Apolitical Staples

It isn’t a matter of being overtaxed it is where the money is going. Cities and infrastructure are collapsing and the feds have a surplus. Is that logical?

I still prefer debt reduction. Stay the course, Harper! :-)

Why not all three?

If we can get more tax revenue through increased economical output by means of a tax cut, then the surplus generated there could still be used to pay off the surplus. Of course, cutting back on pointless and duplicate minitries would quickly decrease the expenses too. — John M Reynolds

“My goodness, no matter how fast the Conservatives increase spending (like +25% in two years)”

It’s actually 14%, not greater than 25%.

The feds also revised their growth prediction based on private sector forecasts from 3.9% to 5.2%, a significant factor driving the unexpected surplus that you should have mentioned and was understandably not accounted for in the last budget. 5.2% growth is pretty awesome, btw.

Overall, a disappointing post, misleading on multiple counts.

no matter how fast the Conservatives increase spending (like +25% in two years) they just can’t outspend surpluses

That’s a reflection of how quickly the value of the dollars in your pocket are being eroded. The “economy” doesn’t print all those extra dollars in the government’s surplus. The government does.

Cities and infrastructure are collapsing and the feds have a surplus. Is that logical?

Nothing of what they do is logical. The federal government and their taxes and surpluses are indeed a joke, but municipal politicians are the undisputed champeens of the World Series of Stupid. The ones in my city never saw a drug addict, graffiti vandal, hack artist, gay activist, hippie or union goon they didn’t like. They could fix all the bridges and roads in town, but that wouldn’t put nearly enough of their cronies on the payroll. Better to fund leftist stupidities, pretend it’s because “we care”, and then whine for the fed to fix all the potholes.

And since your raised the subject of logic … Government programs are based on an assumption of the stupidity and worthlessness of most people - yet they would collapse overnight if there was not an extremely large group of smart, hardworking and farsighted people who they could squeeze for tax revenue. In other words, people are very smart, which is why they can produce so much wealth, but on the other hand they’re very stupid, so we have to take a lot of it off them for their own good. 2 + 2 = 4, plus 25% “bonus” for the federal government. Clear?

5.2% growth is pretty awesome, btw.

It would be, if everything that you buy wasn’t skyrocketing in price (except for DVD players and lead-painted bibs). Suckered by inflation. Again.

… in the 1960s Fed inflation was called upon to fund a growing welfare-warfare state. As monetary inflation accelerated into the early 1970s, the United States faced a test of its monetary leadership … President Nixon “closed the gold window” and devalued the dollar to $42.22 per ounce. This event marked the beginning of the decline in American economic strength. The 1970s was the worst decade of American economic performance since the Great Depression, which was also the product of Fed inflation.

And of course every time an American demagogue flushes the US economy down the toilet, a Canuckian idiot is standing right behind him yelling “me too!” at the top of his lungs. Makes no sense. But we’ve already established that logic isn’t their strong suit.

Anon: “That’s a reflection of how quickly the value of the dollars in your pocket are being eroded”

WHAT? The Canadian dollar hasn’t been this strong since the 70s. Granted, part of the strength comes from some weakening of the US dollar, but you need to rethink that particular argument, IMHO.

Wow Anonymous (Aug 24, 9:35 PM). I mean, I… just.. wow. This must be what a biological anthropologist feels when someone misuses evolution to make a creationist point. I am not even going to attempt the labour of correcting you, except to say that I hope no one stumbles across your comment and takes it as some sort of gospel.

No correction to the factually inaccurate post despite the fact that your readers took the time to fact check it on your behalf? I see your parents raised you well…

You may wish to check out the conference we held on income splitting. It is a very worthwhile idea to consider. The objections usually raised, that it would cost too much (we have a surplus actually) or that the rich would benefit more (not if you do it like in France or the US) or that it is harmful to women (actually it would recognize at least the unpaid and lower paid role as a full partner) have all been addressed. http://sharingincome.tripod.com

Fact Checker: Just because you say so, that makes it true? I’ve been reading Greg Staples for a long time, and he is one of the most level-headed, truthful, and accurate political bloggers around. You’re a nobody who came out of nowhere, doesn’t use your real name unlike Greg, and doesn’t even link to a blog of your own where you’re willing to accept readers commenting/challenging your non-referenced statements.

Bev Smith, agreed… too bad there will always be statists in this country who thinks the way Canada is currently, as evolved under the Trudeau-Chretien Liberals, is perfection, and think that any discussion of change is totally wrong.

WHAT? The Canadian dollar hasn’t been this strong since the 70s. Granted, part of the strength comes from some weakening of the US dollar, but you need to rethink that particular argument, IMHO.

The price of everything you buy is rising, except for certain gadgets made in China, whose quality is often, ahem, dubious. (Steve Janke made me write that) This is inflation, it is a monetary phenomenon, it is created by the government, and your dollar is only “stronger” in the sense that the value of the USD is declining even more quickly. These are facts, not opinions. The only dispute is whether constantly eroding the value of people’s earnings and savings is good for them or not. Many so-called economists say “yes”. I say, what a crock. Even the leftists on this board seem to be getting an inkling that something is deeply wrong. (Unfortunately though they attribute the problems to government having trampled citizens’ rights with insufficient vigor)

I am not even going to attempt the labour of correcting you, except to say that I hope no one stumbles across your comment and takes it as some sort of gospel. - Anonymous Economist

That’s OK. But just in case anyone stumbles across my comment and takes it for gospel, and in the interest of fairness, I’ll present your side of the argument.

• Federal surpluses in the face of rampant spending increases and essentially unchanged tax rates are not a sign of inflation (nor of accounting hanky-panky).
• Governments don’t print money.
• Or if they did print money, they would have really excellent reasons for doing so (credit bubbles are good for the economy, besides them sumbitch savers and pensioners had it coming to them) and not heinous reasons (win elections).
• Filling potholes and repairing broken sewer pipes would be an egregious waste of municipal politicians and bureaucrats stupendous talents, not to mention an encroachment on what is obviously a federal area of responsibility.
• Government programs are highly logical, are seldom implemented for political gain, and are not a moral hazard for their beneficiaries.
• Stagflation is a myth told by losers who couldn’t score chicks in the 1970s.

Hope I covered everything.

Anon… you are making absolutely no sense, what you just posted reads as babbling and has little to do with Greg’s original post.

And FYI, our standard of living is higher today than it was in the 1970s, something every statistic backs up… average incomes and GDP per capita have grown faster than the CPI and other inflation measures - for the average person, it takes less labour time today to buy the same product than it did 30 years ago. Yes, the absolute price in dollar value may be higher - but the effort to earn the income to pay for it is less.

The only people whose savings would have eroded are those stupid enough to put everything into no-risk vehicles such as under a mattress, CSBs or GIC’s. Anyone with some diversification is always way ahead over the long term.

“I’ve been reading Greg Staples for a long time, and he is one of the most level-headed, truthful, and accurate political bloggers around. ” Gee, thanks. You can add that I wasn’t around the last couple of days to read the comments. FactChecker, provide a link, if you’re correct I’ll fix it.

The claim of a 25% increase in spending is so ridiculous and incongruent with reality and the history of public spending that I really shouldn’t have to provide a link. I have to question whether you should be writing about politics if this isn’t apparent to you.

It’s not my comments that are syndicated to at least two other sites, it’s your incorrect facts. The onus is on you to provide a link for your made up number, not for me to do so.

But provide a link I will.

Canada spent 208.985 billion in 2005-06, for which the Liberal were in power all but 2 months. That’s our starting point.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/ec2005/ec/ecc1e.html

For your claim to be accurate Stephen Harper would have to increased spending by about 52.24 billion - in 18 months - for a total spending bill of a little over 263 billion. Is that what he did? Nope. In his two budgets, accessible here:

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budtoce/2006/budliste.htm

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/index_e.html

he increased spending a little over 5% each year to a total of about 233 billion, numbers which Andrew Coyne corroborates here:

“The budget maintains, notwithstanding a $25-billion increase in spending over two years, that the government is showing unwavering fiscal discipline. “

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/dishonest-budget.php

Twenty five is not twenty five percent of two hundred and eight, Greg. I know you are a Coyne fan and perhaps the number 25 stuck in your mind.

Unless you can come up with a link showing that Stephen Harper increased spending by $52+ billion kindly correct your post.

“Why not both?”

Blame the voters.