Both parties raise the deficit. The Democrats raise the deficit by raising spending, the Republicans raise the deficit by cutting taxes.
What must happen is raising taxes and cutting spending until revenues are neutral. Then we can cut spending and taxes at the same time to maintain a neutral (or surplus) budget.
What must happen is raising taxes and cutting spending until revenues are neutral. Then we can cut spending and taxes at the same time to maintain a neutral (or surplus) budget.
Honestly, I could agree with that.
Other than people employed by the government, when the federal government stops doing what it does, does anyone actually notice? What are they doing that requires it to be most of the economy?
Other than people employed by the government, when the federal government stops doing what it does, does anyone actually notice? What are they doing that requires it to be most of the economy?
The laffer curve certainly exists and we don't know where we are on it, so lower taxes could increase revenue for sure.
No matter what, spending needs to drop and be made more efficient. I have repeatedly pointed out that us public spending on healthcare is enough per Capita for universal public healthcare everywhere else on earth. "Oh but America is so spread out" compared to Canada?
No matter what, spending needs to drop and be made more efficient. I have repeatedly pointed out that us public spending on healthcare is enough per Capita for universal public healthcare everywhere else on earth. "Oh but America is so spread out" compared to Canada?
To be fair, it's possible to balance budgets. Canada had a balanced federal budget from 1996 to 2006. One of the things I've criticized Stephen Harper for was breaking the budget with his Canada's Economic Action Plan for make benefit Glorious Nation of Khazakstan, but even he managed a surplus by his final year in office.
Over that 10 years, Canada's federal debt went down by nearly 100 billion dollars, by 1/6th.
By contrast, the current regime doubled the federal debt since 2015. They've spent more debt than every other government before them combined.
Over that 10 years, Canada's federal debt went down by nearly 100 billion dollars, by 1/6th.
By contrast, the current regime doubled the federal debt since 2015. They've spent more debt than every other government before them combined.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
Well, they did it for 10 years, and they were on track to get back on track after another 8 after the biggest financial crisis since the great depression. that's a good chunk of time, and it obviously had universal suffrage throughout that.
And they managed 10 years of balanced budgets with universal healthcare and contributing to Afghanistan.
The key is culture, and unfortunately the culture needs a major change.
And they managed 10 years of balanced budgets with universal healthcare and contributing to Afghanistan.
The key is culture, and unfortunately the culture needs a major change.
There were some lingering liabilities with respect to native reserves, and a lot of us hoped Trudeau would address those things, but he really hasn't -- he's just corrupt. He's gotten rich while the country burns.
Canada's EI and CPP were in decent enough shape, and even now they're just raising the contributions to both.
The real problems are a combination of corruption and using a printing press instead of actually addressing problems. Canada's biggest mistake was hiring his step-father's son.
Canada's EI and CPP were in decent enough shape, and even now they're just raising the contributions to both.
The real problems are a combination of corruption and using a printing press instead of actually addressing problems. Canada's biggest mistake was hiring his step-father's son.
In Canada, the key really is who the prime minister is, less than the party.
It was the Federal Liberal party under Jean Chretien and his successor Paul Martin (who was the finance minister under Jean Chretien) who balanced the budget for those 10 years.
The prime minister isn't just the head of the government, but he's also the leader of the party. Unlike in the US where the president and the congress can disagree, in Canada the Prime Minister will just fire anyone who dissents against him. In that way, the Prime Minister is absurdly powerful, controlling the execution of the law and also being primary in determining what the law itself will be.
It's one good reason to be republican (in the sense of non monarchist), to help separate the powers of the head of government and the head of the dominant party in parliament.
It was the Federal Liberal party under Jean Chretien and his successor Paul Martin (who was the finance minister under Jean Chretien) who balanced the budget for those 10 years.
The prime minister isn't just the head of the government, but he's also the leader of the party. Unlike in the US where the president and the congress can disagree, in Canada the Prime Minister will just fire anyone who dissents against him. In that way, the Prime Minister is absurdly powerful, controlling the execution of the law and also being primary in determining what the law itself will be.
It's one good reason to be republican (in the sense of non monarchist), to help separate the powers of the head of government and the head of the dominant party in parliament.