X
xanidu2
Guest
I don't know if you are just stupid or an ignorant propagandist.
|
|
|
B
bizorky
Guest
^Let's keep the debate civilized. There is simply no need for such a response.
A
afransen TO
Guest
xanidu is a bit of a troll. I'll chalk it up to him being new and not yet used to the tone of this forum.
C
cacruden
Guest
"Here's a better link, to where we stand compared to other countries:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...ublic_debt"
That link is deceptive.
Public debt that Canada is listed as having is only the federal debt. It should list the combined governments debt. Many countries ONLY have federal debt (or do not have provinces/states at all).
The Econonist has data for each country but not in an organized ranking list. As of 2004 Canada had 77% -- so figuring that a maximum decline of 3% -- it cannot currently be below 68%. A marked improvement over where it use to be -- but it could still be dangerous if the people become compacent (government [Liberal] did a good job of "educating" the people where -- if the government goes back into deficit -- the people will likely make that government pay).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...ublic_debt"
That link is deceptive.
Public debt that Canada is listed as having is only the federal debt. It should list the combined governments debt. Many countries ONLY have federal debt (or do not have provinces/states at all).
The Econonist has data for each country but not in an organized ranking list. As of 2004 Canada had 77% -- so figuring that a maximum decline of 3% -- it cannot currently be below 68%. A marked improvement over where it use to be -- but it could still be dangerous if the people become compacent (government [Liberal] did a good job of "educating" the people where -- if the government goes back into deficit -- the people will likely make that government pay).
A
afransen TO
Guest
That Canada's total government debt has fallen faster during the 90s can be blamed in large part on Harris, with his debt-financing of tax cuts, adding $20 billion to the provincial debt in Ontario. That more or less erases the strides Alberta has made over the same period.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
No, that money belongs to the people of Canada, not the politicians. The money must be collected until the debt is paid off, as the peoples' representatives spent the money in advance, and now we're all stuck with the debt.
Here's a shocker, if the current government revenue can not pay off the debt in realistic time (i.e. it's been over forty year since we started burning the future's money), then raise taxes to generate the $10 billion or whatever amount needed.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"The Econonist has data for each country but not in an organized ranking list. As of 2004 Canada had 77% -- so figuring that a maximum decline of 3% -- it cannot currently be below 68%."
I guess we'll both assume the Economist figures list complete public debt for any and all levels of government combined, but both the Economist and the Wikipedia list have the U.S. at 64% public debt, so either the states, counties, and municipalities all have no debt - which isn't true since in 2000-2001, state and local debt in the U.S. was $1.6 trillion - or they're not being included. Same with Australia. The Economist's debt figures for Canada might be "more right" than Wikipedia's, but the inconsistency is puzzling and may not be attributable simply to a Wikipedia oversight since afransenTO first suggested the 40% figure (unless he got it from wikipedia
).
I guess we'll both assume the Economist figures list complete public debt for any and all levels of government combined, but both the Economist and the Wikipedia list have the U.S. at 64% public debt, so either the states, counties, and municipalities all have no debt - which isn't true since in 2000-2001, state and local debt in the U.S. was $1.6 trillion - or they're not being included. Same with Australia. The Economist's debt figures for Canada might be "more right" than Wikipedia's, but the inconsistency is puzzling and may not be attributable simply to a Wikipedia oversight since afransenTO first suggested the 40% figure (unless he got it from wikipedia
).
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"No, that money belongs to the people of Canada, not the politicians."
Only if you think of taxes as borrowed from people, not handed over permanently.
Only if you think of taxes as borrowed from people, not handed over permanently.
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
Well, it's handed over permanently once it's been spent. But if the debt's paid off, and the revenue collect represents a true surplus (i.e. all debts and expenses covered), then we can build a war-chest of dollars for a few years (to avoid deficits & debt during future economic downturns), but after that, we should reduce taxation to balance the books.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
It's not like the government will ever run of stuff to spend surpluses on...stuff that the country desperately needs or will need.
A
afransen TO
Guest
"unless he got it from wikipedia )."
Nope. I was calculating it based on federal debt:GDP, though.
)."Nope. I was calculating it based on federal debt:GDP, though.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Abeja, I'm sorry but I don't feel I can make my point to you. I'm not advocating increased deficit spending of public debtload. I feel that government should do what is best for society (including but not limited to the economy). You seem to be taking a hopelessly naive "us" vs. "them" approach to the relationship between the Canadian people and their government.
B
bizorky
Guest
Abeja, a question for you:
Do you know where this debt is located?
Do you know where this debt is located?
A
Abeja de Almirante
Guest
I assume it's owned by anyone who holds Federal government issued bonds and treasury bills.
The common view here seems to be that longstanding debt is okay, provided society is taken care of. My concern is that Canada is not aggressively paying off its debt during this time of economic growth and prosperity. If we face another economic downturn, we'll have no buffer, but to increase the debt again.
All debate aside, I do wonder what Trudeau, Mulroney, et al thought they were doing when they started running up massive deficits. Did they not make any plans to repay what they were spending? Canada managed to go through Confederation, the Great Depression and three major wars without deficit spending.
The common view here seems to be that longstanding debt is okay, provided society is taken care of. My concern is that Canada is not aggressively paying off its debt during this time of economic growth and prosperity. If we face another economic downturn, we'll have no buffer, but to increase the debt again.
All debate aside, I do wonder what Trudeau, Mulroney, et al thought they were doing when they started running up massive deficits. Did they not make any plans to repay what they were spending? Canada managed to go through Confederation, the Great Depression and three major wars without deficit spending.
G
ganjavih
Guest
You could ask the same of any world leader... especially Dubya.
I dunno, it was a different time. Reckless, short-sighted thinking I guess.