Cont.
In the early 80’s, deficits were ballooning under Trudeau and while a change of government to the Cons in 84’ staved off what should have been a currency crisis then, you know, change, optimism, and all that, nothing changed. In fact, it became worse. Mulroney cut taxes, increased spending (everywhere but socially, I might add), and the deficits continued to run up with bleeding ink that was caused by continued cuts in taxes and increases in spending both by Trudeau and Mulroney. All the while, interest rates rose, cutting into revenue and creating further debt. By the time Paul Martin came on the scene, the currency crisis was becoming full blown. There was no time to win an election by default, or blame the “other” parties including their own, for what went wrong.

Clearly, Martin had a choice in a recession climate with low commodities and a banking industry clearly groaning from FTA. It was cut spending and increase taxes while keeping the GST, or increase taxes, keep the GST and social spending, and be today, where we were at in 91’. Some socialists believe this is the way we should have gone. I’m not one of them.

Everyone thinks they can do better with every given circumstance than their competition... and in politics, thats what it is. Competition for everything, including money, financing, business support, labour, unions, political endorsements, you name it. But there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Exaggerations, smears, insincerity, lies... I expect more from the NDP leadership than this. And guess what, Murray. I expect it from you as well. Is this too difficult?

I would appreciate if you, Murray, in the future, called a spade a spade. Not 10 times larger than it is or isn't... just call it what it is. Is this so difficult?

Fact is, Harper's government isn't the same as the Libs. This is all NDP PR exaggeration bullshit and I'm calling you on it. There are very stark differences between the federal Cons and Libs. Fact is, Harpers government is far worse. And if you and the NDP feds have a better solution, a better plan, then please, provide some platform links. Discuss why! Give us your sound fiscal solutions to our future challenges.

But don't give me fingerpointing and label stereotype smears that castes 278 MP's as dirty and the NDP as clean because you can point a finger, claiming you know the difference between right and wrong, with a clean, highly untested record, thinking you and your party can win by default. I think this country deserves better than this. I can assure you, the NDP will never be a true federal threat this way. Political parties winning by default in Canada is what we've had, for christ sakes, since the beginning of time. Enoughs enough.

...for anyone who remembers last year's "War on Christmas" marathon, it looks like it's that season again:

Officials order church bells to be silenced
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001419_pf.html

What nobody dares to mention is that much of the problem is caused by the deregulated banks creating unlimited amounts of imaginary capital from the air to take over and collectivize people's properties, jobs and lives, which, in turn, becomes a huge social problem, resulting in increased governmental spending to fulfill the demands of that artificial and imported capital.

Each dollar created by the banks is a debt on society's back, because the government becomes responsible for its convertibility into resources.

Most people can't understand the simple fact that money is a debt to government and we're in an age of gross overcapitalization, causing huge damage.

So, now we have governments ruining the environment and people's lives to kowtow to the demands of imaginary capital, then turn around and remove most of the responsibilities, in the form of taxes, from the backs of the sector that not only benefits from this crime wave, but demands more and more dictatorial powers.

This nonsense about "kickstarting the economy", and "booming economy", and "business friendly governments", and "wealth creation" etc, will have to stop and wiped from the slate one day if humanity has any intention to survive, especially as some form of democracy.

What we have now is increasing global dictatorship to fulfill the insatiable demands of a special interest sector, creating the licence, in the form of imaginary money, to enslave the world.

Ed Deak.

And one last snipe. If commodities and banking strength based on inflating real estate and land valuations hadn't have come, we'd still be where we were 10 years ago. And anyone who thinks our deficit is now safe, better think again. A recession changes everything. And ones coming.

Canadian banks have made big money and are expanding into american real estate markets. Getting the picture? What's the big plan for the up and comin' recession, Murray. Got that one figured out yet?

And lets get rid of one final myth. There are several motives behind why feds raise interest rates. The most obvious is to raise foreign investment and what this does, is raise the value of currency. But at some point, this interest will have to be honored. The higher the interest, the more we shell out to pay for this propped up currency.

What do you get when you've got a country with unmanagable debt and already high fed rates, like in the U.S.? A currency that has nowhere to go but down. Our currency crisis's in the late seventies, early 80's... and 90's... should have taught us a lesson on interest rates, currencies, inflation, deflation, the works. But if these posts haven't helped sink it in, the U.S. economy will down the road. Raising interest rates to cool down inflation... what a crock. Its to inflate currency and if it doesn't work to prop the dollar due to high debt and deficit's, currency drops like a rock and inflation/deflation is decided on how far and fast that drop goes. If it drops fast and far, inflation skyrockets. If its a soft landing, deflation sets in from a recession.

Currently, there are few provincial governments and this speaks of the the Con and NDP feds as well, that are prepared for a deep recession. And its coming... I'll predict 2008 as the first of several ugly years to come.

Several questions are going to be asked at this point. Whats better? Globalization, or protectionism? The U.S. had a good strong internal economy until globalization of corporate growth. The only way this can be reversed is with regulatory legislation put forth by the U.S. congress. Don't hold your breath.

Next question. Can the government create jobs through spending on crown corps? Absolutely. But that takes a government that is willing to govern. Not win by default, but win outright... you know, govern. And in a climate where corps are tanking and spending isn't happening in the areas that we need to spend on, i.e. clean energy, the sky for crown corps is the limit.

What says the NDP on such a recession scenerio? My big fat guess is its not on the NDP's radar. There should be a plan there, but its not and why? Becuase, if you've been following the evolution of the platforms of all the parties in Canada, the NDP in terms of its Green platform is a kneejerk from the real Green party and that's ok! Borrowing good ideas is ok. But where is the plan for a tanking economy?

The fed NDP's weakest link is a fiscal platform that address's recession scenario's. If they had such a platform, they might be a whole lot more successful than they are now, telling everyone all the parties are the same, no difference except themselves... untested, unproven but different, better... waiting to win by default.

Your on the money, Ed, as usual. I borrow money off my buddy. I pay him 10% interest in return, plus principle. What happened? I created 10% out of nothing. Noone worked for it. No one raised a finger.

By borrowing or lending, I create money out of thin air. Money for nothing. And its fine while populations continue to grow. More people, more money, inflation is held under control. But we are headed into an age where there could well be de-population in North America through aging, social choice not to procreate, and poor health.

As banks keep creating money out of thin air, what do we think will eventually happen to currencies? Its why globalization is so pushed by Bush and the U.S.. their current economical system (globalization) cannot be substained any longer on its own, without major pains and by that, I mean a prolonged deep recession or worse, a total collapse.

The only choice the U.S. has is to internalize their economy again, start manufacturing for their own consumption, living off their own resources instead of the resources of other nations and that change will be very, very, painful. Anyways, hogged this thread to much, I'm about my day. Have a good weekend, everyone. :-)

I salute Murray Dobbin and The Tyee. This should be a front page story in the Vancouver Sun. And would have been prior to its monopolization. But thank god we can read it here. Very well said. All true. A stunning defeat for democracy and social justice. There is only one thing worse than what'shappening to us. It could get a lot worse. So the question becomes. How far can this ideology go? A very worrisome question. Thanks again Mr. Dobbin.

The problem in the first place was over taxation to fund bureaucratic squandering of the public money. Despite the 'mom and applepie' theme that Canada is a democracy, it isn't. Canada is an autocracy, where the population, if they are so inclined, trundle out to vote for people they do not know, based on a few 10 second sound bites in the media, representing a political party, they do not understand. And we berated Russia for their showcase elections?

Bureaucrats know this and spend, spend, spend, on pet projects to enhanse politicians prestige, or on special intrest groups, which the politicians are beholden to.

We just got to change the system, to where the public actually oversees spending.

We look down our noses at our American friends alot, but at least in the USA major spending must be approved by the voter.

brain, you keep saying the Libs are different than the Cons but as I pointed out before, your examples don't hold water.

I think the Cons and Libs should merge into one party, they all believe the same things. That health care is unaffordable, that poverty is good for kids and that we should all worship the financial sector like a modern day Temple of Delphi that speaks in riddles and only certain initiates possess the education to translate the wisdom for us plebes.

Where was Reagan's, or Bush's spending approved by the US voter, Grumpy?

The official US debt is now $8. trillion, approved by a bought and paid for Congress, but not the voters.

The unofficial US debt is close to $50 trillion. Which means the US is broke, bust and destitute, living off the handouts of outfits like Japan and commie China, dreaming of the day when the absorption of Canada and Mexico will get rid of their worthless Dollar and replace it with another imaginary money, the Amero, so the irresponsibility of empire building can go on for another few years.

Now off to town for the day.

Ed Deak.

Not only that brain, but you totally ignore what's been going on since the 70s relative to who's being rewarded by this economy.
It isn't working people and it isn't the middle class. In addition, it sure isn't the poor.

Who has reaped all the benefits of deficit elimination and debt payments?

I think you know, and I think your defence of Paul Martin and the Liberals is more smoke and mirrors when it comes to their tax policies.

Tax every dollar, no matter how earned, equitably - on a progressive scale and institute a negative tax (guaranteed annual income) to replace exemptions for the poor and the working poor. Take back control of resource revenues and start following the Scandinavian model for public investment in the economy. Create a housing corporation with some power to start building decent and affordable homes in areas where economic stimulus is required. Stop giving our resources away.
Change the rules for real estate transactions - and tax all capital gains on any transactions except (one) family home.

I could go on. We don't need more tax cuts - we need real tax fairness.

Do it now. Before the country's gone.

As for productivity, as long as the tax system permits (nay encourages) a vehicle where taxpayers are allowed to 'invest' in entities that collect small business losses and distributes them to 'investors' as credits against taxes to be paid in the future (or already paid in the past) on the absolutely phony subterfuge that some of the members of this pathetic corporate collective will ever make a dime in real profit - well don't expect much 'real' productivity.

It doesn't pay. We’d sooner give tax breaks to crooks and scriveners.

And, for anyone who doubts my description of this utterly pathetic tax dodge and disagrees that it is like an anchor dragging this nation's productivity, here's a link to the information. Read carefully and think about what this means.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it484r2/it484r2-e.html

So what you are really saying is the 200 billion worth of corporate tax cuts projected over 15 years by Mulroney (of which Mulroney near his end and Martin both raised, Martin far more substantially), and the tax cuts from Martin from '95 through '98 equate to 250 billion... but for some reason, you forgot to mention the prior corporate and personal tax increases from 90' on, to what was the corporate tax rate at one point, 24%? What the second or third highest in the world at the time... nice way to smear Paul Martin, isn't it? Not exactly lying Murray... just not telling the entire truth. Just exaggerating a little, stretching, you know... Same old NDP bashing same "o", Libs and Cons are exactly the same and the NDP is so much better yarn...

The reason why Harper had a 13 billion dollar budget he couldn't touch is because its another Liberal surplus. Oh, and have you looked at the value of commodities lately?

It takes time for new government budgets to kick in. If Harper wouldn't have scrapped the first nations Kelowna accord along with Liberal environmental spending, this surplus wouldn't have been so dramatically high, more likely in low single digits. As it is, Harpers excess military spending won't be seen immediately until next year and combined with the GST, it won't be a good number, even with Harpers ugly spending cuts.

The reason why Canada dropped in rank was due to a low currency in 99' and a rising currency ever since. Again, look at the currency link provided. Summary? More misleading bullshit from Murray.
The only thing I can agree with in this entire article is the first and last paragraph, hardly making it worthwhile to wade through the rest of a poorly researched, poorly written, intentionally biased piece of crap. I knew I was upset after reading this for a reason... the whole piece is piss poor.

An excellent BBC documentary series on how monetarist economic policies drove up public (government) debt and created an economic environment that has forced nations into creating a mega-corporate friendly environment is The Mayfair Set.

You can watch the entire documentary series on Google video at the link below. Here is the series description and link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6727851691163240683

From the maker of The Power of Nightmares and The Century of the Self, both also on Google Video.

The other two BBC series mentioned are also excellent.

2004: The Power of Nightmares (BBC Two) suggested a parallel between the rise of Islamism in the Arab world and Neoconservatism in the United States in that both needed to inflate a myth of a dangerous enemy in order to draw people to support them.

Adam Curtis is the producer and narrator of these documentaries. His Wikipedia entry is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis

If they want to cut taxes, the least they could do is to link the cuts to individual action to reduce greenhouse gas reductions or some other incentive to making a positive contribution to society -- what a wasted opportunity to actually make a difference!

And you think your arguement holds water? I've offered facts. You've offered nothing but rhetoric. Again, its typical NDP strategy. "The Cons, the Libs, there's no difference. They are all inept and crooked, all 278 of them. The untested, unsoiled but unproven NDP party is so much better."

Well, where are your solutions? You and antagonist Harper are no different, if you want comparisons. Like I say, if the NDP is hoping to someday win by default throughout the country, it won't happen.

Where are the great bright ideas? Increase social spending and increase corporate taxes to within the top five nations of the world again is the best you can do? And don't get me wrong here... I'm all for higher taxation in high flying times... we should have corporate taxation in the 20's at this time, but the window is shrinking. We have less than a year now, with a recession seriously on the way. So where is the great NDP plan to save us from a U.S. led recession? Someone please shut me up with actual solutions other than deficits and run amuck spending. Been there, done that. For what its worth, Grumpy's dead on cue when it comes to wasted spending.

I think you know, and I think your defence of Paul Martin and the Liberals is more smoke and mirrors when it comes to their tax policies. - Alchibiades

The banks. Who else?
And Martin's defense is easy. He didn't balloon the nations debt, or have much in the way of choices until 2000 at the earliest. Look at my links!!! And for all the criticisms of Martin surplus's... its like you among others, feel that its fine to just pay interest on morgages to your homes without putting money down on principle, as though its the way to go... ride the tide of inflation. And when another recession hits?

Offering further, do you see people starving in Canada by any other reason than their own choice? You talk of the poor in Canada as though Canadians living below the poverty line deal with third world circumstances. Other than raising the standard of living with genuine permanent dependants on the system through age and disability, should those who are not so permanent dependants "bottoming" be encouraged to stay there with more money? Some get rather "comfortable" with it you know, "by choice".

What facts? Your argument has no goal. You've put up numbers which you say means the Libs have saved the world by getting rid of the deficit and paying down the debt.

I then point out that this is exactly what Manning and Harper and the rest of the Reformers were calling for. Then you claim I'm engaging in nothing but rhetoric. Not so. its a fact that that is exactly what the Reformers wanted and the Liberals delivered.

The Reformers also wanted tax cuts. Martin delivered in spades.

The Reformers wanted cuts to social programs, the Liberals delivered.

The Liberals were in power with 4 governments yet you don't think they should take any blame for anything because paying down debt trumps everything else in your opinion.

If I've misquoted you somehow please point out my error.

As for your "all Liberals aren't crooks" mantra, point out to me which Liberals spoke up against the corruption in their own party before the scandal was on tv and I'll give those individuals a pass.

Really? Let's look at what Harper and I agree on. Harper and I both support the war in Afghanistan (as did the Liberals before they were turfed). Harper and I both think the Liberals are corrupt. That's pretty much it. Economically we have nothing in common. Please point out the list of where Harper and I have so much in common.

Once again you're forgetting that its you that wants the your party to win by default. You want NDP'ers to vote Liberal. I'm not asking for Libs to vote NDP.

Does this pass for "left-wing" in Alberta?

That people only go homeless or starve by choice? Clearly this is what Liberals believe based on their actual policies but they tend not to say it.

The NDPers of Canada should rally around this battle-cry and all vote Liberal so that we can have more Paul Martin tax cuts and social spending cuts and not worry about people who live in poverty.

Not just the banks.

Check out what's happened to the average industrial wage, corrected for inflation, since 1970 - and then compare the average executive and corporate shareholder’s income over the same period. That's why the myth of upward mobility in this country isn't just a myth, it's a lie.

A lie spouted by all the crazy fellow travellers like Robert Kiosaki and his ilk who pretend that the ordinary working guy can build a fortune on 'no money' down.

It's all crap, designed to keep dirt farms scrabbling for a few cents and industrial workers and the vast assemblages of white collar workers pounding on their keyboards and wondering why they can't afford a family or a home like their parents could.

It's all a bloody lie and I'm surprised you’d be so easily sucked in by someone like Paul Martin who, when he came to be the Prime Minister, already sat on a personal fortune of 700 million dollars.

That's where the tax reductions have gone - to line the already splitting pockets of the corporate remoras who continue to suck the life from this economy so guys like cappy can go on junkets to Las Vegas.

Give your head a shake brain, you know better.

Alchibiades:
Give my head a shake for what. Not mentioning a growing disparency between the rich and poor? Know it. Working for a wage doesn't get you ahead in leaps and bounds? Know it. Complain about my own station of life because I'm working for a wage? Why bother. If I wanted the big bucks, the last plan is working for a wage. And if I know it, why should I whine, because I'm not as rich as Paul Martin?

And do you seriously think inflation is primarily the the result of the Paul Martins of the world? Most adults have contributed to the same inflation we've seen. Seldom few don't rub their greedy little hands after watching their equity appreciate in their homes and if they flipped it for big money and the buyer loses out? To bad for them, seller got his or her share. Topped out on a stock sale? Who cares about who got short changed on the other end. C'mon, Al, greeds running amuck with your average person, never mind the corporate Joe. You make it sound as though Martin is a greedy freak of nature. No, just as ordinary as the rest of us... only better at it.

Frank:

Did I say homeless? Did you misquote me? I said starve. Show me a Canadian who has starved to death, any kind of story or link, because the system failed. By all means, show me starving Canadians, and not the anorexic bimbo or methed out crackhead kind.

Give me an actual example of a Canadian who starved to death due to a breakdown in our social system and sorry, abuse or self abuse doesn't count.

On another thread. Its why I cried rhetoric with your short post on this one.

Try your previous statement. You just took 14 years of governmental timelines and changing economical circumstances and made them static with this statement. And then, you put words in my mouth to the effect that I'm happy with everything the Liberals have done fiscally. I'm obviously not.

How many times in the past have I suggested raising corporate taxation, particularly since 2000? We're dropping the rates when it should be static. How many times have I harped on diminishing oil royaties or unnecessary oil subsidies? And we could have spent more on education over the last 8 years and ramped it up to its present day. Its why I have a hard time debating with you. You don't follow timelines and you paint your fellow debators into extreme, exaggerated and untrue positions.

Am I supposed to be happy with your example of what it is like to be with the NDP? Try a change of tactics. You know, a little more truth and a little less exaggeration, and I might even try being more civil.

For what its worth, you and Harper agree on being an antagonist with no solutions to the problems, other than your own tax and spend of which, when there is no affordable money to spend, you still opt to spend on dangerous credit. Big difference between the affordability of '91 and today, don't you think?

I am a director for a small public company on the TSX. It's funny - today, I received my Directors Fees cheque. I was supposed to receive 10K, but I barely received more than 5K - the difference is called witholding taxes.

It is absurd that nearly 50% of my money goes to the government. Not only that, I pay sales tax, gas tax, liquor tax, airport tax - tax, tax, tax. Tax freedom day occurs on June 30th every year. Half the year, we work for the government and have the year we are free!

We pay far too much income tax and Mr. Haper/Mr. Flaherty are right. Keep cuttin.

Flaherty has it right!

Government spending is too high. Let's pay down the debt, use some of the interest savings to provide tax relief - and continue the cycle. Paying down the debt is #1! You pay down 10B in debt and you save $500 million/year. This money could be returned to our pockets!

Maintain spending below inflation levels.

Brain
Nope - not guilty. You may want to lump yourself in that group - not me. And, Paul Martin is a super aggressive freak of nature who takes advantage of every single corporate tax dodge available - as you well know.

How he can pretend to play the common man violin solo while he's used every corporate fiddle in the book is beyond embarrassing. The thing is, this is meant to be a real democracy and not the rich boys club the last 35 years of corporate skulduggery and government nudge nudge wink wink have made it.

Paul Martin and the David Emersons of the world - don't give a damn about the interests of the 98% of the citizens in this country who do the actual work and ought to reap the actual rewards.

He andBono make a good pair. Maybe they can both move most of their asset to Holland.

Here's another little wrinkle the masters of the universe are working on:

Nice going guys. And then you can invest the earnings in an offshore vehicle from Sabourin and Sun and collect tax-free 18%.

It's what the masters of the universe call passive income. Boy they aren't kidding.
And you thing these guys care about Canada and paying off our debt?

These characters don't care about Canada, and they sure as hell don't care about us.

Think again.

I know you'd be around soon cappy, you can smell this kind of conversation can't you. It attracts you like a buzzard to rotten meat.

Go to where the food banks are. The people in line are not there because life is good. They would starve in "Liberal" Canada if it wasn't for charities. Starve. Both homelessness and the need for food banks rose in "Liberal" Canada.

You take up a position where you claim the Liberals are the answer to the country's problems and someone questions their record and you defend them. Since you're defending them, it doesn't matter if you're happy about everything they've done because I have to assume you don't think those issues are enough to warrant you not defending them.

Again, you did. You defend the Liberal record in power. I haven't heard you say that from 1993 to 1997 they were rubbish but since then they were great. You defended the whole record. If that's not the case then say so.

If the timeline was in dispute, or the numbers you brought up were in dispute then I would debate the timeline and the numbers. But since your numbers agree with my position and my view of the timeline doesn't disagree either I see no point in doing so.

And I don't paint those I argue with into extreme positions, I simply like to get to the crux of the matter without a lot of fluff so that we're arguing over what matters and not irrelevancies like timelines.

What example?

I'm always civil, its not that hard. As for truth, I'm not the one dodging and weaving to avoid the central issue which is you don't like my saying that Libs and Cons are the same ideology and have far more in common with each other than they do with anyone else which is why I find your position that all lefties should unite under the Liberal banner to get rid of the Cons ridiculous.

You've just disagreed with yourself by using the phrase "other than". The solutions of the NDP may not be to your liking but they are solutions. As for Harper, he too has solutions, in fact, they're the same solutions the Liberals had.

The economy in Canada in the 80s and 90s sucked, a roller coaster of high interest rates, inflation and bloated government spending. Average working people now have more money in their pockets than they did then. Unemployment is at the lowest level in years and incomes are rising at a rate of 4% a year. My last receiver general remittance was my largest ever, as was my last GST payment.

The only answer for the left for anything they see as a problem is more taxing and spending. I think that Canadians are taxed at a reasonable level for the services we receive. I am in the top tax bracket and happy to be paying as much as I do.

I cannot for the life of me see how ballooning defectits and higher public debt can benefit anyone. Money not used to pay interest in debt can be channelles into social programmes down the road.

I want all you lefties to try this experiment. Max out all your credit cards and your line of credit. Buy some assets you think you need. Then see how hard it is to pay it off and how much interest you acrue before you actually finish paying.

Maybe saving to buy those things, or not buying them at all, would be a better plan.

working man, I'm not asking you to agree with the Left. Just don't whine for outr vote at election time or whine again that its the NDP's fault when the voters of this country toss you out.

For some reason the Liberals in this country like to blame the NDP for their lack of progress when in power.

Alcibiades:

Are you telling me we don't pay enought tax. Stop hiding behind the poor people.

I am very, very happy to support poverty and addiction issues. Most conservatives are. In fact, it has been proven that Conservatives donate more to Charity than Liberals (in the USA anyway). I am happy to support single mothers, etc.

I am very happy to lend a helping hand. What I do not like is wealth redistribution. I bet 95% of tax revenue is not spent on "those who need it".

Let's cut the entitlement programs, increase poverty and care programs and reduce spending overall.

I just don't get it - when I was a kid I used to sit there and wonder about this thing called tax. I used to ask myself why the candy bar said $1, yet the cashier charged me $1.14. Where did that other $.14 cents go??

I actually thought the government was some form of dictatorship - these people were must have been the enemy. Why on earth would people allow some form of being take away their money, and where did it go???

I just don't get how some people want the government to control and create society. I still don't get how people don't want to keep that $.14 cents. It is money you worked hard to get!!

Cap,

Are you telling me we have a high quality social safety net? And don't hide behind the fact you don't want higher taxes.

I hate to tell you this, but charity is "wealth redistribution. If you wanna call it something else go ahead but its still a transfer of wealth to those who need it.

I bet its not 95% either, but its certainly spent on those who don't need it. So join me in dumping Liberal ideas like the Olympics and RAV and instead putting the money into the hands of those who need it.

No - those are good. I'm talking about things like universal daycare, foolish grants, etc. etc.

So in other words you support the fact the majority of our tax dollars go to those who don't need it.

...link the cuts to individual action to reduce greenhouse gas reductions or some other incentive to making a positive contribution to society

Absolutely! Companies that want tax breaks should have to earn them in some way.

Another area where tax breaks could be channelled into constructive activities would be to encourage/reward companies to offer on-the-job educational opportunities. A lot of low-skill, low-income people are stuck in a permanent financial rut because they spend all their evenings and weekends watching sports on TV and drinking beer instead of using some of that spare time to upgrade their skills. In other cases, people can't upgrade their skills in their spare time because they don't have any spare time due to working three jobs to make ends meet, family responsibilities, etc.

People who are unable to upgrade their skills on their own time are more inclined to do it in a work environment for various reasons - including the fact that the new skills are more likely to be relevant to the real world. UBC recently ran a large job ad where they required applicants to have at least 3 years of workplace experience in Information Technology. UBC itself won't hire a freshly-graduated UBC Computer Science student! They know more than anyone that nowadays people who are incapable of producing useful real-world results are receiving impressive-sounding degrees purely on the basis of political correctness.

Frank, you posted an extremely interesting comment on another thread about an unexpected correlation between social spending/taxation and the true "competitiveness" of countries. I thought it was fascinating information and well worth reading but I can't find the thread. If you have some time, I hope you will post it again here.

I'm saying the masters of the universe - among whom you number yourself - don't pay their fair share of tax because their kinds of passive income are treated differently by a tax system designed undemocratically and which advantages people who have a certain kind of assets.

You know exactly what I'm saying and I'll keep saying it as long as there are dinosaurs about there who think we should continue to allow the 2% to steal from the 98%.

Clear enough for you.

lynn, that was from economist Jim Sanford, writing a column in the Globe and Mail.

"The Geneva-based World Economic Forum recently issued its annual ranking of countries according to economic competitiveness. And Canada fell again (yawn), this year to 16th place from 13th.

But before the WEF's report gets thrown out with all the other international denunciations of Canada's lacklustre economic performance, it's worth a read. It offers surprising insight into exactly why Canada is failing to meet the challenges of globalization. Equally insightful was the reaction of learned business opinion to our declining status -- a reaction that sheds still more light on why we're doing so badly.

In business lexicon, "competitiveness" is typically understood as synonymous with "low taxes." And, for years, tax-cutting governments have cited the need to make our economy more competitive. The WEF rankings, however, suggest quite the opposite: Ironically, the lower our taxes get, the less competitive we have become.

Nine of the 15 countries ahead of us on the WEF list collect higher taxes than Canada. Indeed, the Scandinavian welfare states cleaned up this year: Finland was second in competitiveness, Sweden was third, Denmark fourth, and Norway and Iceland also placed ahead of Canada.

Governments in these countries rake in 50 per cent or more of their respective GDP. Even Switzerland, this year's winner, collects taxes that are only slightly lower than Canada's.

Back in 1999, when we ranked fifth on the WEF scorecard, Canada's taxes were slightly higher than the OECD average. Today they are substantially lower. Indeed, Canada's taxes have fallen faster since 1999 than any of the 15 countries ahead of us: by 3.3 percentage points of GDP, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, worth $50-billion per year. Yet the faster we cut taxes, the farther we fall in the competitiveness rankings.

How can that be? It turns out that the WEF places primary emphasis on a country's ability to innovate: business creativity and efficiency, education and training, and technology. The WEF summed it up as follows: "Countries that, like the Nordics, are investing heavily in education are likely to see rising levels of income per capita, growing success in reducing poverty and an increasing ability to establish a presence in the global economy."

Incidentally, education budgets in Canada are lower today as a share of GDP than in 1999 (and more than 20 per cent below 1993 levels).

Now, how do we pay for education? Oh, yeah: taxes.

Meanwhile, Canadian business invests a paltry 1 per cent of GDP in research and development. This also badly hurt our WEF ranking.

You'd never know from this weak effort that Canada's corporations received bigger tax breaks since 1999 than any other stakeholder: The average effective corporate income tax rate fell to 25 per cent from 35 in that time (eating up $20-billion of the total tax cuts our governments delivered).

This utter lack of correlation between taxes and competitiveness, however, did not stop Canadian business commentators from ascribing our weak performance to (what else?) high taxes, and demanding still more cuts. The National Post's coverage was prototypical: The headline decried high taxes, and the article carried on the good fight -- never even mentioning that Finland, Sweden, and Denmark took three of the four top spots. In my wildest dreams I could never expect the Post to run a sensational headline announcing that "Canada Lags Even Further Behind Socialist Hordes." But simply closing our eyes won't fix our increasingly apparent failure to develop a sustainable, high-value, economic role for ourselves.

continued...

The failure of Canadian competitiveness is primarily due to the failures of our businesses, not our governments. Canada's corporations are quite content to pocket record profits doing innovative things like pumping oil out of the ground and collecting interest from borrowers (incredibly, the petroleum, mining, and banking sectors account for almost half of corporate Canada's current record profits). Never mind developing new products or technologies; just make money while the sun is shining.

As for our fearless leaders in Ottawa, they are pressing ahead with another $10-billion in tax cuts. That will eat up last year's $13-billion federal surplus (which is already shrinking under the weight of an emerging economic slowdown). And given past trends, that should be just enough to knock us right out of the top 20 by the time the WEF releases its 2007 report.

Cappy wrote:

Sure but that includes church donations. Charity from churches comes with strings attached. What's more the vast majority of that "charity" money goes to support a church infrastructure with a social conservative political agenda. Helping the poor is secondary to spreading propaganda and increasing church membership. It serves the political ends of the wealthy, because the propaganda supports reducing the power of government.

Progressives prefer civic intervention using democratically organized institutions, because they are organized to eliminate or punish cultural, ethnic, and denominational discrimination. That said there is massive racially based discrimination in the US. Shrinking government there has led to a huge rise in charities to cover the shortfall, and cover it very badly.

At its essence it is about rich people not wanting poor people to get their money. The rich want to give their money only on their terms, under their conditions, in ways that make them feel good, and in small enough amounts that it in no way affects their purchasing power.

In fact, looking at the stats, the rich have had their wealth increase massively over the last 40 or so years, with comparatively tiny or negative trends in real income for the working class once adjusted for inflation. The only thing that has enabled the working class to continue to afford things to purchase is the indentured labor of the third world, and the theft of their resources. That allows products and most related services to be sold here cheaply enough for the working class to afford them.

Other than raising the standard of living with genuine permanent dependants on the system through age and disability, should those who are not so permanent dependants "bottoming" be encouraged to stay there with more money? Some get rather "comfortable" with it you know, "by choice".

If the NDP had their way, the safety net would become more like a hammock for many.

Even disabled people should be given an opportunity to earn a few extra bucks by working part-time. I know a former trucker who was severely disabled in a crash. He's no longer capable of driving a truck or working full-time at anything. But with the help of the WCB, he now runs a part-time trucking brokerage/dispatch company out of his home office. Because of his health problems, he tends to work for 1 hour, take a 1-hour break, then work another hour for a total of 4 hours per day. If he had to commute back and forth to an office somewhere, that wouldn't be feasible. But it's very feasible in a home office environment. He's very proud to be working again - even part-time. He enjoys keeping in touch with his old trucking buddies, and he definitely likes the extra money.

The NDP/union types see disability as a simplistic black and white issue. Either someone is 100% disabled, or they're capable of working 8 hours a day, 7 days per week until they're exactly 65 years old. The WorkSafe BC (formerly WCB) approach of determining degrees of disability is a lot more rational. This approach should be expanded to cover people who were not injured on the job instead of simply writing-off a large section of the population as "unemployable" like the NDP/union bosses are inclined to do.

Personally I'm glad that taxes are being cut and that dollars to Quebec advertising agencies are way down. 'Nuff said.

Cycling Commuter, and if the Liberals had their way the poor would stay poor and the rich would stay rich. Hey, they did get their way and that is what happens.

Come to think of it, if the Liberals had their way the rich would get even richer, more and more of the prosperity of Canada would go to the top couple of percent of the population. Hey, whadda ya know, that is what happened.

Ah, the problem with anecdotes...
And I know a former B+E artist who after he got caught became a stock promoter and in the 26 years I've known him has yet to do a single day's work. He's a provincial Liberal, federal Conservative. In fact he's even tough on crime now, go figure.

Either someone is 100% disabled, or they're capable of working 8 hours a day, 7 days per week until they're exactly 65 years old.

That should be 5 days per week. And maybe 7.5 hours per day.

I was reading a little spiel about Milton Friedman after he died. I think it may have been by a biographer.

Apparently Friedman went to his death mightily upset about the fact that a handful of countries with an extremely high standard of living, a pervasive welfare state and very high marginal rates of tax, also were full of folks who happened to be very happen and satisfied with their chosen way of life. Maybe the happiest people, on average, in the industrialized world and folks who were also more productive than Friedman's own countrymen.
Must have damn near killed him.

if the Liberals had their way the poor would stay poor and the rich would stay rich.

If the NDP had their way, poor taxpayers would get even poorer, rich $100,000/year unionized longshoremen (50% of whom have criminal records according to the RCMP) would get even richer, and the American Mafia types who control many unions in Canada would get even richer still.

Doesn't surprise me at all. A renter in Toronto used to march back and forth in front of the legislature with a picket sign demanding more Tenants' rights. Then he inherited a bunch of money, bought a house, renovated it, and rented low-cost rooms to his homeless buddies. They got high on drugs and kicked holes in the walls. He couldn't evict them. After that, he started marching back and forth in front of the legislature demanding more Landlords' rights. This guy's name and other details are in my notes somewhere. I'll post it next time I run across it.

You sound skeptical. If you drop me a note at cycling_commuter(AT)canada.com I may be able to put you in touch with the disabled former trucker. Haven't talked to him in years, but I'm sure he still thinks the best social program includes a job - even part-time self-employment. Oh, and by the way, in addition to running his trucking brokerage/dispatch business, he has also run events to raise thousands of dollars for spinal cord research (by UBC Prof. Dr. John Steeves) aimed at getting him out of his wheelchair and back on his feet. See http://www.icord.org I'll warn you that the disabled trucker guy is a pretty good salesman. He might talk you into making a small donation to UBC's spinal cord research efforts.

Thanks for posting that, Frank. As I said a truly revealing, informative piece...especially in regard to conventional thought towards this matter.

I am, not with the purported truthiness of your anecdote though. What I'm skeptical about is using isolated anecdotes to form a world-view.

Should I believe all disabled truck drivers don't require assistance? Should I believe all stock promoters should be in jail? Or that all B+E artists should be sent to Howe Street when they get out of jail?

Anecdotes simply don't prove anything because information left out can be as important as what's put in. For example, you think that a former trucker finding work means the NDP is wrong about social policy. I think that's a bit of a reach and is simply a way for you to attack the NDP without real analysis. Which is what anecdotes are good for, when there isn't a real argument to be made.

As for the unionized longshoremen, they probably don't vote NDP as an analysis of NDP support will illustrate. If the union sector voted NDP we would have had federal NDP governments pretty much every election since WW2.

And as for the Mafia, they apparently vote Liberal.

lynn, Jim Stanford always gets to the meat of things. I can send you the link to all of his columns if you like?

Frank,

please do...thanks.

Sent the link to your email lynn

Just trying something out.

Richard - the leadership election forum won't post!

Hey Richard - why not turn the Rae thread into a forum if you can't get the real one to start.

I not only have served at food banks, slowpoke, I've been there when I was young for my own needs. I know the system from all angles. You seem to think that raising welfare and EI payments will solve the need for Canadians to even have food banks. It won't. People go to food banks and end up on welfare not just because of unemployment or addictions or hard times. The come there because they can't manage money.

If you tripled the values of welfare, a full third would still be broke by the 10th day of the month. What happened in the "good old days when food banks didn't exist?" They went without, or went to churches, Frank. As for charities, I'm supposing at this point that you're arrogant enough to believe that only NDP voters support them. As for the feds offering assistence to food banks... why not? Children have to eat, regardless of the failures of their parents.

What can I say to this? I've said it already. Maybe if I repeat myself, you'll read it once.

I've said so, you just aren't listening, so I'll stupidly repeat myself for those who have a hard time reading it once.

To be more specific (again) from 92' to 98', there wasn't a whole lot in the way of choices that could be made in terms of raising taxes and cutting spending for any party to come into power during this recessionary time. This began to change in 99 with the beginning of surplus's and growing populations and GDP. From there, the Liberals started to blow it. They began to needlessly lower corporate taxes, didn't increase spending in education when they should have, and could have been far more inventive with spending in areas of green energy and the environment than they've been.

At the same time, and I've said it countless times this past year, I'm unhappy with gas and oil subsidies, especially when energy commodity valuations had steady support past 30$ in 2002, and steadily lowered and actually "phased out" energy royalties by 2008. That's right, 2008, we don't see a dime from energy for fed coffers. That's quite frankly, if I can be frank for a moment, an abomination. Cont.

Am I happy with jacked up spending and slashed revenue from taxation and royalties in the face of an oncoming ugly U.S. housing and manufacturing recession? Hardly.

In fact, the Libs could have started greater border controls on drugs, organized crime and brought out homeless initiatives that still aren't on the federal, provincial and city radars since the first Chretien majority in 92'. To this end, I'm tired of being painted as a blind supporter of absolutely everything the Liberals have done. And for that matter, I'm tired of talking to people who sell their political party bias like AMWAY and "puritan" religious cults the way the Murrays and Franks of the world come across as.

If the timeline was in dispute, or the numbers you brought up were in dispute then I would debate the timeline and the numbers. But since your numbers agree with my position and my view of the timeline doesn't disagree either I see no point in doing so.

And I don't paint those I argue with into extreme positions, I simply like to get to the crux of the matter without a lot of fluff so that we're arguing over what matters and not irrelevancies like timelines.

Hey, 14 year timelines in politics that deal with major economical changes, have everything to do with staying away from broad paint brushed distinctions you make like, "Cons and Libs, what's the difference".

You want number disputes, I'll give you disputes. Our WEF rating didn't drop due to major tax increases by nations that offset national debt larger than ours by European countries who need these increases to manage their existing debt. What effects WEF ratings far beyond tax rates, is their currency which became tied to national debt and common Euro currencies. You site a story which sites nations with high national debt and taxes as being more competitive. The reality is that these same "competitive nations" are nations with formerly low currencies caused by high debt, and high taxes to prop up debt management agreements put forth when they joined the Euro. Why were we so competitive in '99? It wasn't high tax rates. It was a .63 Canadian dollar. Thats what made us competitive. When our currency ballooned to what we have today, we dropped in our international competitive edge. Your favored journalist's leanings are smoke and mirrors.

And since you are calling me hypocritially ridiculous under what I percieve as a ridiculous view of your own, you won't mind me explaining why.

The Liberals didn't gut the Kelowna accord to pay for a point off of the GST. And no one is breathing how much lost annual revenue this one will cost down the road once native agreement windfalls are burnt up. Nor did the Liberals shelf 10 billion in spending to meet Kyoto targets. What the Conservatives have done instead, is put double the number of Canadian soldiers in a place where 8,000 american troops on average took 300 casualties since 2002. That's slow. Even worse, that's Republican slow. The Libs didn't choose to shit all over Kyoto, support the war in Iraq or support cuts to social spending... Murray Dobbins first and last paragraph is actually still worth a read in its proper context.

I can go on with the differences, but you will still blankly stare and declare, "there's no difference". Why would that be? Cut corporate taxes a little or a lot? There's no difference I guess with you. Cont.

Frank: (cont.)
A little military spending, a lot of military spending. Peacekeeping, war missions, there's no difference it seems according to you. Keep the gun registry, scrap it, arm border guards, dis-arm border guards, there's for whatever reason, no difference according to you. Keep the wheatboard, scrap the wheatboard. Keep the CBC, scrap it. Create crowns, privatize crowns, create corporate regulatory standards, destroy them, raise the poverty level, lower the poverty level, raise spending on public healthcare, privatize healthcare, regulate banking, de-regulate banking, same sex marrage, no same sex marrage, muzzles on MP's, no muzzles on MP's... Harper vs the Government of Canada, Libs vs Libs... apparently there's no differences with you, they are all the same.

And that, Frank, is where you and I are completely different. You paint it out to be us vs them. "Superior" and "inferior". The NDP and the "others". I see flaws in them all.

But I do recognize certain strengths and weakness in each political party that need to be recognized and acknowledged as progressive and destructive. One does have to give credit where its due on both ends and I shouldn't have to morally lecture you as to why. And quite Frankly, Frank, you don't give credit and neither does Murray. My God, its militant and distortionary!

To put words in your own mouth, "All other parties are inferior to our superior NDP party". In "every way" Frank? If this the case, the country would have picked up on it and they would be governing by now. The NDP has had the opportunities.

Again, it comes down to leadership and platforms, most importantly the quality of the candidates themselves in politics to get the job done. With you, it seems, you just see one color. One view. us and them. And it just doesn't fly.

For as much as I'll defend the Liberal fiscal record at certain times in history, (to what should be a transparently obvious point by now) I'm not big on less government spending in education, failed social policies with the homeless and disabled, children in poverty, drug enforcement at the borders, lack of spending on technology as a whole, particularly in energy, the lack of vision in the creation of crown corporations to promote green tech, build green tech infrastructure, and a plan to eventually privatize with the sole motive of breaking corporate monopolies, private or crown.

I'm unhappy with the level of M & A's, of banking direction with heavy investments in U.S. real estate sectors, the total erosion of federal energy royalties with the replacement of out of date oil and gas subsidies, unhappy with the shift in Canadian foreign policy from pretty much every stance except the federal NDP and Greens...

But in terms of being inwardly critical of all parties, I can do it quite easily Frank. Can you? I'll give you a taste of what I don't like within the Lib convention just as an example. The second most important choice with this leadership campaign besides choosing a leader was the issue of "one member, one vote". In considering the immediate and distant future, it could be argued that there is a chance that it was even "more" important.

Frank:
During the Lib convention this weekend, the choice to replace the current dated structure on how to choose leaders with "one member, one vote" was voted on with only 500 delegates present out of 5,000. Is this vote on democratic reform a representation of democracy?

What a joke. What piss poor organization. And the Liberal workshops being held to "choose" policy of which is all meaningless, just a finger on the pulse for party feedback, nothing more than a small poll sampling in written form. Again, a joke.

Until the Liberal party becomes more democratic, Canada will feel like there is no say in choosing who is going to be the next Liberal PM and that simply does not wash. Murray Dobbin could have easily written a harsh criticism of the inner workings of the Liberal party "at present", never mind work with a fading corrupt past. Dobbin could have easily written a piece on where the Cons are "at present" with all the ugly legislation and tactics they've pulled off this year. Its an ugly matter of record. No need for fabrication here, there's enough ideological dirt to go around within the exploration of the Liberal version of democracy alone.

But guys like yourself and Murray are a bit too busy, likely, to watch leadership conventions for party weaknesses and strengths. So I'm saying it with harsh criticism, that if all your political "paradigm" will allow you to see is us vs them, then you've missed why guys like Bob Rae can slide into a Liberal leadership with measured success beyond labelling him as "an unfit righty NDP'er".

A democracy needs representation from everywhere to work. Minorities, women, dependants, we need chosen public officials who will serve the needs of all Canadians, even the selfish and disfunctional! You believe its only an NDP MP that can serve this public trust (and I highly doubt the NDP truly does represent 100% of all Canadians when it comes right down to it. Your own predjudice to anyone with riches and status is evident).

I believe its an MP that is actually doing its job, representing the democratic will of ALL of the people in their riding and country as EQUALS, regardless of monetary status, prestige and stripe. Thats a big difference between us, Frank. A major one and very polarizing at that.

And one last thing. I've learned a tremendous amount from debating with you over this past year. I've learned the art in quoting the words of others as you do, the art of attacking unsound positions with their own words, through the revelation of the serious flaws within their philosophy and ideology when put to the test. Its an ugly tool, but a necessary one in the area of debate. But when debates get personally ugly, or fictional, exaggerative, even liable, take my word for it. I'll challenge your authority that goes beyond mere opinion to make such erroneous claims. And when proven wrong or caught in a less than admirable position, it might be wise to just "apologize". So if my tone has been inflammatory, my apologies! :-) I've had a good teacher.

But when I believe I know I'm right, I'll take nothing back. And I'm at this point, apologizing for nothing now, other than tone. Oh, and by the way, your economist Jim Sanford quote from the Globe is hopelessly full of shit. When the currency of a country inflates by more than 40%, the global competitiveness of that nations ability to sell resources that aren't in major demand, drops like a rock. But my oh my, does it ever make us competitive "buyers". Taxation rates... spending... currency trumps them all in terms of the ability to be competitive in the global arena. You should see what the Canadian chartered banks have been buying into, if you own dividend RRSP's. You might wanna sell when the TSX hits 13,000 if you own 'em. And a good chunk of Canadians do.

I continue to be amazed at the religious fervour of the neo-cons who, in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary, insist that their tax cutting, government shrinking incentive through hardship ideas work.

Yep! on that currency question though, keeping the currency artificially low - like the Yuan - does great things for your ability to suck in American dollars to the tune of about $3 trillion to date. And with that kind of a treasury who the hell cares about productivity..

Ask the Chinese how that one works.

As long as you use interest rate manipulation to keep the Looney below 90c US no problem....unless the US economy goes into the recession some signs are starting to show it may well do.

Then all bets are off and we can watch the over-extended real estate speculators start to ask for government help to keep them afloat.

I assure you its possible to make a case for yourself without name calling. Especially someone as eloquent and normally well-intentioned as yourself. Anyway, I'm not concerned whether you've used or worked at food banks or whether you haven't. The point is you stated that no one in Canada starves and I said people using charities to survive has increased. Your response would suggest that I'm right, that gov't help has declined and the need for charities has increased under the Libs and that therefore to the people who have to use those food banks it doesn't matter if it was the hard-ass Cons or the sweet Libs who put them there. What matters is that the end results were the same. And that's my overall point.

I certainly do believe raising welfare and UI payments will help people and lower the need to use food banks. I see I'm wrong now and all we need is to put the poor in touch with their local Scotiabank financial planner? If this would work we could solve African poverty too by providing a toll free number instead of dollars and surplus food. Poverty is caused by a lack of money. The safety net has become so frayed in Canada that the incidence of kids living in poverty should be a national disgrace. Especially so since all parties vowed to end it decades ago only to see it get worse. Again, Liberal talk and advertising or Conservative ideology still looks the same on the ground.

No, we support people not having to use charities. Its why we support universal benefits such as ideas like Guar. Annual Income so that the poor don't have to go cap in hand in front of their "betters" and plead for hand outs.

And so why do you get so worked up when the Conservatives support the same policies as the Liberals?

Not at all. Looking over a record of 14 years requires looking at the big picture and not getting lost in the details of process. 14 years is enough time to look at what the Liberals did when faced with deficits, and when faced with surpluses, what their priorities were and what the end results were. In my opinion, their record should not attract anyone calling themselves a Left-winger.

So just to be clear, you're asserting that Martin's policies should eventually make us more competitive than the current leaders?

The Libs didn't implement the Kelowna Accord.

The Libs have a terrible record on emissions. They signed Kyoto but emissions rose dramatically. The advertising budget increased though.

The only one of these that's true is the Libs kept us out of Iraq. And they've certainly got a lot of mileage out of that. They did support cuts to social spending.

No I didn't. I said calling for Lefties to vote Liberal after their record in power was ridiculous.

Rhetorical question? Since I'm already on the record as being very disappointed with Carole James. You don't have to take my word for it, you can use the search function and bring up all my old posts where I supported James and my admission to Coyote and Lynn that they were right about her and I was wrong.

Now I'm curious about this statement of yours. What if Stephen Harper ran as a Liberal? Would you support him?
I think that if a party calls NDPers "wingnuts" on a near constant basis, and an ex-NDPer running for their leadership blames his problems on the Left and yet at the same time that party wants our votes to get them into power you seem to think that I'm the problem and I suffer from an "us versus them" view of the world? Do you really believe that?

How so? Because I won't vote for billionaires giving each other tax cuts while cutting social spending?

Thank you

Thank you although I wouldn't say its ugly. I simply prefer to quote rather than erect strawmen as people do to me.

I have no authority on here. You don't work for me and even if you did you're entitled to challenge me whenever you like.

I always do.

I didn't teach that, you picked that up elsewhere.

I'm sure Jim Stanford will take that criticism in the best possible sense.

brain, in the heat of argument I understand how one can lose their cool so no hard feelings. Now a long time ago just after you first joined this board you took a lot of heat from others here which led you to being on the edge of leaving this place for good. I advised you to take some time off now and then, not let things get personal and remember to pick your spots. I told you I thought you were a bright guy and I liked reading your opinion. I stand by that. Cheer up, I'm supposed to be the one that thinks the world is ending.

The Liberals made progress like no other government in Canadian history. It got us out of the huge budget defectis that has the effect of both causing higher inflation and interest rates. Anybody remember the unemployment rates in the 1980's and late to mid 90s? They were consistantly double digit and high at that. People lined up for $6 an hour jobs for hours.

What the Liberals did was put the country back to work. It removed government subsadies to scores of unprofitable ventures. It grossly ramped up tax collection. It reformed EI so people could only collect for as long as they had worked. It elimitated the defecit and started to pay down national debt. Unemployment declined, the dollar rose and investment increased.

Investors love this kind of stuff because the see their investment as both profitable and stable. This is why we are a leader in FDI and no matter what the lefties say, if a factory is built in your naighbourhood and pays well there ain't nuttin wrong with. Companies like Honda and Toyota are some of the biggest investors in Canada, which says alot about Canadian workers and our buisness climate. The rise of our loonie is also directly related to FDI in Canada.

The result is the good and very stable economy in Canada. BC is set to grow at 5.2% this year and the entire country at 4%. That kind of economy is what pays for the social programmmes lefties want.

Now govermnets are at a loss of what to do with their surpluses. Such talk ten years ago would have been seen as madness.

I for one, in the extremely unlikely even the Federal NDP by miracle formed a government, it would be very difficult to resist another $100bn in social spending because it would be so easy to borrow the money because Canada's credit rating is AAA+ but that money will have to be repayed, with interest at a rate of about 2% more than GDP increase. That means less future investment unless you crank your taxs (again),borrrow more money or hope growth eats it.

What the Liberals did was give us back finanical independence. It has long payed out high interest foreign loans and renegoiated federal debt at lower rates. We no have the lowest debt to GDP ration in the G-7 at 35%.

We should be proud that we were the generation that got this mess under control. The time between 1992 and 2000 was very rough for working people and small businesses like mine but the lessons we learned are carried with is in future thrift.

I'm sure glad they dealt with those

budget defectis

They sound serious, like tooth decay.

It may have given some folks financial indpendence - but certainly not the people who needed it. The fact is that average working people - 80% to 90% of the population of this country - are much worse off than they were in 1975. And, 20% of Canadian children are brought up in poverty.

Great Liberal record working man - you should be proud.

As I've pointed out before, 97% of foreign investment in Canada according to the Globe and Mail (I can dig up the link again) is simply the takeover of existing Cdn companies.

Foreigners buying up Cdn corps, shutting own the head office type jobs and moving them to the US, making cutbacks in Canada so as to be in better synch with operations south of the border.

There is something wrong with that, even in Liberal la-la land I imagine.

As for the rest, hey, if Libs want to ignore the real problems and congratulate themselves on the back for fixing what preston Manning says is wrong with the country then go for it. Again, just don't blame your problems on the Left or ask us to vote for you.

how dare they cut taxes and allow me to keep my hard-earned money! please take more of it so all of those important 'social justice' groups can continue to be supported by us taxpayers. whatever would we do without all of those poor canadian victims like the oppressed gays, the 'status of women', the underprivileged immigrants, and the natives?

Don't worry if Harper has his way he'll spend every cent to build up the huge military he wants. Recommend watching "Tim Russert' on CNBC at 10 pm tonight and see how you feel about the change Harper made in our middle east policy and leading the pack to withhold aid to Palestinians because they didn't approve of the results of a democratically elected government and were determined to bring it down.

so you'd prefer they supported hamas and hezbollah, who are admitted supermarket baby-bombers? by the way, when lebanon breaks out in civil war, will the gov't spend another $80 million of taxpayers dollars to fly those so-called 'lebanese-canadians' back to canada after they decided to go back of their own accord? i also wonder if they picked up the bill when those users decided to go back.

T'anks God! Harper is gonna be replaced with another Steve:
Dion
Sooner is better

There was a "fairly good" docudrama some years(and tears) ago on CBC:
Canadian election
Decent acting and as far as I know fairly accurate portrayal of the nonsense.

Last line: "If you have a rye and Ginger crowd you get a rye and ginger candidate."

Tonight's crowd would have just what taste in mixed drinks?

wine spritzers and peach coolers.

Why does Canada have to support either side in the idiotic middle east?

I saw a film tonight called Manufactured Landscapes, about the degradation of the earth. If you get a chance to see it, you should take it.

You too Elliot.

In this season I prefer Hot rum tody with 151 proof Appelton

Damn good question Alcibiades
Not convinced that the people there (middle East) are "idiotic"

Soma them are (or were) my best friends.

Why does Canada have to support either side in the idiotic middle east?
great question al. i think this is the only time i've ever agreed with anything you've said. how about getting the hell out of afghanistan too?

Alci, I think I just won our debate :-)

Nope - at least not as regards Afghanistan - I think we're probably on the same side in the Middle East's main cockpit. And here's why, in case you missed it:

Prior notice: Afghanistan is already on the way to peace apparently, there was an article in the New York Times today about a truce between the Afghans and Taliban. Looks to me as though all those Canadian lives may have been wasted on a project that was doomed to failure once the US reneged on its promises and swooped down on Iraq in serach fo personal ruin and a confirmation of their dismal international reputation.

Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/world/asia/02afghan.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1165122000&en=9f1cbff64133a7eb&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

But, in terms of attracting the wrong kind of allies, Frank, I'd say I'm definitely the loser on that score.

LOL ;-)

Alci, I'll respond in email, don't wanna pollute the topic.

I'll be waiting.

Then don't call me ridiculous! :-)

You missed my point. Anyone who puts out opinions or facts, and presents it as such, automatically puts themselves in the postion to be questioned. God does it, I question all the time. There isn't a one of us breathing or standing that doesn't or should not question.

But the moment someone, anyone, regardless of their position in life, child, senior, Joe down coffee row, and yes, even our bosses and leaders, present opinion as fact or pure truth, and their full of crap instead, they have just put themselves in the position of being challenged, regardless of who they are. They can be Gods, for all I care. If he/she/they is wrong, challenge them. Call them on it. We have that right.

Trust me, Frank, its inflammatory to quote someone elses words and then tear them apart. (but highly effective and often needed) :-) And just for the record, I'm not on record for being a real sweet guy at times at this site. ;-) On that note, I might get cranky, even cold, sometimes more than I should, but I'm inconsistent with it. I think you're a good egg for what its worth, Frank. My apologies for calling you slow. And no, offering as an example, like when a guy beats his wife, flowers and apologies the next day isn't enough... but its a start. :-)

While I agree with you about Liberal legislation being a major reason why the economy and fiscal federal realities are where they are today, they aren't the only reason. The Liberals only pass legislation. They don't decide the values of commodities, or pick the players in and outside of the markets who work to harvest/deplete them. In other words, they aren't responsible for the sun rising and setting. But you are right in a sense that if policies had not changed dramatically when Chretien took the helm, this nation would have likely steered towards bankrupcy.

When Cretien took over, we were paying 30% of every tax dollar on interest alone. By the mid 90's, it was higher. The links I provided speak for themselves. One thing that the Libs did in the late 90's that most haven't even noticed enough to give them credit for was the renegotiation of interest rates with their federal debt, but thats for another discussion. Cont.

Working man Cont.
When a country starts paying 50% of every dollar on interest, they can start thinking about bankruptcy. When it gets to 70%, they should probably do it, relative to their debt, tax structure and population, of course. We were beginning to look like any other African nation fiscally and I'm glad its changed. But they didn't put people back to work. They only helped (and I must stress helped) created a climate for future prosperity of the next generation and that generation has arrived.

Where the Libs did fail at this time, was in maximizing what money was available for social spending to be spent more properly and I'm not talking about the systems and monetary values that were already in place. I'm talking about some of the NDP proposals that were put forth at the time that centered around the jobless and homeless. We must remember that this was a dragging recession during the 80's and 90's. People were thrown into unusual circumstances, with far greater numbers using the social systems we have today.

The NDP put forth some valid proposals in the beginning of the first Chretien majority that wouldn't have costed much, but would have helped to soften the blow, particularly with the poorest people. The feds didn't touch it at the time. It could be argued that some of these proposals were more suited for provincial legislation or even municipalities for that matter.

It could be argued that charities exist precisely for those who slip through the cracks. But we a nation that could very easily slip into a recession again, with a ton of surprised people hitting bottom. Again. History needed to be revisited so that we can look back not only on the good choices we made during tough times, but the bad choices we made that made these times even tougher... or it will repeat itself.

To that end, some of these proposals would have cost little to nothing. What is the one thing that virtually all homeless people lack? Try identification. Try simplistic information. When it comes to dealing with the homeless and those who have seriously slipped through the cracks, access is everything. Access to food banks, to shelter, to ID, to job information, to clothing vouchers, to credit, the works...

Is it the governments responsiblity to see that people who cannot afford a mail box or identification, recieve it more quickly? I believe it is, and it wouldn't cost them a dime, except a change within the way things are administered. Shelter, job information... the feds aren't entirely responsible for this kind of access, simply because they don't have this kind of infrastructure, especially in smaller populated areas. So some of these area's do fall under the responsibility of municipalities and provinces. But when it comes to ID, information, and bank credit, the government can do far more. And if I had more time to think about it than the last 10 minutes, I'm sure I could find a long list instead of a short one. But that's the point. The NDP submitted a long list a long time ago. History needs to be revisted.

Try 60% of the population of this country. The rest are children, teenagers, seniors, babies, and permanently disabled, i.e. dependants.

Keep in mind that 1975 was a remarkable time in Canadian history with the economy. Inflation had not yet hit. We were rosy in terms of debt. A bushel of wheat was 5 bucks. Today, its 2.50. 1975 is a bad year to compare with, because its not a realistic one. Try comparing it with a recession year and see what kinds of numbers you get.

The poverty level is also a distortionary one to use. True poverty does not exist at today's set level. If I took my income at today's poverty line and saved a 10% for two years plus a plane ticket, I could live like a king in second and third worlds for the next 5 years. Poverty levels should be established more inline with the world average. If we were to do so, we would see just who has slipped through the cracks, but here's the stickler. The homeless aren't even on the grid so their numbers don't count. And while 20% of the children live below the poverty line, one does have to ask besides what the government is doing about it, "what are their parents doing about it?" Fingers can point at all directions.

And here's something else to consider. We are headed for another recession and when it hits, since real estate has inflated so much and rent has gone up to accomodate it, people will be forced to move to places of more affordable housing, or hit the streets.

Some will argue that housing values will come down with a recession along with rent, but this takes time. Those who are hit by a recession early, will fall harder than the rest. Maybe people will cry when they realize they have to move away from relatives in recessed area's or face undue hardships. And move to where? Affordable housing is usually where the jobs aren't abundant. Affordable housing is a complex issue, probably the most complex of all, but its moreso regional than federal. We have three levels of government. More reform is needed with all of them, in my opinion.

Foreigners buying up Cdn corps, shutting own the head office type jobs and moving them to the US, making cutbacks in Canada so as to be in better synch with operations south of the border.

There is something wrong with that, even in Liberal la-la land I imagine.

As for the rest, hey, if Libs want to ignore the real problems and congratulate themselves on the back for fixing what preston Manning says is wrong with the country then go for it. Again, just don't blame your problems on the Left or ask us to vote for you. - Frank

Please do, if you have the link handy, Frank. To me, this number sounds ridiculously high. Foreign investment is largely made of M & A's, to that I will agree. But there is investment after M & A's to expand these aquisitions that must be considered over long timelines. As well, large players do invest in our currency for the interest alone. Why do you think interest rates are so critical concerning the valuations of our currency?

And lets not forget that foreign investment is a two way street. Canadians are investing heavily abroad and while there is a consensus out there that we should invest more at home, look at the TSX and tell me why we should do all of one and not the other? Fact is, we participate majorly in globalization. We aren't just the victims here. We create our own victims as well.

Nevertheless, I agree with you heavily that M & A foreign takovers in this country is a major problem and fed legislation could put the brakes to it, but quick. The problem is that there will be a major backlash. Remember Trudeaus NEP? A ton of people work for foreign corps in this country and they are not only job sensitive to this kind of legislation, they are not up to speed on how easily brainwashed they can be by multinational propaganda. Why, just talk to your average Albertan. Ah, second thought, talk to your usually rabid privatizing Con. Your average Albertan is saying, "yah, geez, we only got one shot at exploiting these resources and its only this generation that will reap the rewards, but these multinationals pay well." And little do they know or understand that the profits go south, not North, or that their coming generations of kids won't have the same pay or opportunities to come because they sold out... cheap.

Anyways, church is over, I'm a thread hog again, its time to start my day. Have a good one.

The average of foreign takeovers is between 94 to 97 % by StatsCan figures, which, according to miseducated economists and braindead politicians, is a "wealth creating foreign investment and a booming economy"

StatsCan also reports the removal of the equipment of dead Canadian industries as "machinery exports"

Ed Deak.

I've spent about 30 minutes looking for it brain and came up empty. I had it bookmarked for months but must have deleted it some time in the past few. I did find some comments in the Tyee archives where both Ed Deak and I have referenced it but unless Ed has the original link you'll have to take my word for it. Ed is right, the Globe was repeating StatsCan figures. The date starts when Free Trade was implemented so it covered about 15 years.

the brain
Nope - 80% - 90% stands - children and old folks are people too.

And I think you're way off base on the Liberal party. Most of the folks who think they're masters of the universe in this country are Liberals - and a lot of the ones making the decisions are oligarchs like Paul Martin.

That's why their conventions are so cloying. They have an evangelical fervour that puts the social gospel to shame.

Remember, anytime anyone tells you he's doing something for your own good - or for the good of the country - pull out a sturdy book and shove it down the back of your jeans - you're about to take a licking.

Liberals, above all, look after their friends - which is why Ken Dryden never had a chance!

Frank:
Thanks for your efforts. I'll take a look at statscan and see where these numbers came from. Thanks again.

Ed:
Bang on, as usual. For what its worth in terms of wasted energy, how much energy is spent shipping products and energy to places that waste these same products and energy? Trade between nations is often promoted by the failure of nations to internalize their own economy. In some cases, this failure is unavoidable. In most cases, these failures of nations to do so are highly avoidable.

Your posts in the past reflect our inability to become sustainable at home on a micro basis, nevermind a macro level, and I'm certain that I'm not the only one that that finds wisdom and direction in your idealistic words of truth.

Alchibiades. And I'll stand by 60%. The rest of the population simply isn't in the position to work and pay taxes based on that work. 40% of this country simply does not have a working income. At least, that's how I'm arriving at this number.

Hate to break it to you as well, the Libs aren't the only ones with the patent out on "masters of the universe". It's been franchised out to them all. Harper keeps coming to mind...

As far as the Lib convention is concerned, every party convention is the same. How soon we forget the same atmosphere in political conventions and the same old tired reactions. The Libs aren't the only one with that cult like AMWAY fervor. They've all got the same ugly bug. "our way is the only way", "were better than all the rest", they've all got the same blowhard puffed up high and mighty "we can do no wrong" stance on themselves, don't kid yourself.

Dad used to tell me "I'm doing it for your own good", and come to think of it, it was when he was giving me "lickens". Question remains, is the statement valid?

Sometimes it is. Even when its "for the good of the colony" er, country, lol. And sometimes, it isn't for our own good and we get our lickens anyways. But seriously, is it worth the steriotype and label to junk the notion or idea that people or parties offer bad tasting medicines "for our own good" in general? Sometimes we need bad tasting medicines. Sometimes we don't. But sometimes we do. Is it worth it to destroy the need with a labelling stereotype?

And as for Ken Dryden, I was disappointed that he didn't get mor support than he did. But the old soldier isn't done. He's destined to be a powerful cabinet minister when the time comes. Ken Dryden will taste the position of power, soon enough.

Ah. The debt, the deficit, the numbers. The sponsorship scandal was precipitated by an auditor general's report. Well, how about this little paragraph from the 1993 report? Here's the link: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/ch9305e.html

Can you imagine? Of the federal debt, only $37b was spent on programs and services. In 2001 I called the AG's office and asked for updated figures. At the time the debt had grown to around $600 billion. The very helpful person who spoke with me assured me that the 37b figure hadn't changed, that all the growth in the debt was due to interest. Oh.

Then I went to StatCan. In the 90s we averaged $41b per year in interest payments, that's $410b in just one decade for an actual expenditure of $37b. Then consider that we own our own bank, the Bank of Canada...

The debt is intentional. The elite use it to control and subjugate us. It's a vast theft of our wealth that makes the sponsorship scandal look like chump change. And as long as people don't understand banking and where money comes from, more of the same.

Good article, Murray, btw.

Never said they were - pls note my comments to RickW earlier.

60% is wrong, those folks who aren't working have to sleep and eat too. There is no economic upward mobility in this society since the 70s - except for the masters of the universe of all stripes - and they get that from inflated means - as Ed continually reminds us. Real wages are on the way down - not up.

The rest of us are their gophers - shills like Robert Kiosaki and whatever his name Allen say. Those evangelists should all be in jail.

Frank, the Council of Canadians and Mel Hurtig have written and quoted many figures on the takeover of Canada by the foreign carpetbagger mafia with worthless, imaginary capital.

The US dollar is the worst, that's why their corporations are so anxious to buy up the world's resources with that junk money, before it collapses, or the world wakes up to the fraud.

Ed Deak.

Ed, yep, I read all of Mel's books. I think it was him who said back in the late 80's that repatriation of profits from US owned companies on Canada meant that 4 million bucks an hour was crossing the border heading south. I'm sure its many times that now.

This figure doesn't include the under the blanket payments made to various tax havens, like the Cayman Islands, or Singapore. Anybody who believes that these multinationals keep honest books must be a BCLib, or Harpie supporter. A chartered accountant once told me, long ago, that the tax auditors admit that they have completely lost control.

What the free enterpriser, individualist righties also never mention is, that much, if not most, of the cross border trade is between the branches of the same conglomerates, operating under hundreds of names. Like the Swiss Nestle under 800.

So, now their conspiracy drives down the prices to producers, all over the world, and the products get resold between the various branches, each making profits, draining the world dry.

We now have to have radio eartags on our cattle before they can get sold, but the Americans don't. So, their multinationals, who control the markets, buy our cattle for pittances at the sales and re-sell them to Japan as BSE free animals at big profits, while our chickenshit politicians think this is just great, wealth creating, foreign investment.

Ed Deak.

That's right, Murray, and how was it built? By using the Bank of Canada to finance critical infrastructure. Here's a quote from Richard Priestman of the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform:

"For 35 years, 1939 to 1974, the government used the Bank of Canada to finance some of its debt, and it did this without causing inflation. Its use during WWII is why we were able to pay off the war debt so quickly; it was not encumbered with large amounts of interest, and payments made on the debt reduced the principal more quickly. The economic growth referred to by Mr. Leuprecht was stimulated by the government’s investments in roads, sewer, water systems, housing, schools, universities and hospitals – all financed at low cost as a result of the way the government used the Bank of Canada.

By 1974, the accumulated federal debt since Confederation had reached $18-billion. By 1997, it had jumped to $588-billion, most of the increase (92%) due to tax cuts and interest while a large part of the remaining 8% was spent on the military, not social programs or health services. Although we were told that we had been living beyond our means, the source of the debt was not that but the flawed monetary policy of Liberal and Conservative governments, beginning with Pierre Trudeau. Instead of correcting the cause of the problem and using the Bank of Canada to carry some of its debt as it had previously done, Paul Martin chose to slash programs and down load services.

Minister Flaherty states that he is going to use the surplus to pay down the debt to reduce the cost of interest, but using the surplus in this way is the least beneficial for the ordinary Canadian. Instead, he could just as easily reduce the interest cost by transferring some of the debt to the Bank of Canada, and the surplus would still be available for education, health, assistance to small businesses and other essential services."

Paul Martin is an elite bastard, and so is Flaherty. This is pure thumb-on-our-necks tyranny, finance from a fascist money system designed to manufacture and perpetuate poverty and suffering and to preserve elite rule.

Which is why the West loves their IMF and World Bank creations. Get the 3rd world to borrow some funds and you've got them right where you want them. Sending their money back to the western financial elites instead of helping their own countries.

Yet in spite of the transfer of wealth from the south to the north we like to tell ourselves we're sending them aid but somehow it never helps.

Only fools and politicians would borrow money they already own.

By law, all the monies "created" by the deregulated banks and even in our accounts and pockets, belong to the state. Yet, the bloody fools borrow it and pay interests on nothing. Like taking money out of one pocket and putting into another, then call it a debt.

Ed Deak.

"Tax cuts are carving away Canada`s soul"

Taxing away half of a middle-class family`s hard earned wages with little to show for it is what is carving away Canada`s soul.

That's because of the taxcuts to the big corporations, transferring the tax load on working people. Years ago the corporations carried about 50% of the tax load, now 20% and their PR outfits, like the Fraser Inst. demand no taxes at all.

How much tax do you think Jim Pattison is paying? Most people in his category pay none. Thompson was one of them.

I've worked for years on people's homes and furniture, with company staff, all booked in as "business expenses", paid for by the corporations.

People who don't know the ropes and the fraud that goes on should try not to fall for ideological PR slogans.

Ed Deak.

If that were true it would be a terrible thing. It's not true and anyone who thinks it is doesn't understand the progressive income tax.

There are many ways to reduce the tax burden on working people. Most of them require a really equitable tax system. One that taxes all income, however earned, the same way. Until we do that, working people will carry the freight - but not at anywhere nearly the rates you quote.

Maxwell,
You might, if you'd like to be better informed, want to take a look at this pdf file which compares the tax systems in BC with that in Washington State:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/BC_Office_Pubs/wa_bc.pdf

Our downfall began with Trudeau's shift from a fixed currency to a floating currency. His spending spree's of which were also likely motivated by the banking industry continued to sink us. Mulroney was nothing more than a U.S. sellout in my opinion. Asking who benefits from all this debt, its the U.S. and the banks and some corrupt politicians with a few crumbs.

Enter Chretien. By the time Chretien came around, too many cards were already played, except in the area of refinancing or restructuring the debt and that means the reduction of interest rates. But the question does remain. Could the bank of Canada have floated more than 500 billion in debt? I don't know the answer to that one. Wish there was a link to read that could educate me on it. Cynic seems to think so, but I need proof.

There is no question that our national debt interest rates were staggeringly high and unexplainable all throughout the late 70's through the 90's. Its not hard to extrapolate that the banking industry was in the fix to bring this nation to its knee's, but they needed help. They needed piss poor PM's, and they got their share. But I still need proof that the bank of Canada could absorb 500 billion in debt and refinance for half of what current rates on debt currently was during any periond of history to the present, before I buy into this one.

I heard Chretien talk once about the notion of the bank of Canada inheriting the nations debt for half of the interest rates. He said it was absurd, that the Bank of Canada simply doesn't have the ability. And then there is the question of banking loan contracts, but what it came down to was the bank of Canada being unable to float this kind of debt.

There's alot that I don't know in terms of what our options were and still are in terms of financing the nations debt even now. But what I do know is that banks have systematically ruined African nations in much the same way we were headed. And I also know that when it comes to governments, there is no excuse for complete incompetence. Grant Divine keeps coming to mind. There were no banks putting a gun to his head to force Saskatchewan into 16 billion in debt and poverty.

Alchibiades, 17.4% of the population is 14 and under. 13.3% are seniors. I'm not sure what the number of permanently disabled is, or what 6.2% of the eligable work force is, (which is the number we should be both looking for) but I'll stand by my originally educated guess. 40% of this country simply doesn't work. That's not to say that seniors don't earn money on pensions or investments and a small percentage of them work for a living still. But the number I was going by was how many people in this country actually work for a living. 40% isn't a bad guess.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo10a.htm

Offering further on the issue of whether or not the Bank of Canada would have been able to float Canada's national debt, I recall Chretien saying that if he could have used the Bank of Canada to take on Canada's entire debt at lower rates, he would have.

Chretien said something to the effect, (as I recollect, this is going back 10 years or more, so...) that the best the bank of Canada could have done with the debt was take on a third of the national debt and this meant dropping its existing clients and making room for Canada's debt at lower rates than it was already getting from its clients. In other words, it wasn't going to happen, at least, in any great amount.

Chretien went on to say, as I recollect, that the contracts the nation had with its debt had no penalties for paying them off sooner, so this meant that he could shop around for lower interest rates. But within the shape the country was in, bargaining for lower rates was a hard sell, especially internationally.

But some of this debt was financed with Canada savings bonds of which the nation was entitled to honor the interests on these bonds. Some of these bonds where obviously in double digits. The amounts of savings bonds issued, I don't know, but one should be able to find out from statscan.

Restructured debt to lower interest rates, as I've mentioned already on this thread, were in part responsible for the turnaround from deficit to surplus in the late 90's. Of course there were other factors, but this was one of them.

But that's not what I was talking about brain. Look back at what I said.

Yes, but average working people only make up 60% of the country. If you were implying that 80 to 90% of the people are worse off, that's another point all together, but understood you to be talking about working people the way it was worded. Anyways, I get your point and I would have agreed with you 10 years ago... maybe even with higher percentages than you suggest, but not today. I would think its around 70% worse off just as guess comparatively. The economy has done well. Its not exactly a recession out there... yet. :-)

The brain:
I was making two points: one that, relative to constant dollars the people who have made big gains - real gains - are the 10% or less of the population who I like to call masters of the universe - particularly since the 70s for a lot or reasons - many of which you and Frank have talked about. Let's not quibble - we have a real problem - the owners of the natural assets are being ripped off by free-booters and any sensible person realizes it.

I was also making the point that 20% of children in this country live in officially defined poverty.

I'd be happy to debate the percentage of retired persons who are also living in poverty and are less well-off than they were - in constant dollar terms than they were in the 70s.

If you look at the incremental increases in payouts from the Canada Pension plan it's pretty obvious why.

All this has nothing to do with a recession - which is quite another question. I'm just addressing the widely spread government lie that happy days are here again, that's all.

The difference between the average industrial wage in the 70s and the average industrial wage now - as compared with average executive compensation is not as marked in Canada as it is in the States but it is still bizarrely large and growing; and, as you know, it has bugger all to do with actual performance in a great many cases.

By the way, I'm not totally on side with Frank about the virtue of making things worse as a methodology for electing the NDP....but, I'm starting to be interested in hearing more about the idea. If we don't do something radical soon it's going to be too late for this country.

Latin America seems to have a better idea for reforming itself than anything I've seen in my homeland.

To carry out tax cuts and then tell Canadians that there isn't enough money available for health care and other programs valued by Canadians is not right. Canadians have a high standard of living and we definitely can afford many publically funded programs. I would suggest to Steven Harper that we increase taxes so that we can help people who really need it. The middle class are already overtaxed, it's time that the wealthy pay the same percentage of their income in taxes.

moosebeer
Now you're talking my language.

Not that Stevo is listening. The next big tax cut is on its way - just before Stevo manages to get himself thrown out of the H of Commons and we go to for another election.

And he'll want to do it before that peace movement in a province of Afghanistan (the one that was covered in the New York Times last week) starts to spread and he can't use dead soldiers in his campaign any more.

Moosebeer,you're confusing adjustments in how taxes are collected with program spending. Program spending has doubled in the last decade yet the standard of living of the average Canadian is stagnant. There are roughly 13.5 million taxpayers in Canada, as long as program spending keeps increasing "tax cuts" are an illusion.

noleftnutter
Have you checked average corporate earnings after interest and taxes lately?

Program spending has gone up as a portion of total government spending because the masters of the universe are keeping all or most of the tax revenues they should be contributing to the economy and, you're also ignoring the growth in the size of the economy as well. You'd also be surprised at how much of those profits now flow tax free, or nearly tax free, right outside the country.

I know financial advisers who are currently offering investors (with at least $100Gs) an opportunity to make a guaranteed 18% annual return tax free in a principal guaranteed investment. They'll even pay it out in monthly installments. Corporate crooks and big investors aren't paying their share and the system is set to fail if we don't stop this soon. It's exactly why neocon and Liberal policies and tax measures are such a disaster.

If you don't believe me, check out Sabourin and Sun. It may open your eyes about whose hand is in your pocket.

No more tax cuts for the winners and sinners, it's time for some equity and fairness.

You've never answered the question of where the money comes from that pays corporate taxes. Increase corprate taxes and either you need to increase prices, reduces wages or reduce payouts to shareholders. Now, when our corporations are charging customers outside of Canada more I don't have a problem with that. But which one of those three options do you support to justlfy hgiher corparate taxes?

BTW, who can I contact to invest in that 18% annual return, tax free?

NoLeftNutter:

For starters executive salaries are way out of line and corporate responsibility for pensions, environmental degradation, worker safety etc. is non-existent in the US and headed the same way here.

no left nutter - you should be ashamed - a real neocon would already know all this stuff. I'll tell you because this is just another way of publicizing what's going on with a view to waking up the country before all Canada's assets have been shipped offshore. Oh and that bs about it being necessary to increase prices if taxes go up, don't believe that either - because it's not true.

Anyway, here's the dope you wanted, I hope you have enough humanity in you to understand why the whole proces is immoral.

Sabourin and Sun - they have a presence on the web - out of Toronto. Used to require a minimum $1million investment - now just $100G - long standing off shore bank. I don't know why I'm encouraging you, it's that kind of rip-off - people who care more about their high returns than what's happening to the country they live in that they'll take assets offshore to avoid paying taxes.

It is that exact attitude that is ruining the country - the masters of the universe with the big bucks get off Scot free - even their capital gains get a 50% tax break and if they roll them over carefully a lot less than that over time.

It's always the same people who buy into these schemes and then complain about welfare costs and lazy workers and high taxes. Just a pile of neocon nonsense. These are people who play with a marked deck and tilt the roulette wheel.

We need a tax system overhaul to address issues that are turning this country into a land of a few HAVES and a whole army of HAVE-NOTS.

I can show you another dodge that a lot of people are using to get back taxes already paid as many as 3 years ago and for several years into the future. All perfectly legal. Some folks I know are deregistering their RRSP's, paying the tax, making the investment and then getting back enough of the tax already paid to make it a good deal. Then they transfer the proceeds to an offshore bank and get monthly passive (often nearly tax-free and certainly net tax-free income from it). Great Canadians.

To this point Rev Canada has permitted it although they are looking at some of the deals and requesting certain confirmations and evidence from the guys who sponsor the scheme. You can check the tax bulletin here - http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it484r2/it484r2-e.html

I'm doing all I can to publicize what's going on. With frauds like this posing as actual investment vehicles it's no wonder Canada can't increase its productivity.

A link for you, G West:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/05/globalwealth.html

Put's the issue of Canadian poverty in its place. The Canadian poor is rich compared to the standards of the rest of the world, which was where I was really coming from and affirms your own position of wealth distribution. This link should put it to rest. Keep these figures in mind as you consider the inflated value of real estate and personal debt load.

Brain - you haven't been paying attention, just look back at the Reading Bob Rae thread - I posted that data more than a day ago and I've got more if you like - which I'll post in the other place.

We live in this world and I've never said povery wasn't relative - that's the point for God's sake. You think the low end high ratio mortgage folks who are now starting to lose their homes in the States care - I've got info on that too.

I'm kind of blown away with you. I've come to the realization that you'll argue about anything and nothing. If you read this thread, you'll realize in spades, that you first brought up the issue of wealth distribution here, and I've spent lengthy time debating an issue you never really clearly defined to begin with.

How long did we spend arguing over your 10%-20% of the pop is better of than '75 which took me a while to even figure out what you were talking about because of the way you worded it? Hey, if you want to repeat yourself like a parrot on other threads with a monetary issue that clearly suits this thread more than any other to begin with, knock yourself out. But the link I provided should have, I believe, put it to rest.

Sorry bud not guilty.

And neither your link nor the stuff I provided in full at the other place comes close to dealing with what I'm saying or the way I say it. I don't care whether we're talking about wealth or poverty, the poor of this world are not getting rich and relative to the elites - people like the folks who run and support the liberal party - they are falling further and further behind.

I'm just blown away that you'd think a man like Stephane Dion will make a difference and that you'd think voting Liberal could ever be a good thing. He and Michael Ignatieff could be clones pushed out of the same academic factory. They are all about telling the 'average guy' how to live and I think, from some of the things I see you write that you're into the same kind of pathology.

That's what’s blown me away. If you don't understand where I'm coming from by now you just haven't been paying attention.

The masters of the universe have to be brought down to earth. For all the talk of the Chretien/Martin Liberals they made virtually NO progress in addressing the substantive issues of poverty and inequality, tax fairness and economic independence from the US during all their years in power. What possible evidence do you have that this has changed - Dion is in bed with the same people who are criminally operating this province like their own payola factory.

They just keep lying. The even lie about how we got into the mess we’re in in Southern Afghanistan.

In fact, Stephen Harper is far more honest than any Liberal I've heard from over the last two weeks of Liberal-saturated media messages.

I think he's more dangerous because of what he believes, not because he's dishonest.

You've got a great heart Brain, but you're not using your head critically enough - in my view.

And yet, you'd argue - along with working man - that somehow the record of the Paul Martin Liberals would have been all that much different if they'd just had another two months in power.

You can't possibly believe that - any more than you can say David Emerson grew horns when he went from one side of the house to the other - he carried all that baggage with him brain - he was the same corporate sleaze master the day before he crossed the floor - just like he was the day Paulie offered him Kingsway as his new home away from the board room.

You're too smart not to see all this - I think it's you who's been playing games my friend.

But, don't listen to me, have a look at this study:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/06/tax-policyalternatives.html