney took their inherited 5.716 trillion dollar intergovernmental debt (January 31st, 2001 figures) with a GDP (nominal) economic pie of 9.875 trillion (Jan of ‘01 figures), an intergovernmental debt to GDP (nominal) ratio of 57.88%

Presently, without GWB’s bailout package and congressional budget overuns included, U.S. intergovernmental debt now stands at 9.668 trillion (April, 2008) and their GDP (nominal) is 11.740 trillion (April, 2008). As of April 2008, U.S. intergovernmental debt to GDP ratio was at 82.35%.

But that was in April of this year.

The subprime financial meltdown in the U.S. got ugly and the fall of AIG, the leviathon of insurers against bankrupcies that protected every saving account holder up to $180,000 for personal savings, went bankrupt themselves. The fall of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns, Merryll Lynch and others, well… just read it yourselves and note the clip below from this link:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/080920/b092008A.html

Cont.

A clip:
“The legislation Congress passed this summer that gave the authority to rescue Fannie and Freddie boosted the limit on the national debt by US$800 billion to US$10.6 trillion.

The legislation the administration is now seeking to authorize the financial system bailout, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press, would boost that debt limit to US$11.3 trillion, up another US$700 billion.” - CBC

11.3 trillion is where the U.S. debt will be next year if congress approves this bailout and that is likely to occur by January of 2009, just one quarterly away.

So lets put this all together shall we? Lets say the laggard U.S. economy staggers to a round figure of a 12 trillion (nominal) GDP pie. It was at 11.740 trillion in April and while the U.S. nominal GDP could have risen as much as 5% since due to a major slowdown in imports (due to shrinking consumer spending and an increase in exports to a falling dollar in the middle of the year but strengthening late this year with U.S. dollars being bought from a combination of international shorts on financials and U.S. governments looking for $$$) and strength in GNP, but these financials have hurt this economy and the fallout has to have dented the GDP, we just don’t have the hard figures so lets ballpark it safely at… 12 trillion from the April 11.74 trillion mark, modest GDP growth of 2%. An 11.3 trillion dollar intergovernmental debt to 12 trillion nominal GDP ratio leaves us at a whopping 94.16%.

These figures are estimates… but they should be close and up to date. My own estimate yesterday of 91% was based on a 12.4 trillion nominal GDP that was in itself, an estimate that is likely 400 billion too high (it was based off a U.S. GDP search online that is trend based, not a hard but soft number). Today, 94.16% seems more accurate considering all the unknowns at this point because the U.S. has effectively lost its largest finanical insurer, its 2nd largest national bank, and its two largest morgage brokers, Fannie May and Freddie Mac with a combined 11.2 trillion dollar portfolio in its own right.

There is a great deal of speculation out there but one thing is for sure. If congress approves the $700 billion dollar bailout, the intergovernmental U.S. national debt to nominal GDP ratio will be between 91 to 95%. We will know the intergovernmental U.S. national debt at that point to be at 11.3 trillion and will need to see updated GDP growth to really know for sure, but its anywhere between 91 to 95% and the fluxuations which one would never see such a spread normally all center on this major runup of debt to the whopping tune of 1.6 trillion year over year.

Cont

Back to speculation….

It could be that the U.S. financials bailout needs more than $700 billion. It could be that liquidation will put money back into the treasury as it did with the S n’ L bailout back in the day… it could be a way for Bush to stay in power to finance his next war (say Iran) so he doesn’t have to step down! It could be a way for Bush to steal from the taxpayer as the two biggest Bush senior/junior financial nest eggs Carlyle are eyeing liquidations on a fire sale, and Goldman Sachs is moving into banking to drum up capital to buy “cheap” and I do mean “cheap” firesale financial liquidations. But whatever one speculates, someone will have to do the cleanup.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080922/w092255A.html

At this point, I’d say Mccains bid for president is done. There is no way he can win with following a Repbulican presidency that has doubled their national debt in just 8 short years while growing the economy (nominal GDP)a mere 25%. There is no way that the american voter will approve of McCains senatorial record of voting for all of those bills deregulating the morgage and banking industry. I’m literally certain that barring some nutty successful assassination attempt, Obama will be the next president.

Solutions anyone?

Well… lets try the Canadian record of Liberal prudence with our own nation when we grew our way out of a net intergovernmental debt to nominal GDP ratio. Again, lets look at this graph:

http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/antweiler/edutainment/debt.pdf

By the way, I will not tolerate any lame lies from Conservatives who want to get their party elected by saying that Paul Martin did not have to cut transfers to the provinces. A look at the graph in the above link tells all.

Cont

So… what did Chretien/Martin do to save our butts back in the 90’s? He raised taxes! Corporate taxes, in case we all forgot, was in the 20’s. Personal income taxes were at all time highs. We had taxes on everything. Our federal crown CN was sold (in large part to stimilate Ontario’s manufacturing and cut spending and generate revenue from the privatization itself).

The GST which Cons rail on about not being axed as a boner promise Chretien made, was dramatically needed. In reality, one can go back to the PC’s as being steward enough for this nation to introduce it. If they hadn’t, the cumbersome 14% manufacturers tax would have continued to bleed red ink in terms of revenue from a manufacture driven recession.

We did two things, folks, that really saved our butts. We gave our Ontario manufacturers a huge tax break making them internationally competitive again and pulled Ontario out of a major recession (much to the dismay of the west, of course, who felt that they were paying the GST for an east tax cut, all goes east, you know, but blind by their own self centered wants to see the literal edge of the cliff Canadians were standing on and what needed to be done). Without our manufacturing base back to profitability and competitiveness, Canada, I think, would have been sunk. Mulroney finally recognized it before it was too late and Martin was all over healing Ontario’s battered economy mainly in manufacturing. And we had some luck. Commodity valuations increased globally. Real estate bottomed and valuations came back from ugly uglies.

The second thing we did, was cut spending dramatically. We cut everywhere, and to the bone. No one liked it. Health care cuts, social spending, the arts, media, grants, scientific research, education, provincial transfers, everywhere we looked, Martin made cuts and they were deep… to the bone.

Was it necessary? Hell yeah!!!
So I offer this advice to Obama…

- Cut military spending. They spend 14 to 20% of their nominal GDP on defense, folks. Its the second highest in the world. They have 175 military bases world wide. Its time for the U.S. to stop bullying the planet for corporate resource wars through the barrel of a gun.

Cont

- Green their economy. They burn 1/4th of all conventional energy and import 70% of it. Unfortunately… the main driver of U.S. nominal GDP is GNP or Gross National Product. GNP is the income that is made outside of their borders that corporations pay taxes on back home but earn abroad. The main economic sector of GNP is their energy sector (Exxon, Chevron, Imperial, Haliburton) and there is fierce lobbying against a green economy by what is todays richest corporations in the world. Nevertheless, there has to be a paradigm shift for several reasons. U.S. economic survival depends on it and if they go down, Big oil loses their best customer regardless and their own wealth devalues with a crumbled currency. World life ecologies including human survival depend on it. Peak oil… its for real. And finally, the U.S. isn’t the only consumer of oil!!!! The less the U.S. consumes, the more oil big oil has to market elsewhere… like China. If the U.S. doesn’t green their economy, they are sunk folks.

- Restart their manufacturing base again. They have to get their corporate manufacturing back home. They need jobs and a full congressional hearing must take place to look at what they can do with manufacturing tax cuts/incentives or even the possibility of legislating their U.S. corps back to work but this will be a major juggling act as major money has been spent abroad and it will hammer GNP temperarily when they most need corporate tax revenue so what can they do? They can try parent corporate spinoffs to recreate an internalized economy to supply their own domestic needs.

- Raise taxes everywhere else. It worked for Martin…. it will work for america but americans need a bump in income to offset this and it won’t happen without getting their workers back to work manufacturing the best products in the world once again.

- Look at the Canadian model of how we pulled ourselves out of an intergovernmental national debt to nominal GDP of 100%. What we did, while there are differences, worked for us here. Most of what we did will also work for americans now. And keep in mind that if Canada did not kick start its manufacturing… or interest on debt had not been renegotiated to smaller rates… this is why when a nation hits 100%, they are at such a great risk to bankrupcy. If international banks jack up interest rates, the debt service kills that nations ability to pay down debt, never mind balance budgets and if currency crumbles and imports aren’t legislated to a trickle and/or government revenues slip past 45% debt service, it could well be over for that nation and bankrupcy follows. National debt to GDP will continue to climb past 100% and it will hit a death spiral that is… generally… a national debt to GDP ratio of 150%.

cont

- Clean up their government and educate voters to quit electing corporate lobbyists!!! And on that note… they can take the NCC U.S. corporate lobbyist puppet plant Stephen Harper and his bass ackwards Republican disfunctional deregulatin’, privatizin’, war mongerin’, gun totin’, oil burnin’, social misfit, superiority complexed cause God said so ways with him. It didn’t work for the U.S. economy, human rights and freedoms in the U.S. these last 8 years… it won’t work here.

And one final note, fellow Canadians. Get rid of this Republican plant Stephen Harper and his failed Bush led economic and social policies. If we want to go down the same path as Bush just did, follow Bush to the next illegal war and the next striped human right or liberty and the next failed economy standing on the edge of a cliff… y’know, just for kicks or because we got tired of a national governing party that has been the brunt of everything we hate about our federal government but never give it credit for because its governed so long… never gave this Liberal party of Canada the credit it deserves for all the good and decent things its done from saving our economy and restoring federal spending to the preservation of our human rights here and abroad… then we will reap what we sow.

In the meantime… lets park our punch drunk mouth foaming ways for some peace n’ luv for its time to appreciate what we do have… as others… many others throughout the world including those south of the line right now… are not so lucky.

Shaking my head now

http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/antweiler/edutainment/debt.pdf

Your graph clearly shows that while Federal debt rose more slowly during the Chretien/Martin years increases in Provincial Debt made up the difference. - G West

G... I thought you of all people, could read a graph as simple as this. Both federal/provincial debt have diluted equally proportionate to GDP growth. Please tell me you aren't to slow to catch onto this.

"You're calling these guys saviors when all they did was pass the buck....and, exacerbate poverty throughout the country. - G West

I'm calling a spade a spade. Martin didn't have really any choices other than to do what he did. I'm really glad you aren't a finance minister, I'll say that much. Any government no matter who they are has only three things they can really concentrate on fiscally when it comes to the allocation of funds.

- cut/increase spending
- cut/increase revenue
- Grow the economy. (GDP)

If you can straight faced tell me that any nation that approaches 100% intergovernmental debt : GDP ratios doesn't have to make massive spending cuts and heavily increase corporate/personal income taxes, when even after it happened with Martin in the 90's we had 33% of our government revenue going to federal interest on debt alone....

If you think we could have kept federal spending where it was, G... then you are a fool. We would have continued 40 billion dollar deficits and a few more of those, its over for us fiscally. Bankrupcy is next. I'm blown away by the fact that you can't catch onto this. Partisan programmed. Its cultish. You're scaring me!

"And you haven't addressed the real issue of Liberal corruption and gross entitlement either - nor the facts behind the Income Trust situation.... How come?

Liberal corruption... like what 40 mil missing from Ad scam? Is that it? Didn't know I had to address it. And IT's... I did, G. Where have you been?

Frank...

Lets just sum it up quick shall we? My neck is sore.

Your saying the NDP is a better government because they've never formed one. Since they've never formed one, it goes without saying that they would be the least corrupt and know exactly what they are doing, as that about right?

Hate to break it to you, but NDP MP's/candidates are human too. They'll srew up just like everyone else. It is perfectly sound to stratigically vote ABC, keep Harper out, and get the best candidates of the other parties in until Harper is gone. Its time we became colorblind, opened our eyes and voted in the best personell running in Canada's ridings, don't you agree?

Its getting a little hard to argue that a voter shouldn't even consider the candidates running and just vote for a color. Don't you think?

Nope, I disagree

And I also know what happened in BC and Saskatchewan while Chretien and Paul Martin were 'saving' the economy - you do too - have another look at that graph over the 1990s my friend.

Of course they had choices. And the choices made hurt the people least able to sustain the injuries - you know that Lorne. Now I agree with you that Harper is bad and he shouldn't be given a majority for a lot of the same reasons you focus on; - but, I won't ignore the facts about North American integration and the role Paul Martin had in getting that little project up and running as well. And I certainly won't pretend that the Liberals aren't every bit as closely allied to big business and tax breaks for corporations as pee wee and Flaherty are.

You shouldn't either.

Of course the NDP will make, and has made, mistakes. On balance, I think the fact that folks like Jeff Simpson attack a program that actually puts families first and supports a fundamental realignment of the tax system in this country tells you more about where his interests lie than anything else.

Of course the NDP won't form government - but ousting the Liberals from second place is good enough this time - if the media actually covered the NDP campaign properly (as Norman Spector of all people has noted) then something more than that may be possible next time.

The world economy is in a mess and Canada's is too - Time for a change my friend. And remember, you're from 'next year' country too.

The brain

"As an example, I'd say the Greens are running better candidates than the NDP"

How so? Didn't you see this letter they sent out saying they'd take anyone?

http://election.rabble.ca/post/50303099/rabble-ca-exclusive-green-party-desperate-to-find

I see they found 303 candidates, many of whom don't live in the riding they're running in and aren't doing any campaigning.

Dion won't do well in the debates, he doesn't think fast on his feet. He's best at writing letters to Bouchard.

As for calling Layton dumb, I don't know where that comes from but Layton put Mansbridge in his place and has always been the most effective in the debates.

Privatizing CBC causes you concern because you lose the only Liberal media platform. It doesn't cause me concern because the Left has no major media on its side so whether they are Liberal or Conservative doesn't mean squat. The only reason you're worried about the CBC is because of your Liberal partisanship.

"Your saying the NDP is a better government because they've never formed one. Since they've never formed one, it goes without saying that they would be the least corrupt and know exactly what they are doing, as that about right?"

Actually the NDP have formed lots of governments in Canada as have other left-wing Labour parties.

We've seen the mess the Liberals have made federally and 75% don't want any more of it.

And stop calling people names Lorne, GWest and I are quite capable of doing it too.

And..

"as have other left-wing Labour parties"

What I was referring to here was in the rest of the developed world.

And this...

is really kind of 'strange' from someone in a democratic country.

Much as I dislike both Harper and Martin, each of them were elected under the electoral system in effect at the time - the suggestion that 'somebody' out there ought not to have 'allowed' it is surreal.

Good point shortsummer

And we're not all that far from being there ourselves....

you might want to take a moment and read this: (look for this story and links)
Ask Not What The CBC Can Do For Our Heather....

here:
http://pacificgazette.blogspot.com/

hi

this is Davis....I really enjoyed the interaction with all of the readers. I started it as a place to post my charts and graphs and it really expanded far beyond what I had in mind when I first started it. It got carried away a bit.
------------------
Davis.

MLS